- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
Books in Review
The Gospel According to Mark Levin
Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto
By Mark R. Levin
(Threshold Editions, 256 pages, $26)
I first encountered Mark Levin when our respective bosses, Drew Lewis (mine) and Ed Meese (Levin’s), were leading figures and friends in the Reagan era. Meese was counselor to the president and later attorney general, the conservative Reagan’s champion of conservatism; Lewis was the secretary of transportation who recommended Reagan fire the striking air-traffic controllers. The issue at hand was a minor one, a mid-level job in the Justice Department for an ex-Lewis aide. My task was simple: call Mark Levin, my counterpart, and see if Meese couldn’t help move the process along. The conversation that resulted was memorable. It turned out the ex-Lewis aide had been a Bush supporter in 1980. And while it was true that George H. W. Bush was now Ronald Reagan’s vice president, Levin took pains to instruct me on the importance of the conservative principles behind the Reagan Revolution.
Clearly, the job applicant didn’t understand them, or he would never have been caught dead supporting Bush. So, as sweetly as possible, Levin told me that Ed Meese would not be pushing a candidate who was less than devoted to conservative principles for even a mid-level job in the Reagan Justice Department.
Levin never actually used the phrase “Get off the phone, you big dope”—the line he has now made famous in his role as a star of the conservative talk radio firmament. But I found myself laughing after I hung up, sensing that in some form that was exactly the essence of the message just politely delivered.
Levin has now taken the time to put those principles into book form. It is an irony in light of the considerable success he has begun to enjoy with his ABC-syndicated talk radio show that his less public work as an attorney (the longtime president of the conservative Landmark Legal Foundation, he was also the attorney general’s chief of staff at Justice) is overshadowed by celebrity. Yet it is his first-rate legal mind, combined with an astute political sense, that has launched his veritable Renaissance-style career as lawyer, radio star, and writer.
That mind is well on display in Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. The dawn of the Obama era has brought forth like clockwork the usual wringing of hands on the right. As Thomas E. Dewey whined about “impractical theorists” leading the Republican Party to destruction (this after twice losing the presidency as a moderate), so modern self-appointed “reformers” prattle about the need to “moderate” conservatism so that it can “win again.” As if winning to implement the wrong principles were not the classic Pyrrhic victory.
Levin will have none of this.
In a crisp series of essays he illuminates in detail essentially what he was saying to me on that long-ago telephone call. “Conservatism is a way of understanding life, society and governance,” he writes. Going back to original sources including Adam Smith, Charles Montesquieu, John Locke, and Edmund Burke, Levin briskly demonstrates how to apply conservative principles in policy areas as diverse as the free market, welfare, the environment, immigration, and the interpretation of the Constitution itself.
Pointing out that the classical definition of “liberal” is directly opposite to today’s authoritarian liberals, Levin prefers the term “Statist.” The word is a cogent description of the American left’s “insatiable appetite for control.” Says Levin of the Statist: “His sights are set on his next meal before he has fully digested his last. He is constantly agitating for government action…concocting one pretext and grievance after another to manipulate public perceptions and build momentum for the divestiture of liberty and property from its rightful possessors.” That constant agitation, he notes, is wrapped always in tones of moral indignation.
Levin is an originalist, viewing the Constitution as the philosophical bedrock on which America is built. “It is—and must be—a timeless yet durable foundation that individuals can count on in a changing world.” Issue by issue, he provides the reader an X-ray of Statism gone wild.
One issue is free market economics. This is an era when the president of the United States has fired the head of General Motors and a Rasmussen poll claims only 53 percent of the American people prefer capitalism over socialism. It is no small thing, then, for Levin to patiently explain that the “key to understanding the free market is private property.” He connects the dots among Statists, government, and recent disasters featuring Fannie Mae, the Federal Reserve, and the financial tool known as the derivative, a child of government intervention in the marketplace.
Nor is he afraid to connect the dots in the environmental struggle with Statists. Levin explodes the myth that conservatives reject science. Whether discussing the use of DDT as an insecticide, global warming, or automobile technology, Levin moves effortlessly from core principle to scientific fact, statistics, and research. He deconstructs the Statist reliance on bad science or no science, emotionalism, and faddishness. The latter could not have a better illustration than Levin’s recounting of Newsweek magazine’s alarmist 1975 article on the looming perils of “The Cooling World.” Said the magazine breathlessly: “The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down.” By 2008, Newsweek was insisting that “Global Warming Is a Cause of This Year’s Extreme Weather.” Oops. In a flash of his radio show humor, Levin runs a two-and-a-half-page list of every phenomenon attributed by alarmists to global warming, from “better beer” to “gingerbread houses collapse” to “short-nosed dogs.”
This is a serious book written with great purpose by a serious man. A call to action, as its subtitle “A Conservative Manifesto” proclaims. Provided at the end of the book are tactical steps for conservatives to employ in the fight.
Hence it should not go unmentioned that Levin’s popularity as the growling, volcanic voice on the radio is more than mere shtick. It is a threat to all things left in that most sacred of leftist venues: the entertainment world. Without question, a real fear of Statists is the insistent acclaim of not only Levin but his radio colleagues and friends Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, both of whom get an acknowledgment in the book. A book signing on Long Island featuring Levin and Hannity produced a celebrity-sized crowd of 8,000 fans. These three have mastered the art of translating core conservative principles into a popular entertainment form. This is kryptonite to the American left, which views itself as the invulnerable arbiter of American culture in the media. The telltale mention of Hannity and Levin in a recent Vanity Fair hit piece on Limbaugh is a sure sign of just how outraged Statists are over the trio’s influence. This influence also irritates conservative “reformers” who don’t have 8,000 people standing in line for their books.
Mark Levin has written the necessary book of the Obama era. A book that he was born to write. Its best-seller success testifies not only to Levin’s smarts and popularity but also to the hunger in America for timeless conservative principles.
By the way: the guy I tried to get Levin to hire in the Reagan administration? He got his job. In the Bush administration.
Comments
Leave a Comment
- Two Weddings and a Demerol
- The Podhoretz Method
- The Right of Conscience in the Age of Obama
Are you in a mob?
The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?
Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Darin| 6.4.09 @ 6:56AM
If you haven't read this book yet, I recommend you do so. Buy it if you are able, but your local library should also have it or be able to get it. Well worth the read, and one book which would be useful to reread after a few months.
Bob Sledd| 6.4.09 @ 8:47AM
I would humbly add to a Conservatives Library, the following, written in the Nation's depths of despair during Jimmy Carter's administration, by a man some would put right up there as the Father of Reaganomics.. William E. Simon
The Books are:
A Time for Truth and a Time for Action.
They detailed the ills of our time, and put forth the seeds of the Reagan revolution... Less regulation, much lower taxes, and so forth.
Let the American spirit thrive..
This too, will pass, and we will once again return to the solutions out forth by men like Simon, Kemp,Reagan that produced meteoric growth and prosperity THROUGHOUT THE WORLD from the 1980's thru about 2005.
Unparalleled gorwth and opportunity for men and women ACROSS THE GLOBE.
Ryan| 6.4.09 @ 8:51AM
Levin may be the smartest among the conservative talk radio crowd. Rush probably is the best well-rounded, Bennett the nicest and gentlemanly and easiest to listen to (and most intellectual, may be smarter than Levin); Savage the meanest; Beck the funniest; Boortz the oddest; Hannity the most "connected" (best guests, but he's a bit over-repetetive and simplistic and least intellectual. I REALLY would prefer Beck for the drive home...).
Big J| 6.4.09 @ 8:51AM
Ditto, Darin.
This is the best book I've read since I don't know when. I bought four copies (had to wait 2 weeks for them, the bookstore couldn't keep them on the shelves), one for me and three to give as gifts.
I recommend introducing it to your children, as well. It is an excellent counter to the liberal indoctrination they are receiving in our government school system.
pete the mediocre| 6.4.09 @ 9:10AM
Ryan, you left out two of the most cerebral talk radio hosts; Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager. Other than that I concur with your analysis.
