Leftist Atlantic writer Conor Friedersdorf is going on
about talk radio again. This time (every time?) his
main focus is Rush Limbaugh, although there was room for
the usual Friedersdorf sideswipes at Hannity and Levin.
The gist of this complaint?
That Rush is somehow a “mass of self-contradiction” and has a
lack of “intellectual integrity.”
Yada yada, and so-on and so-on.
It is, I suppose, worth mentioning again that Friedersdorf
finally admitted to me some time back that in spite of what others
said, he in fact was not a conservative. But instead of dissecting
his latest — and since his latest is really nothing more than his
usual oldest dressed up as something new — the best thing to do is
just go back to one of my own older posts on Friedersdorf.
Re-reading it tells me nothing has changed with him. An obsession,
I guess, is an obsession. However intellectually bizarre it may
be.
Here it is:
The Friedersdorf Charade
By Jeffrey Lord
on 4.22.11 @ 12:51PM
One of the annoying aspects of the success of the conservative
movement, that success brought to mind by the recent passing of
legendary conservative founding father William Rusher, has been
noted by our founder and editor in chief here at The American
Spectator. Discussed in some detail in R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s
book After
the Hangover: The Conservatives Road to
Recovery.
Mr. Tyrrell notes that there is a clique inside the conservative
movement — and here he quotes James Piereson, formerly of the John
M. Olin Foundation — who “try to establish their bona fides by
attacking other conservatives, which will make them well-liked by
Liberals, which is the point.”
The latest one of these types to appear on the scene is Conor
Friedersdorf over at that well-known non-conservative publication
the Atlantic.
From his perch as the designated conservative in this branch of
Liberal Land, Mr. Friedersdorf quite deliberately although not
especially skillfully plows this thoroughly plowed ground by
showcasing his ability to do precisely as Messrs. Tyrrell and
Piereson have noted of others. In Friedersdorf’s case, he has
decided that what will get him extra strokes from approving
liberals is to go after the William F. Buckley, Jr. of today —
that, of course, being Rush Limbaugh. A man Buckley himself took
under his wing, featured in glowing terms on the cover of
National Review and in other instances blessed as his
successor and great friend, if in fact there could ever be such a
figure to replace the irreplaceable Buckley.
Out of curiosity I googled Friedersdorf and discovered he has
almost an obsessive penchant for this kind of thing, this being the
latest to catch my attention. He has previously in quite
vivid terms called Mr. Limbaugh a “race-baiter” for whom he has
“contempt” and …well… yada yada yada. With all the fury of a
barking poodle at an 18-wheeler (and with as much effect), on he
rattles.
That he does it is his business. Clearly he fits the Tyrrell
profile like a glove. But for somebody who clearly wishes to be
noticed for his brains one is utterly baffled at his willingness to
be taken in on all this race business, which he has used repeatedly
to go after Rush. As detailed
here and
here, liberals have right from the very beginning of their
political history in America built what one might call the House of
Race and State. Race is always used to build the
liberal/progressive state.
Rush Limbaugh has been absolutely fearless in taking on liberals
— that is what he does, to the great good fortune of the rest of
us. He believes in a color blind society — and he walks the walk.
His personal friends, his charitable contributions, his show — all
of them speak exactly to the idea of judging people by the content
of their character and not the color of their skin. In doing this —
of challenging liberals with content serious and humorous in a
color blind fashion he has drawn fire from those who are mired —
willingly trapped? — in the liberal House of Race and State.
Purveyors of “skin color liberalism” always demanding to judge by
race and not ideas. And he has paid a price in doing this — taking
massive amounts of heat in challenging liberal dogma and its
phoniness/hypocrisy on this issue.
Friedersdorf with his typically liberal attacks on Rush seems
genuinely clueless that he has allowed himself to ask for a bed in
the House of Race and State. A house firmly located on the Liberal
Intellectual Plantation. Then again, in his latest broadside he
winds up going after Rush because Rush is rich, a
fire-bell-in-the-night sign of class warfare, the kind regularly
indulged in by President Obama and company.
Thus showing his true feelings on race and redistribution of
wealth (his envy of Rush’s financial success — something his
listeners have long known was both late coming and hard-won — is
breathtakingly obvious), Friedersdorf apparently hopes no one will
get where his real political soul is, in spite of his “I’m really a
conservative, don’t ya know” routine.”
The proof is in his words. I’ve read them. They are the Tyrrell
point writ large. For good measure, he doesn’t like Mark Levin
either. No, I’m not going to bother linking…Google away.
The real point here is that Conor Friedersdorf is not only not
serious, he’s sad. This kind of stuff is by now older than dirt.
This isn’t (Tyrrell again) James J. Kilpatrick dialoguing with
Buckley or Russell Kirk on conservative ideas. This is “Look ma…I
took a shot at Rush Limbaugh on a liberal magazine site on the
Internet! And they printed it! Whoooooooo-ha! Did MSNBC call
yet???”
My suggestions for Mr. Friedersdorf? One, get a life. Two, read
and go learn something about race and economics. And three:
A classy person would apologize to Mr. Limbaugh. And to Mr.
Levin. And then get on with getting what those things would begin
to provide: a serious education in a life of principle and respect
for others.
And the chances any of this will actually happen?
Naaahhhhhhhh. Never mind.
