The American Spectator

Tim| 7.28.09 @ 1:43PM

Fee-fi-fo-fum,
I smell the blood of David Frum,
Be he alive, or be he dead
I'll have his bones to grind my bread.

Liberal Reader| 7.28.09 @ 1:51PM

Mr Lord,

How you could think Mark Levin is somehow a more careful or insightful political figure than Frum is just weird.

You may often agree with Levin more than Frum, but there's a difference here that makes a difference:

Levin circulates whatever talking points are being repeated endlessly by other right wing pundits. His book is a shallow re-hash of arguments other people have already made; he contributes no original ideas or research.

Frum is at least willing to examine ideas critically: I think this is what the Limbaugh Right hates about him most. His intellectual curiosity makes him a threat to the Joe Plumberification of the right, and the Rodeo-Clownification of Dissent.

Liberal Reader| 7.28.09 @ 1:51PM

error: not "political figure," I meant political writer or thinker.

Tim| 7.28.09 @ 2:25PM

Frum has wandered off seeking strange new respect, and of course a liberal reader would appreciate that. We non liberals however, think that Frum is just currying favor with the powerful.
As a liberal doesn't it bug you just a little to see these ass kissers come to you on their knees?

Missy| 7.28.09 @ 2:38PM

Yawn. Frum is a publicity ho: The only way he can get attention is to bash Conservatives. What's new and who cares?

William R| 7.28.09 @ 2:39PM

Frum is still trying to recover from the cover story in National Review!!

http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp

Frum has made a career out of smearing those he disagrees with. Shoot I still remember his 1991 cover story for American Spectator attacking Pat Buchanan as an antisemite.

Smitty| 7.28.09 @ 2:52PM

Hey, LibReader/Jeremiah; I thought you'd change your handle as usual after you threw an F-Bomb at us the other day. Guess not, little Marxist puke.

Liberal Reader| 7.28.09 @ 3:44PM

Tim --

I do appreciate that Frum is interested in ideas other than his own.

It's a mark of intellectual integrity and vigor to seek out differing views and express doubt about the certain truth of one's own argument.

Furthermore, I disagree with this notion that somehow Frum has become a "liberal".

Frum does not disagree with most conservative notions, as far as I know. His biggest difference with the right wing blabosphere seems to me his sense of decorum -- something for which conservatives were once known.

I try to imagine William F Buckley returning from the grave to find his movement enmeshed in bizarre conspiracy theories and tainted by subtle and not-so subtle racist populism.

This is precisely the sort of nutty stuff that conservatives of Buckley's generation -- along with people like Tyrrell here at the Spectator -- worked so hard and so long at driving from the conservative movement.

Anyway -- as to your preference of Mark Levin ("the Great One") -- good fortune to you. If that's all you got, no one's going to be calling the Republicans the "party of ideas" again anytime soon.

Jeffrey Lord| 7.28.09 @ 3:48PM

Liberal Reader...

You assail Levin in such a way that makes me curious if you have read his books. Have you? And if so with what specifically do you disagree?

Tim| 7.28.09 @ 4:24PM

Lib
Actually I'm not looking for a reiteration of your previous points, I ask you, as a partisan does it not make any impression on you that maybe Frum is not intellectually curious, that maybe he is just an opportunist looking for greener pastures?
I do. Following a hypothetical 2010 repeat of 1994, would we see these Frumlings race back to the right and declare themselves to have been with us all the time?

As for extremists, the technology has changed. However I find that even deranged rants can be instructive albeit not in ways the authors intend. TAS apparently agrees, hence the open posting. NR on the other hand allows only their witty clique to post on their blogs, which only their witty clique reads. Had they allowed some of the rabble to post Frum might have been called out years ago.

jann| 7.28.09 @ 4:32PM

He he, I can't wait to hear Mark on this one! You can't beat or discredit Mark Levin he's too smart. The guy is a genius simply put, he just is. I would love to put all these punks in a room for a debate with just Mr. Levin, can you guess what would happen?? I can!

Basil Plumley| 7.28.09 @ 4:35PM

C'mon folks leave Liberal Reader alone. Ya know all he reads is comic books. Levin should have put some pictures in the book to attract our resident troll.

Liberal Reader| 7.28.09 @ 4:56PM

Mr Lord,

I'm not really trying to "assail" Levin, although I can see why I come off sounding like I am.

I have read "in" Levin's book; I cannot testify to having read every page. I also read parts of Men in Black.

My biggest problem with Levin is his program of collapsing everything in the known universe other than the "conservatism" of the blabosphere into a single category.

Thus the Democratic party, large parts of the Republican party, are simply recategorized as "statists," along with fascists, communists, monarchists, and including, I can only presume, my beloved Red Sex.

This is disturbing because a) it in fact repeats a very common rhetorical strategy of fascists; but more importantly b) it is analytically stupid.

Analysis means drawing distinctions, not lumping everything "other" into a single category.

It provides bad foundations for political discourse, and actually enables the current zaniness of preaching that Obama is not a citizen, for example.

When these categories are collapsed, their characteristics begin to merge: it becomes possible to think "Democrat = socialist = fascist = terrorist."

That's not responsible, and it's not really all that interesting.

You'll be able to see what I mean when you read all the posts that respond to this, calling me a Nazi, traitor, communist and so on.

But you'll say, "You'd have to be an idiot to confuse a liberal with a fascist."

But it's not my fault that people do this, and people who write and publish books can help by drawing clearer distinctions and just thinking more carefully about what they're saying.

Ran| 7.28.09 @ 4:56PM

Mr Lord,
As good Mr Frum swings and delivers his mighty! blows!, one can rest assured that Levin's knees and shins will feel each.

Poor David. Once upon a time, a certain brash young lad turned-down U of Toronto, stating - publicly - that he did NOT want to be associated with "mediocrity." I remember raising an eyebrow and thinking... "Lad, you had better achieve excellence, because "not wanting" something is far less than "wanting to achieve" something. It is a mediocre parti." That was, oh, three decades back roughly. The decades haven't been kind.

Teflon93| 7.28.09 @ 5:50PM

Levin's "statist" category is perfectly apt---indeed, it is the ONLY definition which explains how a coalition of utterly conflicting interest groups pulls the lever for Democrats every election: the only thing they have in common is a desire for the expansion of the power of the state in one sphere or other.

Indeed, one must wonder why Frum lacks the courage of his own statist convictions. I suspect it's because he'd simply be Democrat No. 8654398 after the initial furor over his apostasy died down.

Jeffrey Lord| 7.28.09 @ 9:23PM

Liberal Reader

"my beloved Red Sex. "

Umm...Gee. I'm happy for you if sex with Reds is...ahhhh...important in your personal life. As for the rest of us, once Barbarella turned 40....

Now...as to your Levin meanderings...

It is safe to say that Mark Levin has a well established reputation as a man of serious thought. He is not a talking points kind of guy. With respect, there, LR, just picking up a Levin book and reading "in" the book, as opposed to actually reading it in depth just doesn't cut it. Read. Take notes. Check the original sources. In a word, think. Alas, I fear you have caught a case of 21st century American culture..."I skimmed, therefore I know"...Respectfully, forget Mark Levin. Buy the damn book, read it cover to cover, learn something, return to the debate...and stop having Red Sex!

C4P| 7.28.09 @ 10:53PM

Good luck Jeff!! Telling horny little liberals like Jeremiah to stop having 'Red Sex' is like telling fat boys to stop loving cake (with apologies to Fitty Cent). Ain't no way, no how.

C4P| 7.28.09 @ 10:57PM

Democrat = Liberal = Socialist = Marxist = Commie Gulag Hell. There you go, LibReader/Jeremiah--I fixed it for you.