Red Phillips| 6.4.09 @ 9:18AM
Levin can not credibly speak about liberty and tyranny and conservatism until he renounces his foreign policy interventionist ways and apologizes for not supporting Ron Paul in the primary. I'm really supposed to accept as an authoritative "Manifesto" on conservatism a book by a man who supported Romney over an authentic constitutionalist like Ron Paul? Ha! The idea is laughable.
Big J| 6.4.09 @ 9:38AM
Red:
I hate to have to break this to you,
BUT...
The book is not subtitled a "Constitutionalists Manifesto", and he IS qualified to write about liberty, tyranny and conservative values.
I suggest reading the book before critiquing it.
Just because one does not support Ron Paul doesn't disqualify them as a conservative.
Mike| 6.4.09 @ 9:48AM
To TAS,
I've been visiting your site for a week now. I have tried to post rational thoughts and opinions, trying to keep in mind one should be respectful of others in a public forum created for discussion of current events. One of the main reasons I read the comments posted is to see what others have to say about the particular article in question. However, it appears you have allowed a flaming war to override the purpose of these forums that has me questioning whether any useful insight that might be gained worth the exposure to this hate speak. Granted one could just ignore such posts and read the relevant content, but I am only human. This seems to be an every day thing here. I will not post in TAS after this till you have corrected the current enviroment that exist here.
If you cannot responsibly moderate your site, I question your ability to be called a useful community endeavor that I assumed was aimed at bringing forth intelligent insight to a very complex world.
Sincerely, Mike
NavyBrat| 6.4.09 @ 10:07AM
Rayn. I too, agree, for the most part with your list. I would add G. Gordon Liddy to the list, falling somewhere between the funny & cerebral category. I grew up listening to him with my Dad from the time I was 11. I just recently (about a year ago) found him on the internet @ radioamerica.org & I also think he's on XM.
Anthony| 6.4.09 @ 10:48AM
Mark Levin is the tour de force of the conservative movement in America. His book is a superb primer of conservative philosophy, I heartily recommend it. Now, get off the computer you big dope!!
Vietnam Vet in Communist MA| 6.4.09 @ 11:08AM
Mike --
I have no idea what you are talking about. Sugguestion: simply stop reading the Dave Matthew's posts!
Dan D| 6.4.09 @ 11:57AM
I have not heard Levin or really any of the other radio personalities, having few opportunities to listen to radio. I have read some commentaries of his on NRO, and seen some exchanges in The Corner, and I wonder how influential he can be to the wider audience.
He's great at preaching to the choir, I'm sure, but temperament matters. Some of his exchanges on The Corner have been nasty and not always well thought out. If he is like that on the air, he is only speaking to the shrinking base.
Recall Reagan's pre-1980 radio commentaries, or read them if they were before your time. He dealt in ideas, presented in terms of morals as well as politics or economics, and spent far more time positively convincing than he did gently attacking.
Reagan and others using that approach may reach outside the base and actually grow the movement. People who use a derisive tone and ridicule and predominantly attack non-conservative ideas and people do not.
stmichrick| 6.4.09 @ 12:03PM
Good compare and contrast by Ryan.
It seems that Mike is a yet another seminar poster with the purpose of poisoning the discourse here by insulting the participants. There are a couple others who take a more hostile tone, with the same result. Mike actually advocates censorship.
Spicy Joker| 6.4.09 @ 12:12PM
Levin's book has been number one on the New York Slimes' bestseller list for nine weeks now. Strangely, the Slimes won't review Levin's book.
Old Texican| 6.4.09 @ 12:34PM
Mike!
Get over it!
Children WILL prattle.
Stay or go, your choice.
I actually have appreciated some of your thoughts.
Old Texican| 6.4.09 @ 12:36PM
I am loving Rush's new moniker for "mainstream media" or "Drive-by media"
Best yet: "State Controlled Media".
Heh!
Red Phillips| 6.4.09 @ 2:18PM
"Just because one does not support Ron Paul doesn't disqualify them as a conservative."
Perhaps not Big J, but supporting Jacobin foreign policy does.
