Confirmed: Conor Friedersdorf Is A Complete And Absolute Dumbass

It looks as though this idiot, Conor with one N, thinks he can somehow go around the popular pundits to engage individuals within their base of support. What this clueless idiot doesn't realize is, he's trying to tell said base, they aren't really dumb, they're just ... dumb - because they aren't him - or, at least, what he would aspire and suck up to become.

Is it any wonder so few people like this moronic asshole, or take him seriously? And what coastal elitism is he talking about? He doesn't even realize which side the players are on. Sorry, but he's genuinely a f*cking pretentious moron. And that is the worst kind of stupid in the entire world.

As a frequent critics(sic) of those particular coastal media elites, I am often presumed to be antagonistic to rank-and-file members of the American right who listen to them.

One problem with this approach is that it treats the conservative rank-and-file as means to an end. They're the base, and they need riling up, and yeah, some of what they're fed can't really stand up to scrutiny, but politics is a dirty business. People who take this view tend to be sophisticated elites, and too often they forget that a lot of talk radio listeners aren't in on the joke -- that is to say, when Rush Limbaugh says that in Barack Obama's America it's okay for black kids to beat up white kids on buses, their reaction isn't to roll their eyes, or to cheer the hyperbolic zinger, it's to worry about their grandkids.

It isn't that these people are stupid. They just aren't media savvy or cynical in the same way as Washington DC based magazine writers or Los Angeles County based think tank staffers. It is their quaint belief that radio hosts aren't breezily misleading them on a daily basis....

Comments

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Dan,

I appreciate that you and I have real disagreements on a lot of subjects, but in this case, I really think that you're allowing your personal relationship with Mark Levin to cloud your judgment, and lashing out at an earnest attempt to defend talk radio listeners.

Contrary to your assertion, I do not think that talk radio listeners are stupid. In fact, I said in the piece that you link that I personally know several Mark Levin listeners who are among the people I most respect in the world. The same goes for Rush Limbaugh listeners I know. It's impossible to grow up in a conservative community like the one where I came of age without having an abiding respect for rank-and-file members of the right, and I've never lost that, even if I do often criticize conservative talk radio hosts who make millions of dollars by attracting listeners among the rank and file.

You've spent enough time among elites on the right to know as well as I do that behind closed doors they often talk about talk radio listeners as if they're stupid. I resent that, and I also disagree with liberals who listen to the least defensible stuff that Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin say, and conclude that anyone who listens to them isn't worth talking to.

Those are positions that you ought to share if you actually have the best interests of the grassroots at heart. Your post makes me wonder who you'd pick if forced to choose between loyalty to Mark Levin and loyalty to the rank-and-file, which isn't the same thing, as you'd know if you spent half the time corresponding with his listeners that I've invested. In doing so, I've interacted with a lot of wonderful people, as I point out in my post.

Yet here you are on your blog trying to mislead those people and make them feel bad by telling them that I think they're stupid. Perhaps you're beyond convincing, so tireless is your vendetta against me. But I at least wanted to say emphatically to them that it isn't the case.

[Dan Riehl]

Conor,

You are a complete idiot, without understanding of the words you write and the reality we live in. The Levins and Limbaughs do not do what you suggest - talk behind the base's back - it is the Andy Sullivans, the NROs, the very same elected, or pundit class elites you so strive to be seen as a part of that do it. Yes, I know it goes on. But I also know by whom.

You are an immature and pretentious fool, lacking the ability to even understand how clearly you confirm my impressions of you with your own prose. You, at this point in your career, and potentially for all time, are a lazy thinker entirely out of touch with the audience you purport to want to engage. I suspect you are more interested in impressing your presumed betters in the elite class, than you are genuinely interested in engaging any base.

You are a small man, with small thinking stemming from a very small mind, no matter how much you might comfort yourself by trying to deny it. The proof os there in black and white in the very words you choose to write.

