fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Detached Frank Luntz Vs. Engaged Frank Luntz

Frank Luntz told a class at Penn that Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin are bad for the GOP and for conservatism, and told them why he thought so — but only on condition that his remarks were off the record. A student in the class didn’t honor that promise, so the video got out. Luntz […]

Frank Luntz told a class at Penn that Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin are bad for the GOP and for conservatism, and told them why he thought so — but only on condition that his remarks were off the record. A student in the class didn’t honor that promise, so the video got out. Luntz wet his pants. Conor Friedersdorf wonders what the heck?:

Others can discuss the student’s behavior and Luntz’s reaction. What’s noteworthy here is the fact that a 51-year-old man who has authored at least two best-selling books wouldn’t make a point about Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin that he himself regarded as very important unless he thought it wouldn’t spread beyond a small room of college students. If he regards the point as very important, shouldn’t he be willing to put his name behind it and restate it for larger audiences? But no. He is unwilling to air relatively mild criticism of two prominent talk-radio hosts, even though the criticism in question is so banal that I’ve read it before at least a hundred times. It is sad that this would plausibly cost him work, and problematic that he would let that stop him.

I’ve written variations on the “conservative talk radio is problematic” theme more times than I can recall. Do you want to know a secret? Some prominent conservatives agree with me. I know because of the “not for attribution!” emails I’ve gotten — which I will always, always honor. But I still think they’re bizarre. They always come from people who’d definitely be fine financially if their remarks were made public. So what’s the problem? We’re not talking about the sort of courage it took to sign one’s name to the Declaration of Independence. Or the kind it takes to be a whistleblower in the Obama Administration. These are just critiques of entertainers.

Many conservatives think Rush and friends are best ignored, or that criticizing them is counterproductive. That’s fine. They should hold their tongues. But if you’re someone who thinks criticizing them is important, for God’s sake, just speak up. What’s the worst that could happen? Does anyone think that Luntz will now be a pariah who is unable to make a living and winds up begging for change outside a Daily Grill in Bethesda? As someone who thinks that criticism is important in general, and that criticizing the wrongheaded statements and behavior of certain talk radio hosts is important too, the silence of so many people who agree vexes and confounds me.

Amen to that. Well, a qualified amen. I completely agree with Conor that it is shameful that a man of Luntz’s age and stature would be so cowardly about standing up to radio talkers. Luntz works on the conservative side of the political spectrum, and is paid good money to advise Republican office-seekers and office-holders how to gain and maintain power. Yet he’s too timid to say what’s on his mind about people and a phenomenon that he genuinely believes is hurting the Republican Party? How crazy is that?

To be fair, there is something about the Right that rewards loyalty at all costs. Frank Luntz may be many things, but he is not an idiot. It is not necessarily untrue that telling what he believes to be the truth will cost him work. To me, that is no reason not to tell the truth; it is a reason to find another line of work. As Conor points out, there are plenty of GOP elites who more or less agree with Luntz, but whose tribalist mentality frightens them from saying what they really think. Why anybody thinks this is good for the GOP is beyond me, but it’s true.

To understand this dynamic a bit, take a look at David Brooks’s column today, about the differences between political writers who are “detached,” and those that are “engaged.” Excerpts:

There are trade-offs, no matter what spot on the continuum you ultimately choose. The engaged writer enjoys a tight community and a powerful sense of commitment. The detached writer enjoys more freedom and objectivity. The engaged writer emphasizes loyalty, while the detached writer emphasizes honesty. At his worst, the engaged writer slips into rabid extremism and simple-minded brutalism. At her worst, the detached writer slips into a sanguine, pox-on-all-your-houses complacency and an unearned sense of superiority. The engaged writer might become predictable. The detached writer might become irrelevant, ignored at both ends.

These days most writers land on the engaged side of the continuum. Look at most think tanks. They used to look like detached quasi universities; now some are more like rapid response teams for their partisan masters. If you ever want to get a political appointment, you have to be engaged, working on political campaigns and serving the team.

This is an important point. I used to take seriously research and reports coming out of conservative think tanks. I don’t really anymore, because I don’t trust it to be anything other than cooked-book partisanship. This is not always the case, but I’ve heard too many stories of independent thinking within those places bridled for the sake of advancing partisan goals, and a partisan narrative, to pay that much attention to what gets produced by most conservative think tanks these days.

More Brooks:

Also, detached writers have more realistic goals. Detached writers generally understand that they are not going to succeed in telling people what to think. It is enough to prod people to think — to provide an idea or piece information that sets readers on a train of thought that takes them far in front of whatever you put down.

The detached writer understands that, at the top level, politics is a bipolar struggle for turf. But the real fun is down below, sparking conversations about underlying concepts, underlying reality and the underlying frame of debate.

Shouldn’t this be what think tanks do? Shouldn’t this be what Frank Luntz does? If they don’t do that, what good are they? And: shouldn’t conservative politicians want and need the independent advice of thinkers and strategists?

Look, I understand that everyone who works at an elite level, whether in politics, business, or what have you, has to be able to withhold their honest opinion sometimes. Not everything that can be said should be said, or said at every opportunity. But the Right has a real problem with fear of dissent in its own ranks. This is not a sign of a strong, united, confident political movement, but of a calcified orthodoxy.

But what do I know, I’m a detached conservative who writes for a detached conservative magazine. I’m having real fun, for sure. I like the view from outside — but as Brooks warns, that kind of thing can lead to a smug irrelevance. Balance!

Advertisement

Comments

Want to join the conversation?

Subscribe for as little as $5/mo to start commenting on Rod’s blog.

Join Now