The Tyranny of Mark Levin’s “Liberty”
While I’ve never been above self promotion, my latest at Taki’s Magazine does examine the politics of a popular, mainstream conservative who has been the subject of much controversy here at Post Right. The following is from my article The Tyranny of Mark Levin’s “Liberty:”
When the average Mark Levin listener hears the phrases “national defense” or “national security,” he naturally thinks of current U.S. foreign policy, automatically assuming that our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops stationed all over the world are not unnecessary occupations or imperialism as some claim, but very necessary defensive measures of the American homeland. That this might be a bizarre way of looking at the world, and that many conservatives have said so—including giants like Russell Kirk whom Levin cites—is something the reader will never know. One even wonders if Levin knows. And Levin gives the impression that global American empire, not merely a republic in which “each state was free to act on its own,” had been the Founders intention from the beginning.
In his attempt to create a conservative defense for policing the world, Levin promotes neoconservative utopianism and imperialism by denouncing any attempts to pursue utopianism or imperialism. Confused? On the Iraq War Levin writes:
As for the utopian motives for invading Iraq, apparently Levin had forgot about Bush’s many “spreading democracy” speeches or the president’s seeming comfort that “hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women are deployed across the world in the war on terror… bringing hope to the oppressed.” I certainly don’t remember Levin criticizing or warning of Bush’s utopianism, even for a war Levin now claims to have supported on non-utopian grounds. I have also heard Levin use similar, utopian language himself, usually in the midst of a heated pro-war rant.
As for imperialism, the subtext to Levin’s argument that “if the war in Iraq is understood as an effort” of actual defense against “real threats,” then virtually any possible future preemptive military action could qualify as “defense.” The talk radio host’s refusal to even reexamine whether Saddam Hussein was ever an actual threat is a curse that continues to plague the mainstream Right—due in large part to the glaring blindness of men like Levin.
I seriously doubt that Levin actually wrote the thing. The writing is reasoned and thoughtful and measured which is totally unlike his radio persona. I can’t imagine him being that charitable to paleos. Quite honestly, it is hard for me to imagine that he even has much of an idea what paleos are. His thought is so totally within the movement conservative box.
Jack, I think the best responses to your arguments are already espoused in the excerpts you quote.
One thing: Waterboarding is certainly not torture. It may not be pleasant, but remember this is in the context of warfare. It is a cause celeb among the left, and apparently among the paleos and libertarians.
A little water down a murderous terrorist’s throat is simply not a concern of mine. These are the same thugs who cook people’s children and serve them, unwittingly, to the parents for lunch. (That was in a report I read, though I cannot find the link. If you find this unconvincing, consider they stone women for showing their hair, throw acid in little girls’ faces for going to school, behead our journalists, and skin our servicemen.) When (and if) they’re found guilty, they’ll probably executed anyway.
It’s very hard for me to get excited about waterboarding that, on top of all this exculpatory context, has only been used on three individuals.