You are either sad, worthless, or both as a serious thinker and pundit, Conor. That is a fact you and you alone demonstrate time and time, again.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Dan,

Your response includes a lot more insults than it does substance. And it's particularly galling that you've accused me of laziness. I've got more paid work as a freelancer than I have time to complete, and I still take the time to engage you in this form without any possible benefit to myself or my career, precisely because I am earnestly interested in the issues at stake. If I am only interested in impressing my so-called "betters in the elite class," why would I bother interacting with readers in the comments section of a blog they don't read. Your assessment of my motives is self-evidently wrong on the most cursory examination.

You write that Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh don't talk behind the base's back. I didn't claim otherwise. My claim is that conservative elites at think tanks and magazines pretend to admire the talk radio world, and actually do respect its hosts, whereas behind closed doors they admit what we all know: that people like Mr. Levin trade in an elevated brand of rhetoric when writing for National Review, and engage in much less intellectually rigorous talk when they take to the airwaves. They regard their talk radio audience as insufficiently intellectual to handle their most nuanced, sophisticated arguments, hence the difference in their output, but they'd never admit that to their talk radio listeners.

The funny thing about your antagonism toward me is that you too sometimes write about Inside the Beltway conservatives and how they disrespect the base. As you may know, I've penned rather cutting essays about Washington DC political culture and its flaws, and I deliberately left that city, partly out of disgust at the prevailing professional culture there. But you're utterly blind even to the few overlaps in our thinking, and you can't conceive of agreeing with anyone if they're hostile to talk radio, so sycophantic is your relationship with Mr. Levin.

I'd be perfectly fine with forceful disagreement if you actually produced a persuasive rebuttal to my assertions, or even a plausible one. Instead you go to the trouble of linking and denouncing my work, and then pretend that mounting an actual argument against it is beneath you. If it is so self-evidently wrong, why do you feel the need to respond?

[Dan Riehl]

Conor - You are a pretentious asshole. Your pretension drips from you, just as does your utter lack of a clue and lack of a serious intellect. Be happy that you're precisely the type of superfluous fool an Andy Sullivan would embrace. Go back to the Atlantic and kiss his ass. All you will get here is dumped on by mine.

[Aruges]

Conor, you say "that people like Mr. Levin trade in an elevated brand of rhetoric when writing for National Review, and engage in much less intellectually rigorous talk when they take to the airwaves. They regard their talk radio audience as insufficiently intellectual to handle their most nuanced, sophisticated arguments, hence the difference in their output, but they'd never admit that to their talk radio listeners."

Limbaugh and Levin do 3 hour shows that cover a whole range of topics and news and they have to hold an audience's attention and sell ads. They paint with broad strokes because they have a broad audience. (it's called broadcasting for a reason) Particularly in Levin's case he will give a extremely passionate cliff notes version of an argument on the radio but also give a more comprehensive version when he writes long form articles.
Levin says all the time that he would go into greater detail on the radio, if he thought he wouldn't loose half his audience by boring them with legalese. I think you're wrong.

[Neil]

Dan with one N - Conor is obviously too polite to say this, but you're kind of a jerk. Yes, name-calling is fun! Now why don't you try attempting to explain why Conor is wrong. Otherwise, why did you bother posting the link to his piece?

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Aruges,

I appreciate that Mr. Levin cannot offer the same detail on-air as he would do in writing. When publishing an article in National Review, however, Mr. Levin does not substitute ad hominem for argument, as he so often does on the radio, nor is he so quick to mis-characterize the views of those he argues with.

If you're hung up on the difference in mediums, compare how Mr. Levin conducts himself with radio listeners in his Facebook notes -- Google his Facebook page and then check out the "notes" section -- and how different the tenor is from when he is writing a piece for an "elite" publication like National Review. I guarantee that you'll see a stark difference. I take your point about the limitations of radio, and I'd agree if that's all that was going on, but I think if you familiarize yourself with his Facebook page, or listen to his ad hominem rants, you'll see my point: that this goes far beyond the difference between what is possible on print and radio. (Also, hosts like Bill Bennett and Dennis Prager manage to be civil, thoughtful, and intellectually honest on radio for hours every day.)

[Peach]

Basically a few conservative contingents bet on being contrary as being an online payoff, but most importantly, get MSNBC gigs which pay a LOT.

