I know Mark Levin, and you sir are no Mark Levin

I love debate, as all of you here know, but when someone picks on Mark Levin – the most gentlemanly scholar and scholarly gentleman I have ever known, a veritable light in a sea of darkness, the very man whose conservative courage has liberals running for the coasts and whose work has inspired countless millions to the conservative cause – whose calm soothing radio voice has lulled billions of wailing infants to sleep while driving in the car with their parents – well…well…


It just won’t stand. It won’t stand I say. It will not stand. It might sit or even recline a bit, but it will not freaking stand.

Furthermore, that a man who has a popular radio show and writes pop-conservative bestsellers could be called an “entertainer” is frankly beyond the pale. And not just any pale. Not taupe or off-white. No – it is beyond The Pale. Ivory white. Crest white. Porcelain. Nay, paler than porcelain. Yes, we are entering Michael Jackson territory here. That pale.

I mean, true, Levin is a big boy and he can handle his own battles but really I think he needs us to handle those battles too. It wouldn’t be a pile-on otherwise. I mean, you don’t write at The Corner if you plan on criticizing other conservatives – at least not if those conservatives hate David Frum but still support the Iraq War.

It really is just breathtaking that anyone at The Corner would resort to name-calling or would use such frankly disturbing words as “awful” or – and this might not be safe for work – “wingnuttery”.

I know. Pretty scary stuff. (Bomb Iran!)

He said – in reference to Levin’s opus – the word “wingnuttery” and let me just say that I’m floored. And offended. My preconceived notions about the way the world works have been perhaps irrevocably shaken. That anyone at this fine blog would use words like that to describe a conservative is just – I don’t know. Awful. It’s not nice. It really isn’t. It’s like Pearl Harbor. Or no – no – no it’s like Hiroshima.

I mean, it’s not as though Manzi was attacking a filthy socialist fascist wimpy anti-American atheist liberal or anything. It’s not like he was claiming our president was trying to undermine freedom or was born in Kenya – you know, basic sensible conservative stuff. He was attacking one of his own. And not just one of his own, but Mark Levin. The guy who wrote the best book since Liberal Fascism, hands down.

I don’t know what ‘epistemic closure’ is but I do know Mark Levin, and you sir – you are no Mark Levin. You aren’t even fit to read his book let alone criticize it as some sort of vacuous propagandistic piece of poorly researched garbage.

This is National Review, damn it, and we won’t put up with this sort of thing. You remember Christopher Buckley dontcha?

You betcha, and he was Bill Buckley’s kid.

And you better hope Levin doesn’t do to you what he’s done to everyone else who says his book sucks.

Seriously, this is what you get for being a meany-head.

Please do be so kind as to share this post.
TwitterFacebookRedditEmailPrintFriendlyMore options

20 thoughts on “I know Mark Levin, and you sir are no Mark Levin

  1. I’m floored by the uncreativity on display on the “deranged bloggers” page. Come the hell on, if you’re gonna be infantile at least do it right.


      • @E.D. Kain,

        Erik, this is pretty weak. Whatever we think of its the merits, Jim took a pretty direct shot at Mark Levin. And so far the Cornerites have generate a whole two (2) attempts to defend Mr. Levin and pretty brief ones at that. Which, let’s note, is the same number of parodies/pilings on here. Certainly you’d disagree if someone took a look at the last two main entries on the blog and concluded that this site was obsessed with anklebiting the Corner.


        • @Koz, It strikes me that complaining about Manzi’s post’s discussion of Mark Levin on grounds of incivility of all things….well, it just demonstrates a certain lack of self-awareness. Love him, hate him, or care not about him, I can’t think of anyone who would suggest that Levin is civil to his opponents or doesn’t make far more aggressive attacks on his opponents than what Manzi showed here. K-Lo and McCarthy sound like the cronies of a schoolyard bully who just experienced someone else actually throwing a sucker punch at him, suddenly concerned about fairness.


          • @Mark Thompson,

            Yeah, fair enough. Though I think it’s also reasonable to say that, contrary to Will’s argument in the other post, the response has not been especially herd-like or knee-jerkish. It really would be like an elephant in the living room if nobody said anything at all.

            Btw, are you still interested in the coverture business? I mention that because the whole nonresponse to Caplan’s endorsement of human cloning is, for me at least, a very interesting counterfactual.


            • @Koz, Jason (who wrote the coverture posts) has posted his response to Caplan on cloning (admittedly after you posted this). However, the cloning issue doesn’t interest me nearly as much because it doesn’t go to the heart of what libertarianism is or should be as a political philosophy. The coverture issue was important not because coverture is itself particularly relevant to today but instead because the nostalgia for the 1880s as a “Golden Age of Libertarianism” amongst certain quarters is emblematic of a major philosophical divide that needs to be emphasized.


        • @Koz,

          If Liberty and Tyranny is anything like his last book, Men in Black, then Manzi was not hard enough on him.

          Speaking of being obsessive, didn’t Levin go out of his way to smear conservative bloggers that disagreed with him (Conor Friesendork, ED Jane, etc. etc.).

          Certainly you’d disagree if someone took a look at the last two main entries on the blog and concluded that this site was obsessed with anklebiting the Corner.

          In my opinion, anyone who looked at two blog entries at this site and determined that this site is obsessed with anklebiting the Corner should probably go elsewhere. Such a conclusion would indicate a shortcoming of intelligence and the likely failure to grasp even the less intellectually meaty substance on this blog (mostly my posts).

          I wouldn’t have enough patience to disagree with such a small-minded individual.


  2. Pingback: A Coda on Closure

  3. Pingback: Wow; a type of climate science review we'll never see at Mises Blog; at NRO, Jim Manzi takes down "wingnuttery" by Mark Levin - TT's Lost in Tokyo

  4. Pingback: Pearl Harbor, Pom-Poms, And Popcorn « Around The Sphere

Comments are closed.