As exquisite Sarah says, "Thanks, BUT NO THANKS!!"

Liberal Reader| 7.28.09 @ 11:56PM

Mr Lord

I did -- it's true -- write "Red Sex" instead of "Red Sox." I'm going to go ahead and assume you made a mental correction for me. It was a pretty funny Freudian Slip.

I did more than skim, but I did less that study, with pencil and notebook. I read enough to be able confidently to say there are no really new arguments there, just a new argumentative package.

And like I say, Levin's typical move, collapsing different categories into one Big Bad category ("statist") is, I think, irresponsible, inaccurate, and unhelpful.

You can see for yourself the consequences of that kind of rhetoric on this thread and everywhere on this site.

C4P's posts are the kind of typical silliness that results when so-called leaders or "thinkers" are irresponsible.

Since when, by the way, did conservatism become a game of labeling. Democrats: Are they socialists? Or are they fascists? -- They're both!

Except for there not, not at least if you're thinking about the actual definitions of these words.

O.K. So how about another word, like "statist," that has a kind of obscure definition, that is really just a wink and nod way of calling someone a fascist.

Fascist, traitor, communist!

That's the argument from conservatives today. "You're a traitor. You're a fascist."

If that's good enough for you, more power to you. It's pretty mediocre stuff though.

C4P| 7.29.09 @ 12:27AM

LibReader/Jeremiah, "Typical silliness and labeling," like you telling a Conservative poster on another thread to, "Take a flying fuck at a rolling donut?"

Jeremiah, does that make you irresponsible and unhelpful? Perhaps--but it most certainly makes you a foul-mouthed hypocrite, little commie puke.

Take your phony self-righteous shtick and shove it sideways, loser troll. And tell stupid Axelrod that goes for him, too.

Smitty| 7.29.09 @ 12:40AM

Poor lil libtard troll, Jeremiah/Liberal Reader; waaah, waaah, waaaah! Snort, cough, waaah! Big, bad, Conservative meanies are calling me names and hurting my feelings. Whine, whine, whine--the scent of fine Liberal whine.

Red Sex makes perfect sense to me--what other kind of sex would fire up lust in Liberal Jeremiah's loins?

Red Sex and fine liberal whine--what a hoot! You're a freak, Jeremiah, but you're certainly an entertaining freak. Freudian Slip, my azz!

ckncook| 7.29.09 @ 10:38AM

I read the book and bought 5 extra copies to send to "friends" in Congress ... and didn't get ONE thank you card! Imagine.

http://afencepost.blogspot.com/2009/04/reader.html

Tom Rowan| 7.29.09 @ 10:42AM

Whenever Mark Levin is placed in the same sentence with Frum a clear and stark contrast occurs in most dicriminating minds. Mark Levin is a genius and David Frum is a hack.

Like John McCain, Goober Graham, and Peggy Noonan, Frum has found it easier to pass himself off as a conservative intellectual by being critical of actual conservative intellectuals. Frum adds nothing to the debate. Frum is a hack making money by attacking his intellectual superiors and the conservative movement. Frum's own shallow blandness dooms himself to being nothing more than a passing fart on the political winds of the day.

Mark E| 7.29.09 @ 11:25AM

Liberal Reader,
Just curious, what liberals take conservative ideas seriously and open mindedly in a way that you say Frum does with liberal ideas?

Jeffrey Lord| 7.29.09 @ 11:27AM

Liberal Reader....

The Red Sex was just too good to pass up. Aside from which, as someone born and raised in Massachusetts, I am, but of course, a lifelong Red Sox fan. OK, addict. You're saving grace is that you are not a Yankee fan.

Now.