Ryan| 6.4.09 @ 3:44PM
Isolationism doesn't work. The paleocon Paulites - who seem to value ideological purity - are trying to state that somehow it does. I believe - and think that conservatism has plenty of room for - an engaging and proactive foreign policy. Though I think we went about it wrong, we NEEDED to get Saddam out of Iraq and we NEED to disrupt (at minimum) Islamist activities in Afghanistan because such things are VITAL to our national interests. Yes, we screwed up sometimes and we aren't the world's policemen, but there are some things that need to be done and some people who need to be shot.
Withdrawing back to our own borders and limiting trade are quick ways to poverty and being attacked again. Simply because we're not somewhere else doesn't mean they won't be over here.
ds80| 6.4.09 @ 4:13PM
In the Conservative pantheon, don't forget Dinesh D'Souza. If you haven't heard him destroy Hitchens and Dennet, you should view the YouTube videos.
PCP Smoker| 6.4.09 @ 5:10PM
That was excellent. God bless the trifecta (Limpaw, Flee and Hannity), the American Spectator and America.
Red Phillips| 6.4.09 @ 5:14PM
Ryan, Ron Paul does not want to limit trade. Some paleocons would like to protect American markets with tariff policy, but Paul, a paleolibertarian, is an ardent free trader.
It is not inconceivable that some foreign actions might be warranted. For example, the Barbary pirates and the Somali pirates. But we had no proximate vital national interest in taking down Saddam, and even if we did it did not warrant an invasion and subsequent nation building. An argument could be made that Iraq was more stable and less of a threat to us under Saddam than it is now or will be when we leave. Is America better served by a stable Iraq ruled over by a thug? It was stable partially because he was a thug. Or by an angry and dispossessed Sunni minority and a Shiite south in close league with Iran?
You cannot say “isolationism” doesn’t work because it has never been tried. What you can say is that interventionism isn’t working out so well because it always begets more interventionism.
While I think a conservative could misguidedly support some foreign policy interventionism on the grounds that it will enhance our safety and security, they cannot advocate crusades to spread democracy. Such is inherently revolutionary. Now while many have backed away from that rhetoric in hindsight, it was all over the lead up to the War. It was particularly evident in the rhetoric of the neocons of which Levin is a museum quality specimen. It is an inherent part of what neoconservatism is, a leveling, rationalistic, universalistic Enlightenment inspired liberal (in the original sense) ideology. (If anyone tells me I don't know what a neocon is or am using it wrong, I am going to scream. I know exactly what a neocon is.)
I think it is good that movement conservatives are backing away from spreading democracy rhetoric, but it still rears its head especially when they are backed into a corner to justify some action. As far as I know, Levin has never renounced it.
Matty D| 6.4.09 @ 7:25PM
"Isolationism has never been tried."
That is actually essentially what got the White House burned down, Red. To suggest that picking sides in an international conflict is never warranted is absurd.
stmichrick| 6.4.09 @ 8:09PM
The libertarian/paleocon solution is to wait till they are in are midst before we fight them. The assumption being that we make them mad by being engaged in the worlf
Foolish.
Eric G| 6.4.09 @ 8:31PM
Dan D said
"I have not heard Levin or really any of the other radio personalities" and "(Reagan) dealt in ideas, presented in terms of morals as well as politics or economics".
Dan D you need to read Mark Levin's book and listen to him before you come in and post your baseless thoughts. Mark Levin not only explains conservative ideas on his radio show, his book lays out the conservative principals with depth, examples, background and historical context. I believe if public schools taught students the AMERICAN principals described in his book, the federalist papers and the Constitution, this country wouldn't be facing economic collapse, division, run away spending and tyranny. Our founders wouldn't stand for the State stealing private property to give to another because there is profit to the State.
Red Phillips| 6.4.09 @ 8:41PM
"That is actually essentially what got the White House burned down, Red."
What are you talking about Matty? The War of 1812 is a complicated matter, but it was not caused by America minding our own business nor could it have been prevented by some sort of preemptive intervention? What are you getting at?
Red Phillips| 6.4.09 @ 8:57PM
"The assumption being that we make them mad by being engaged in the world."