Frum, Parker, Friedersdorf are publicity whores and they think they have a pulse on 10% of the conservative party.

It got some CNN gigs and now a whole bunchh MSNBC gigs, but their ratings are in the danger zone and Frum, Parker and Friedersdorf just look like pedestrian suck-ups.

It's hilarious.

[Peach]

Oh I see Friedersdorf incoherently responded. Is it just me or does Conor Friedersdorf appear to be a David Brock in the waiting or what? His conservative bonafides just seem to be a "BRock"

[Dan Riehl]

"you're kind of a jerk."

Oh gawd, I hurt so bad. Another effin' pantywaist moron heard from. Just freaking great. lol Do you guys look at girly pictures together when you aren't on blogs? Or, you know, boy pictures, if that floats your boat. I am nothing if not tolerant is all I'm sayin'.

[Dan Riehl]

"like Bill Bennett and Dennis Prager manage"

LMAO - no offense to Dennis, but really, how dumb must one be to make that comparison. Yeah, everyone rushes to the car to hear Bill Bennett - the, in an Internet sense, know nothing who gave you your start at Culture whatever it was that so promptly tanked, wasting other people's money. That bet didn't pay off for Bennett, like many others, now did it?

[Gary]

I think I remember that Rush's audience is among the top three or so in all of media in terms of education and high knowledge, according to a PEW survey, I believe. I'm sure Levin's numbers are probably similar, if not higher. This doesn't comport with the notion that they're "talking down" to their radio listeners. Of course their styles are different in print than on radio, but the basic message is the same, clear and unapologetic. In print, nobody can hear you scream.

Conor's mindset seems to me to be all about nuance, self examination and introspection. I suspect that Limbaugh's and Levin's confident and precise views and presentations, which are actually quite sophisticated in terms of expressing a POV effectively, are somehow off-putting to him on a very basic level.

One could read Conor's writings all day and night and still wonder ..... now what is he saying exactly? But after a few days of listening to his enemies, or reading their writings for that matter, you know exactly what they're saying, and you have a heck of hard time disputing their basic thesis ... progressivism sucks, and so do those who suck up to it.

[Aruges]

Conor,

I've read Levin's articles for years and listen to his radio show most days for an hour or two. I guess I don't see the devil in the difference. So what if Limbaugh and Levin have a more bombastic on air persona than in private? Most successful radio hosts do. Their style of radio show gets big audiences because they are more accessible. They make their points, entertain their audience, and make money. Both are pretty honest about this approach, Limbaugh in particular (he has a whole bit explaining the success of the show). And frankly, the fact that Levin in particular is razor sharp in long form just makes his radio bombast that much more powerful. He's not just making it up as he goes along and he's extremely confident in his convictions.

Prager and Bennett have fine shows, but they are different programs for a somewhat different audience, an audience that prefers less bombast, however I have a strong suspicion they also have a much smaller audience than Limbaugh or Levin. The variety of approach is one of the reasons Conservative talk radio is so successful.

Given the challenges we face right now with this President and this Congress, I guess the fact that Levin occasionally shouts "Get off the phone you big dope!" in a Philly twang just doesn't seem like a big deal.

[unseen]

I don't often agree with Dan but in this I think he is 100%. It is people like Conor that give the meaning to the term elitist. The problem is they like the rest of the politcal class have no idea what they are doing. They think they are smart and engaged but in reality they give all the ammo to the left to use against the American citizen.

The American people as a whole is one of the most educated populations on earth. they understand complex economics, politcal theory, marketing. 99% can read and write which is better than a vast majority of population in the world. They understand and use complex fianacal instruments like pensions, IRA's, 401k, CD's,stocks, credit cards etc.

Are they all ivory league types? some not all but in relation to the rest of the world Americans are on par if not better than most 1st world countries and they spank 3rd world countries like nobody's business.

The concept of the elites that this population is unable to govern and think for themselves is beyond stupid. In short "the smartest people in the room" have missed the forest for the tree. The American people are more that capable of self government. Of deciding the best route for their children, the best food to eat, the best investments to make, what road conditions where they need a freaking seatbelt, etc.

The elites are not needed for telling us all how to live. How we are being lied too, played, or anything else. their knowledge is simply one part of the great frabic of the country and should have a small voice in that fabric. They should not be the only voice they listen too, nor should they expect us to listen to them and them alone. they should not try to enforce minority rule and they most definitly should not try to take away our freedom for some greater good that they think is out there.

[Dennis D]

Wow the guy is an idiot. Clueless to whats going on. Does he realize when leftists claim the GOP wants to bring back Jim Crow that many in the Dem base believe it?

[Jack Okie]

Conor has gone from pathetic to ridiculous. What's next, Conor, standing on the corner holding a sign that says "Will pontificate for table scraps"?

[Stacy M]

The best way to get applause from elitists is to attack Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin while pretending to be right-wing. Those of us who listen to them know that you, Conor, are a pretentious jackass trying to make a name for yourself. They don't talk down to their audience and they don't treat us like we are stupid. You are doing that by insinuating that we need you to open our eyes to what we are too blind to see. Rush and Mark earned their popularity on their own. Why don't you try that for a change.

[LawStudent]

Dan,

I agree with your overarching point about Friedersdorf being a useful idiot for the left and that he tries to draw attention to himself by attacking successful (in terms of the market and persuasion) conservatives like Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, however, the name-calling and lack of substantive response in your comments is a turn-off. I am a fan of Rush and Mark and listen to their podcasts on the way to and from class.

I enjoy your blog (especially when you write about writing style and voice) and keep up the good work.

[njal b-ware]

conor friedersdorf = frank burns

[Dan Riehl]

"lack of substantive response"

Thank you. Honestly, I don't believe he is worthy of a substantive response here, or that his arguments possess real substance to respond to. However, there will be a more substantive piece forthcoming for broader consumption at another venue. Obviously, I'll link it here. This is a personal blog and I allow myself to show some temper, I always have. Thanks, again.

[syn]

Prior to the attacks on 9/11/2001 I used to ape what my NYC groupthink theater peers thought- 'Rush Limbaugh is a right-wing nutcase out to destroy America'-without ever having listened to his show.

Then the attacks came after which I began to tune in; after in-depth self-reflection I realized that I was wrong, terribly wrong, since I had mindlessly aped whatever the group-thinkers blathered believing at time I was kweel like then. Today I love listening to Rush, he reminds every radio I am no longer a stupid useless fool aping idiots.

Conor, today I can admit that prior to 9/11/2001 I was a stupid useless fool aping idiots. Hopefully the day will come when you too realize how much you lost of yourself just to maintain your access into the exclusive Ruling Class VIP room.

That said; I love Mark Levin -the man's passion is as deep as mine though he doesn't scream quite as loud as I can scream.

[Huey]

I've had my fill of intellectuals, pseudo-intellectuals, their unthinking followers and their trembling sycophants.

Conor: Audience. To whom is Levin apeaking when he composes a writing for Human Events or National Review? Is that the same audience who will read his book(s)? The same audience listening to his radio show? Does one present the same arguments in the same fashion to each audience? Does a recognition that someone traveling in a car, likely catching only a small portion of the show whilst going from here to there might require a different type of presentation of the same essential subject matter than would someone at the breakfast table with a newspaper or magazine or than would another in an easy chair contemplating a footnoted and scholarly work such as "Liberty and Tyranny" -- does such recognition even imply that the host/writer impugns the intellect of his audience by altering his presentation to suit the needs of those different audiences?

The need to fashion the same substantive arguments when presented in different venues is so self-evident that your failure to give it the weight it requires when discussing this subject makes me wonder how intellectually honest you are being and just how dumb you think that we are.

[Ragspierre]

Just a quick word...

Nobody speaks with the same rigor with which they write.

Levin is a skilled trial attorney. He understands polemics, as does Rush. As a trial attorney, I admire the ability of both men to hold an audience, conduct excellent analysis on the fly, and be entertaining for three hours at a stretch.

There are elitists on both ends of the political spectrum. Rush and Levin are not among them, nor are their staff or good friends.