You seem to presume that there is such a thing as
"new arguments" to be had. This is not so. The world has been around a few spins. The USA is already into century four of its existence. The argument today is old. Very, very old. What is the size and role of the federal government? Period. That's it. There was no federal government in 1776 but the essence of the question with the Brits was the same, with King George the Obama of his day. All manner of philosophers and kings have pondered this long before America was on the map. Levin is well versed here. To cite him a bit, he understands Adam Smith (who wrote of the spontaneous order of things economic), Charles Montesquieu (on the importance of having a separation of powers), John Locke (on the natural rights of man) and Edmund Burke, who, as Levin points out, connected the dots between "liberty, free markets, religion, tradition, and authority."

President Obama, as witnessed by his actions, is a fierce opponent of many of these things, as are today's liberals (or "statists" as Levin calls them.)

Taking over GM, the banks, the financial institutions is decidedly anti-free market. Ditto his health care plan. All of these "czars" completely undermine the carefully crafted separation of powers written into the Constitution. The Supreme Court in the liberal world is not a Court but a supreme legislature with nine lifetime appointees, again a separation of powers issue. The natural rights of man surely do not involve a government employee giving you a "heads up" every five years after sixty five on your status as a breathing senior in America. And liberty is exactly what's missing when you are effectively forced into a government run health care program.

None of this is new. The arguments are old, very old. Like you, they dress up differently every day. But its still you underneath those clothes, lusting for Red Sex.

Levin's book explains and educates for a new generation just figuring all this out, as everyone of its predecessor generations has had to do.

As to "collapsing" all of this into one category, one of the oldest lessons out there is that you may be eating peas or corn - but they are both vegetables. Communism, fascism, Nazis, socialism and modern day liberalism all -say again, all - have this obsession with big government. They may have approached it differently - the clothes were different - but the body of thought underneath is exactly the same. The government set up the Communist gulags, the government set up the Nazi death camps, the government made the Italian trains run on time, the government in Canada and England makes you stand in line for your health care - and, at the moment, the US government is making a move to run any manner of private industries. Yes, people blanche at the idea that Obama gets compared to any of the more drastic versions above. Understood. Appreciated. But it is a simple truth that the thread connecting all of these things is the role of government. And as the saying goes, a government powerful enough to give you something is powerful enough to take something away. Like, in the case of ObamaCare, your life.

So. Levin has hit a grand slam with this book. One of the oldest truths in life is that you can't sell something people don't want to buy. Levin's book has been riding the top of NYT bestseller list for 17 weeks now. Almost a million books sold. Again - one million books. The reason is not hard to figure out. He has done the hard work of connecting all these dots for people who are suddenly feeling the shadow of government hovering over the most personal aspects of their lives - their relationship with their doctor, their car dealer, their bank.

Looking for "new arguments" is like looking for a new body. You won't find one. Only new clothes. And at that you will only find clothes designed to fit the human body.

Last. You know, LR, there are conservatives aplenty these days who once were liberals. Ronald Reagan was a liberal. Ditto Churchill. There is a reason why they became conservatives.

When you figure that out, you will be too. Get yourself a reading list. Include but don't limit yourself to Levin. And most importantly...

Go Sox!

Missy| 7.29.09 @ 1:54PM

Just damn, that was funny! Red Sex Jeremiah. Poor troll--he will try to change his handle but I will rat him out to the other bloggers.

Regarding baseball--my boys on the West (Left) Coast are doing pretty well this year.

Thanks for the hilarity, Mr. Lord. :)

David Lampo| 8.3.09 @ 1:36PM

One has only to read the hateful, intellectual circle jerk engaged in by most of the commenters on this thread to understand why the conservative/libertarian movement is so out of power today. Levin and his adoring commenters have ruled McCain, Giuliani, Powell, Graham, Frum, Noonan, and Brooks as liberal heretics, with National Review close behind. Why is it the wingnuts think that conservatism and libertarianism must be inherently anti-intellectual? Instead of rational and reasonable arguments, it's one long string of personal attacks starting with Levin himself, the sort of stuff you hear from mal-adjusted, disturbed children. This is why the Republican Party is in the state is it. The Democrats rule the roost because they built a majority coalition; we burn our heretics at the stake. Real smart.