Stmichrick, this is not an assumption. This is a fact. This is a well known and taken for granted matter in the intelligence and foreign policy community. It is called blowback. Bin Laden said this specifically. What were his grievances? That we had troops stationed in their Holy Land, Saudi Arabia, and that we were seen as favoring Israel. When OBL said this (we would call that the horse's mouth) was he just making it up? Was he just fooling around? To what end?
BTW, the issue is not engagement. Nice verbal slight of hand. The issue is meddling, favoritism and dropping bombs on them. Getting a wee bit perturbed about that would be this little thing us paleos call human nature.
"The libertarian/paleocon solution is to wait till they are in are midst before we fight them."
Terrorism on the home front is an immigration issue, not a bombing far off nation states issue. Use paleos have long been calling for immigration restrictions well before 911 and getting called racists by universalist neocon nitwits for our trouble. There is no far off Muslim state capable of attacking our homeland even if they wanted to. Attacking nation states for the acts of stateless terrorists is counter productive and a GROSS violation of Christian Just War principles. You can not bomb people just "to be on the safe side."
stmichrick| 6.4.09 @ 10:03PM
OK Red;
'...that we had troops stationed in their Holy Land, Saudi Arabia, and that we were seen as favoring Israel.'
So your answer is that we allow countries friendly to us or where we have interests to disappear at the whim of those who have the will and the means to destroy them?
"There is no far off Muslim state capable of attacking our homeland even if they wanted to."
They did not need the resources of a state to pull off 9/11.
Also; how do you describe the motivation for Islamic murder and mayhem in the Philipines, Malaysia, Pakistan and all the other places where it happens? The existence of Israel?
Point is; Islamic jihadists have no justification other than their desire to expand their influence (sharia law in London) and dominate (Pakistan)wherever they can. Technology and oil money make it possible. Get your head out of the sand, Red. They aim to find and kill libertarians in due time as well.
stmichrick| 6.4.09 @ 10:16PM
...and another thing Red;
"Terrorism on the home front is an immigration issue, not a bombing far off nation states issue."
Sounds like Bill Clinton's law enforcement approach during the 90's. Let it escalate until everyone wakes up and we have tanks in the streets.
You're taking your peaceful lifestyle for granted. Sorry Red, I don't trust you or ICE to prevent domestic terror attacks.
Paul Revere| 6.4.09 @ 10:31PM
Great posts by all, but since almost all of the great AM radio hosts have been mentioned, let's just throw in Laura Ingraham and Michael Medved, just did not want to dismiss them.
SpicyChaiLatte| 6.4.09 @ 11:20PM
The Paulbots are here in force after drinking the isolationist Kool-Aid. The only thing that will stop this madness is the demise of the OB-GYN illegal anchor-baby delivering quack. Now how come none of the Paul zealots mention how "Big Ears" Paul was the king of earmarks in the Porkulus bill... oh that's right. One can never criticize Paul for he is held as a demi-god among the wild-eyed true believers.
deb| 6.5.09 @ 12:55AM
'Liberty and Tyranny' is a must-read for anyone who cares deeply about what we stand to lose at the hands of Obama and his minions. The author explains the tenets of conservatism in a supremely cogent fashion within a fascinating historical context. You'll learn more at the proverbial knee of Professor Levin than you ever did in your HS American History class!!! Shades of 'The Day the Earth Stood Still'...I secretly think Levin is from the future and has been sent back by forces far more brilliant than ourselves to warn us before its too late!! Klaatu barada nikto.
Red Phillips| 6.5.09 @ 7:12AM
"So your answer is that we allow countries friendly to us or where we have interests to disappear at the whim of those who have the will and the means to destroy them?"
Israel is perfectly capable of taking care of herself. There are a lot of countries we are friendly with or where we have interests that we do not give implied security guarantees.
And BTW Latte (I thought only liberals drank latte), I have been a non-interventionist since before the First Gulf War. So I guess that would make me not a "Paulbot" whatever that means.
Precisely what about strictly following the constitution, getting rid of the IRS, abolishing the Fed, returning to sound money, etc. is inconsistent with conservatism? Please explain to me what conservatism would look like that didn't support those things. In fact, they are essential irreducible elements of any authentic conservative program.
That is why Paul gets under the skin so bad of the movement conservatives. They can't stand criticism from their right. He is much more authentically what they claim to be and it irks them to no end.
Jeff| 6.5.09 @ 9:39AM
Dan D,
Levin posts his shows on his website, making it very easy to listen to his shows (although not live). I am reading his book and find it terribly disturbing to see how far we have strayed from the founding.
Eric G| 6.5.09 @ 12:09PM
Dan D,
I don't mean to single you out but you provide a perfect example why Republicans have lost their way. You said "Reagan and others using (positive convincing) may reach outside the base and actually grow the movement. People who use a derisive tone and ridicule and predominantly attack non-conservative ideas and people do not. "
I would argue that Thomas Paine used exactly the opposite tact to describe the tyranny the colonists lived under in Common Sense. Was Patric Henery sugar coating it when he said "give me liberty or give me death"? How about John Adams: "But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.
(John Adams, letter to H. Niles, February 13, 1818)
I believe conservatives need to return to principals and, unapologically, explain why these principals are superior to the feel good politics of today. If we don't take this seriously and make our voices heard, freedom, as our founders intended, will be lost forever.
stmichrick| 6.5.09 @ 12:25PM
Red;
So rescuing Europe in WWII was unconstitutional and a mistake?
So allowing Saddam Hussein to gobble up the Middle East would have been better?
Each of these scenarios would have put us in a weak position to defend ourselves in Fortress America. I think you have your own version of a 'living document.'
Red Phillips| 6.5.09 @ 4:39PM
stmichrick, I shouldn't have to remind you that it was largely conservatives and populists who wanted America to stay out of WWII at the time. Liberal internationalists like FDR were the ones encouraging our entry. Once Germany declared war on us, we didn't really have much choice.
But it is a painfully obvious sign of the lack of thoughtfulness of many knee-jerk interventionists that when challenged they so often trot out WWII as the all purpose justification for any and all inteventions.
But my point was not to sidetrack this thread on particulars of foreign policy. My point was that Levin is claiming to write a "Manifesto" on conservatism. I don't really like the term manifesto because it has certain connotations that are, I believe, inconsistent with conservatism, but if Levin is going to authoritatively write a "manifesto" on conservatism he should at least get the concept right. But whatever the merits of the book, and I have heard from some similarly minded folks that it is better than might be expected, this is not a treatise on Burkean Kirkean traditionalist conservatism. It would more appropriately be called a Neoconservative or Movement Conservative Manifesto. Again, whatever the merits of both, they contain elements that are not conservative in any traditional sense of the word. One such element being ideological crusading to make the world safe for democracy.
stmichrick| 6.5.09 @ 6:52PM
Red;
You are not impressing me with your narrow definition of conservatism as what can only be consistant with libertarianism/objectivism.
Since you can't respond to my point about worthy intervention I will consider the issue tabled.
P.S. Do you know Bob? You two could start a Condesencion Society or something.
Red Phillips| 6.5.09 @ 8:19PM
stmichrick, you clearly don't get the terminology. I am a paleoconservative. I am not a libertarian. I am most certainly not an Objectivist as I am a Christian and Objectivists are atheists. Also, most modern Objectivists SUPPORTED the Iraq War. Check out some of their forums. Libertarians have ridiculed them to no end because of this, and it is one reason why Objectivists and libertarians generally don't get along.
While libertarianism and authentic conservatism share many policy similarities, philosophically they differ greatly. (This all gets very complicated as paleolibertarians like Paul share many common assumptions with conservatives.) But run-of-the-mill libertarians are actually much closer to neocons than are paleocons. Both libertarianism and neoconservatism are totalizing ideologies. Conservatism, on the other hand, is not a systemic ideology. It is the preference for tradition, the way things are and/or used to be over some idealized way things ought to be. As such, it is particular to a particular society.
This is the problem. Neoconservatism sees Western style liberal democracy as "the end of history" to which others need to conform. Hence wars to make others over in our image whether they like it or not. And complete cluelessness as to why others don't happily go along.
You may support this. Fine if you do. But it is elementarily not conservatism properly understood.