Conor strikes me as an extremely jealous, small fella who is envious of people like Dr. Laura, who have an audience and following he'd kill for, and will never have in his present iteration. People just don't like him. He's a prig.

[memomachine]

Hmmmm.

1. I would never imagine anyone possibly describing conservatives as not cynical. We are at our core cynical beyond measure.

2. Dan stop this. Conor is a link whore trying to get hits by pissing you off.

Ignore the whore.

[Ragspierre]

memomachine;

Speaking only for my conservative sef, I am NOT cynical. Skeptical, YES! Cynicism is a much more jaded, pessimistic lens through which to view the world. It can imply a sort of ironic condescension, and that ain't me.

[Amy]

I'm a pediatrician. When I explain medicine or disease to a child or parent, I use different terminology than when I document my visit for other medical professionals and insurance. Do I think the kids and their parents are stupid? Nope. Using the jargon of your industry when discussing details with a layperson is a good way to lose their attention. Does that make me an elitist?

[itsMike2Cents]

"...there will be a more substantive piece forthcoming for broader consumption at another venue..."

Really, Dan?
Promises, promises.
I am guessing the editors at Breitbart will have their work cut out for them.
You have never once offered (perhaps you tried) a kernel of substance in your broadsides or replies to CF.
If this was a boxing match, he'd be sitting in his corner while you smash your chair over your own head.
And like here, there's be goons to cheer you on.

[Rick]

Mike,

One of the undercurrents to this tempest is that Conor F. is without a constituency, goonish or otherwise.

My eyerolls are over why in the world Mark Levin, let alone Dan Riehl, bother to acknowledge this particular Sullivanesque "noise machine" over, say, your own comments.

Cordially...

[LawStudent]

"Honestly, I don't believe he is worthy of a substantive response here, or that his arguments possess real substance to respond to."

Dan,

After thinking about this point I agree with you. I just don't like the ad hominem stuff, however, that does not make it wrong. I cringe sometimes when Mark Levin yells at callers - that is just my taste. I think my real objection is Mark (on his facebook page) or anyone paying attention to any of these pseudo-intellectuals. They’re the useful idiots trying to get noticed by attacking people with real ideas and success in terms of persuasive authority.

[itsmike2cents]

Rick,
Fair enough, wondering why Dan even bothers to weigh in.
But the fact is he does - quickly and often.
And in most cases it is because CF says something about Levin, not because CF says anything about Dan.
But once Dan chooses (and I wonder if at this point it's more of an uncontrollable action) to weigh in, he offers nothing and does himself (and Levin) no favors.
"...Complete And Absolute Dumbass...this idiot...this clueless idiot..this moronic asshole...f*cking pretentious moron...worst kind of stupid...a complete idiot...immature and pretentious fool...a small man...sad, worthless...pretentious asshole...fool..."
You can almost hear Dan sobbing.

[Huey]

LawStudent: Yeah. I can't listen to Levin. Just can't take him even in small doses. However, I like him as a commentator on Hannity's show when he infrequently appears. I loved his book, more, perhaps, than any I've read in the past decade.

But, just can't stomach his radio show.

[njal b-ware]

itsmike2cents = Dr. Sidney Freedman, post-botched self-induced lobotomy

[Rick]

"Fair enough, wondering why Dan even bothers to weigh in."

Mike,

Content (the noun) I suppose, along with worrying a chew-toy.

If a blog could write itself, I'd launch one.

Cordially...

[memomachine]

Hmmmmm.

@ Ragspierre | Thursday, August 19, 2010 at 10:45 AM

"Speaking only for my conservative sef, I am NOT cynical. Skeptical, YES! Cynicism is a much more jaded, pessimistic lens through which to view the world. It can imply a sort of ironic condescension, and that ain't me."

Please recite:

1. Healthcare reform will bend the cost curve downward.

2. You can keep your current insurance.

3. Healthcare reform will save $1 trillion dollars over 10 years.

4. I will not raise taxes, any taxes, on anybody making less than $250,000 a year.

5. I will not raise taxes, any taxes, on anybody making less than $200,000 a year.

6. President Obama will not raise taxes on anybody making less than $150,000 a year.

...

Still merely skeptical?