When I invoked
this analogy, I didn't expect that Mark Levin himself would
come wading into the online saloon fight, but
he does just that at Dan Riehl's blog:
Every now and then I have to lower myself to deal with the
undeveloped minds of kooks like Rod Dreher. . .
. Rod learned of me, he says, from his friend Conor
Friedersdorf. Honestly, who is Conor Friedersdorf? . . .
If only the rest of us would embrace the "true reformers" (you
know, in addition to Frum, David Brooks and Ross Douthat,
among others), we would be so much the better. Dare I say
if they were intellectually coherent and consistent, not to
mention principled, it might be easier to understand
them. But they are, with a few exceptions,
ineffective lightweights who shoot spitballs at conservatives
from the backbenches. This is precisely why
the media promote them during their little hissy
fits.
They're
The Republicans Who Really Matter, you see. You can
read Levin's entire rebuttal, and Friedersdorf
actually pops into the comments at Riehl's blog with this:
I notice that you don't address the substantive criticisms that
I make, instead merely pointing out that I am not very well
known. Of course, my fame isn't relevant to the flaws in your
rhetoric. The fact that you're unwilling to defend yourself on
substance leads me to believe that you're unable to do so.
Ah, the old "substantive criticisms" gambit! Levin, who
served as Ed Meese's chief of staff, must defend in detail
everything he says during 15 hours of weekly radio time
against whatever specific criticism any blogger might make, or
else be presumed indefensible.
It is at times like this that the
famous words of Rahm Emanuel come to mind, but perhaps
the words of Friedrich Hayek might be more helpful.