IzeHavitt| 6.6.09 @ 2:22AM
Re. Isolationism vs. interventionism: From the beginning of the effort, George Bush informed us that this War On Terror would be a long, and protracted struggle. And , eight years or so out, it is. Why a "long and protracted struggle"? Because we are dealing with the Mideast/ Islam; a region of the world that has been chronically backward for at least five centuries; a region of the world so neck deep in error, that UP looks like DOWN to them; the consequence of which, we face a number of situations where we must deal with multiple Gordian knots of geopolitical, economic, religious, and cultural complexity. And you expected this to be solved in one news cycle? Hah!!! It's gonna take a while, folks; a long while. The honest of heart will recognize this. All others are in denial.
stmichrick| 6.6.09 @ 12:19PM
Red;
I get the terminology. And you, as a Paulster/libertarian, reject interventionism because of your contempt for other societies and and anyone who has a different security situation than you do. For me it's about the nature of the threat and where it's heading (or to the individual, be-heading).
There is a Gathering (Islamic) Storm. You don't think it's a big problem for this country; I do. This is not contrary to being a main street/national security conservative. I don't want to go as far down the road of acceptance of Islamic ambition as Europe has.
stmichrick| 6.6.09 @ 12:25PM
Thank you IzeHavitt;
I would only add that those in denial also vote. Unfortunately they need another domestic terror attack while on Obama's watch to end their confusion.
AFFOX| 6.6.09 @ 6:00PM
On the statists use of Moral Indignation; It was Marshall McLuhan who said that "moral indignation is a technique used to endow the idiot with dignity."
FRANK COLLATT| 6.7.09 @ 12:01PM
“LIBERTY and TYRANNY is the BEST BOOK I have ever read!! And since Mark Levin is the Author, I expected nothing short of Brilliance and Accuracy inside. I read it the first time NON-STOP!! Mark Levin LOVES HIS COUNTRY, and HIS FELLOW COUNTRYMAN. This book should be required reading by every person that considers themself to be an AMERICAN!! Don’t buy just one, by many for your friends. Give some to your enemies, and they too shall become your friends after reading this MASTERPIECE!! Thank you Mark Levin, you are a Great Asset to YOUR COUNTRY, The United States of America!!”
Old Texican| 6.7.09 @ 4:30PM
Thanks, Frank C.
I bought four from Amazon a month ago. Since I am one of their best bought authors...they "back porched" 4 to me". heh.
I pass them around as "loaners"...here in Texas.
Jim Henry| 6.13.09 @ 12:03PM
Since most of these arguements are about liberals and conservatines , I suggest you go to the Old Testament scriptures and read what the prophet Isaiah wrote about liberals. Read Chapter 32 verses 5-8. Isn't it something that he could hit it so accurate 2500 years ago
Jim
DAWN HOLMES| 6.18.09 @ 11:36PM
Levin's distinct voice and delivery are music to my ears, his intellect stimulates my brain, and his brash retorts, make me laugh so hard! I have to be careful if I'm driving! Rush is the undisputed KING of talk, but Levin rates in at a close second. I like Hannity a lot~even been to 3 of his live on-tour broadcasts, but would love to hear Mark earlier in the day. I know he does clean-up, and he does a darn fine job of it. Anyone out there who'd like Levin after Rush???
David | 6.26.09 @ 10:22AM
Mark's book is featured in my latest rant - Please read my blog - Here's an excerpt -
By the way, the NY Times which selectively features gibberish and has more than once aided and abetted the enemy is losing more money than many entire nations’ GDP, but may still have a future in hard copy form….to line bird cages. That is if you want to breed a traitorous, stupid bird that will parrot any crap the White House releases.
