I’ve been holding my tongue on Levingate 2009 because most of what I would say is old trope around these parts and I didn’t want to add to, as commenter and fellow blogger Bob Cheeks astutely noted as, the “bullshit” of this ridiculous firestorm. But E.D. has reawakened the discussion here at our home digs and so while I might not feel compelled to link to and comment on others in the fracas, now that it’s at my door step I can’t but give in to the urge to stamp on this flaming bag.
I agree with the what of E.D.’s response to Matthew Schmitz’s suggestion about the good of Friedersdorf, Frum, and Dreher’s efforts when E.D. says,
Either way, it can’t hurt to try. Just doing nothing is simply not enough. While Rush and Beck and Levin may indeed be their own worst enemies, it never hurts to point out why they’re wrong and how conservatives can, and should, do better.
Indeed, I am on record as saying that dissenting reform and moderate conservatives ought to better steel themselves to put up their dukes in defense of the future of the movement and their party. So let me say unequivocally that I am fan of all three of Conor Friedersdorf, Rod Dreher, and David Frum, disagree with each of them in turn on certain issues as I do, and I concur with Conor’s assessment that Levin, of whom I do not have a substantive opinion due to lack of exposure, was certainly out of line in what he said in this particular instance.
As Conor has noted, left or right, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, the parameters of basic decency apply equally.
And so to some extent I can get behind Conor’s having called Levin out for his words, actions so clearly failing in our very minimal responsibility of care towards others — even those with whom we disagree vehemently — deserve to be bracketed and subject to analysis. But, contra Schmitz, my concern with this whole brouhaha and the reason for my agreeing with Bob Cheeks that it is all a bunch of hooey has less to do with where it started and more to do with where it wound up.
Friedersdorf, Frum, and Dreher’s efforts have, as E.D. notes, likely not bolstered the positions of people like Levin, Limbuagh, and the like within the movement in question. At the end of the day, I would say that the whole thing is a wash with those who previously supported and admired our talk show friends continuing to do so and those who thought them puerile, steadfast in their stance. What the flame fest that has ensued does do; however, is reinforce a conception of politics that I take people like Friedersdorf, Frum, Dreher to be actively campaigning against.
Namely, it is this notion of politics in America as a melee of fevered egos whose insular slapfighting has little bearing on the lives of the more than three hundre million other members of the polity. As noble as our protagonists’ intentions may be — and I have little doubt of the integrity of their intentions — there is that old saying about intentions and the road to hell to bear in mind.
The take away message from this whole absurd melodrama is that politics still doesn’t really matter to the average individual — an irony to be sure given that much of this revolves around conservative notions about remaining the ideology of the everyman — because no one in the frey has bothered to stop and analyze/critique the fight club in which they are engaged.
So, again, it’s not the what of taking on movement conservatives with which I’m in disagreement, it’s the how. And the how that needs to start taking centre stage, as far as I can tell, is to reject in no uncertain terms the incendiary chest thumping of our current ring of hell (which, I would suggest, has and can be endemic of both sides/parties) and start trumpeting an alternative to which the ever expanding dissident caucus can rally.
A complete rejection in no uncertain terms means, to my mind, a stoic resistance to engaging in the game at all and keeping one’s eyes on the prize that really matters. It does not mean, as E.D. rightly dismisses, “doing nothing”, it means doing right. And by my lights, part of doing right is having the faith in most average folks’ ability to see through the stupidity of suggesting that a woman’s husband take a gun to his head. Call me an unrepentant optimist, but that my friends is being the movement of the everyman.
And frankly, I can’t imagine a better line up of conservatives (with some important additions) to start organizing that movement and discussion than people like Conor Friedersdorf, David Frum, and Rod Dreher. I hearken to another politician who made a similar move recently and seems to be doing alright as a result.
So get to it boys, it’s not just the conservative movement that needs you firing on all cylinders, but the country as a whole.
Kyle Cupp 
Russell Saunders 
Nob Akimoto 
GordonHide 
Rose Woodhouse
{ 6 comments }
Hear, hear!
Actually, I’m sure you’ve forgotten about this piece from the early days of the League, but I think it makes a good companion to what you’re saying here.
http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/01/dont-feed-the-talking-heads/
I think the final paragraphs sum the point up well:
“But none of this could happen if the political opponents of the talking head class recognized that the Limbaughs and Moores or Coulters and Naomi Kleins are only speaking to those with whom they already agree. Why? Because when one recognizes to whom this group is trying to speak, one no longer feels compelled to respond to them – after all, why debate someone who is solely preaching to another choir? And when this group gets no response outside of their own choir, they are unable to create the controversy that puts them on our television screens night after night or as the headline of memeorandum day after day. To be sure, they will still exist and still earn plenty of money without this controversy; but they will no longer be able to lay claim to being the faces of our dominant political coalitions.
Simply put, there’s only one way to overcome the effects of dogmatic, talk-radio, talking points ideology on our national discourse: ignore it. In so doing, you ensure that when a dogmatist speaks, the only ones listening are other dogmatists.”
Ah, with more than 700 posts and counting over a roughly five month period, yeah there are more than a few that have leaked out of my memory banks. But a brilliant analysis as always, Monsieur Thompson.
I wonder, though, are you comfortable with my suggestion that this “kind” of politics pervades beyond just the airwaves and has become our dominant MO generally speaking. I fret that personalities, not ideas, rule the roost.
As much as the Obama phenomenon can be seen as a cult of personality, O himself has consistently focused on the trading and debating of ideas. I think that explains much of his success and popularity, at least in part.
I don’t mind the aguments, I’d just like to see the brouhahas become more interesting and less base. Wanda Sykes’ jokes were just base and tasteless — if she had only raised her displeasure to this level — http://web.archive.org/web/20060326111414/http://www.columbia.edu/~tdk3/vidalesquire69.html :)
Scott – 100% agreed.
Right, but Mike, I guess my counter question, then, is what are these fights really over?
That’s a good question, Scott. I’ve given some thought to it as an objective observer, because I’m neither conservative nor Republican. I believe at the heart of the fight is the distasteful prospect, experienced by moderates who desire more decorum and compromise, of Limbaugh and Beck being center stage on radio and now on TV. I think the moderates believe Limbaugh and Beck are defining the conservative movement in the minds of the public, and they feel this is disastrous in a country which just elected someone who has an entirely different personality — cool, calm, educated, pragmatic, open-minded, modern, cosmopolitan — and that it makes the moderates look bumpkinish and crude. A big part of all this how each group comes off image-wise. Both conservative factions want basically the same thing, from what I can understand, except the moderates are more willing to compromise and move slowly to regain influence, whereas the Limbaugh conservatives want an all-out battle, winner-take-all — but the image problem is divisive, and I don’t know the answer to that, because as long as Limbaugh and Beck are popular, they will get media time and have influence. I’m not taking sides, just stating what I see as the problem. I have to say this though — if the Republican Party wants a big tent, then they have to decide if Limbaugh conservatives are under that tent, or whether they have to be removed to get the diversity they crave. I see the Limbaugh/Beck conservatives moving away from the Republican Rarty, actually, as part of the strange mixture that’s making up independents.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }