Conservative Bar Brawl: Mark Levin vs. Dreher, Friedersdorf, Frum,et al.
by

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.

Sign Up to receive Our Latest Updates! Register