One thing the paper can’t selectively refuse to tell you is that the book that sits at the top of it’s own Best Seller list is Liberty and Tyranny, by Mark Levin http://www.amazon.ca/Liberty-Tyranny-Conservative-Mark-Levin/dp/1416562850. You can’t have an intelligent conversation about Constitutional Law and what’s happening today and ignore this book - but what am I saying? Liberals don't read books, they regurgitate talking points fed by other liberals. Reading takes time away from watching television.
zczczc| 6.28.09 @ 9:23AM
As far as viewing the Constitution as “philosophical bedrock,” it might be useful to examine its short comings, as well as the shortcomings of the writers/"founding fathers" which seem to be so revered. The Constitution was meant to create a system of government ruled, not by the people, but by those that will “protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." Those are the words of James Madison, by the way. Madison wanted power to reside with “the wealth of the nation,” not the public. So, if you owned property, you could vote, if you weren’t a woman, you could vote, if you were black, you were a slave, and if you were a Native American, your fate (as John Adams said): they were a “hapless race…who we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty,” which is “among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring [it] to judgment.” Again: The Constitution delivered power to a "better sort" of people and excluded "those who were not rich, well born, or prominent from exercising political power" (Lance Banning).
Another thing: Reagan was hardly a believer in the free market. He was more protectionist than any post war U.S. president and increased protectionist barriers more than any of his predecessors combined. Reagan also led during a time when the U.S. became the world’s biggest creditor nation into the world’s biggest debtor nation, with an increase in foreign ownership within the U.S.
If any of this is incorrect, or there is another take on what’s written, be sure to post.
zczczc| 6.28.09 @ 9:27AM
A good book looking at Reagan's legacy: Tear Down This Myth, by Will Bunch.
zczczc| 6.28.09 @ 9:46AM
A few more comments:
I think the people of Iraq “NEEDED to get Saddam out of Iraq” when he was supported by the U.S./Reagan administration, and I’m sure the people of Saudi Arabia “NEED to disrupt (at minimum) Islamist activities” so they won’t be living under one of the most repressive societies in the region. Compare Iran and Saudi Arabia.
If we can support dictators because they are “vital to our national interests,” does that mean it’s acceptable for other nations to support repressive elements in our country for their national interests?
zczczc| 6.28.09 @ 4:05PM
To see a review of Levin's book, go to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-krepel/liberty-and-tyranny----an_b_203805.html.
Brian Richard Allen| 7.22.09 @ 6:32AM
Good Lord!
What a wonderful review of a great manifesto. Had to revisit this to wash away the taste of the crappy, dishonest bucket of slops tossed on the Good Doctor F Lee's masterpiece by that stopped-up American Standard weakly -- or whatever it's called -- sneer of a few days ago.
Back to the book: More good news; seems the mobbed-up Mussolini-modeled modified-Marxist murtadd-Muslim, ever the classical clinical Narcissist and/or at the time doing his coked-up phase -- or both -- missed Carly Simon and I Bet You Thought This Song Was About You and feels Doctor Levin just wrote This Book Is About You., rather than it is a Timeless Work.
So my bet is that that Soros and/or other sinister-Svengali-steered empty galabiyah and otherwise moronic marijuana-mumbling monster for the moment besquatting our once most hallowed house, as his growing anger already indicates, is already stewing over that one and by now knows the skids are under him. And now his ever aggravated by the occasionally repressed sneering spite of the Seven-Hundred-Dollar besneakered "spouse" at his side Narcissism will kick in -- and have him out of our house by way of his resignation, by September of 2011.
As "president," the dumbest cluck to ever cash a US senate check, Plugs Biden's, fleeting claim to fame will be that he didn't hate our beloved fraternal republic - only that he was too damned stupid to know it from Cuba!
PALIN/PETRAEUS/2012!
Brian Richard Allen
Los Angeles - Califobambicated 90028
And the Far Abroad
C.C.| 7.26.09 @ 1:26AM
'Palin/Petraeus/2012!'
Interesting.
Why not Patraeus/Palin?
What is the fascination with Sarah Palin? Is there some bizarre thing going on that makes men want to hoist her up on a White House pedestal?
What is it?
Is it becuase she's a ballsy 'woman' and doesn't take sh!t from nobody?
Why would she make a good leader and what would she offer that separates her from just another two-party establishment politician?
And finally, what would she (or any of them for that matter) offer in the way of more Freedom and Less government?
I won't hold my breath.
Adult Toys| 9.14.09 @ 4:43PM
I don't see this outcome happening.
Adult Toys