Mark Levin: back and forth, and back and forth, on Trump
This critique of Trump from a conservative—and anti-immigration—point of view was published in Conservative Review, a venue edited by lawyer and conservative talk show host Mark Levin. Levin is an influential conservative thinker, who four years ago disapproved of Trump, but who has been highly supportive of him in the 2016 campaign.
Till now.
I wrote this post back in August describing the changes in Levin’s position from the 2012 campaign to this 2016 campaign.. At the time I wrote that post, Levin (who I don’t believe comes out with formal endorsements, at least not during an early stage in the primaries) was very pro-Trump. In addition, it was Levin himself who (among others) had been instrumental in helping to create an atmosphere among his many listeners that prepared the ground for Trump by having been extremely critical of Republican “establishment” regulars for years.
That’s not to say the Republicans didn’t do their level best to prove him right in many, many instances where they profoundly disappointed their base.
Then, when Trump became a candidate for 2016, Levin praised him, seeming to ignore the Trump flaws and inconsistencies for which Levin had excoriated Trump back in 2011-2012. Although Trump’s history hadn’t been erased, Levin’s objections to that history seemed to have been obliterated.
But recently, since Trump has been stirring up the Cruz-birther brouhaha, Levin’s been showing signs of buyer’s remorse. Now, through the publication of articles such as Daniel Horowitz’s in Conservative Review, and through some of Levin’s own statements, Levin is pointing out Trump’s inconsistencies and missteps and flaws once again.
But you know what? It may be too little, too late. I predict that many Trump supporters are going to choose their hero Trump over Levin. I’ve noticed it before; if someone turns on Trump, they turn on him/her as a sellout.
Today Levin has issued a warning to Trump. He calls it “friendly advice.” But it doesn’t sound so friendly to me. In it, he refers to the sort of things that Trump has been doing lately, and addresses Trump directly:
Either cut the crap – your accusations this morning that Cruz is Canadian, a criminal, owned by big banks, etc. (see link below) – or you will lose lots and lots of conservatives. Save the liberal New York City bully tactics for the New York City liberals. Put down your computer keyboard for a few hours, think before you tweet, and collect yourself. You’re not politically invincible, regardless of the polls and media. I am already hearing more and more people getting fed up with the low road you’re taking against Cruz, which has obviously intensified this morning. You don’t need to attack his honor or attempt to smear his reputation. You can leave that to Mitch McConnell and the New York Times. Engage on real and substantive issues that matter to the country. Like I said, my friendly advice.
Interesting. Dr. Frankenstein has helped to create a Trump-monster that he may not be able to control. Perhaps Levin is only now learning—or re-learning—what Trump is all about.
“Interesting. Dr. Frankenstein has helped to create a Trump-monster that he may not be able to control. ”
Not the first would-be kingmaker to have that problem.
AesopFan:
Goethe famously put it this way in “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice”: “Die ich rief, die Geister,/Werd ich nun nicht los.” (“The spirits which I have summoned/I now cannot banish).
I haven’t listened to Levin for a while, but I know he’s on the same page as Ann Coulter on illegal immigration. That’s probably why he was willing to go to bat for The Donald when the issue was about immigration.
I don’t think Cruz’s attack on NY will hurt him since most of “flyover country” doesn’t like NY’ers anyway AND I doubt any Republican can carry NY state in the electoral college.
But Cruz talks too damn much. He can’t resist using 1000 words when only a sentence will do. Cruz should have said “I took out a loan against my assets to run for the Senate like you would take out a loan against your 401k” and leave it at that. People can understand a 401k loan, but not all technical gobbledygook he can’t resist throwing in.
If one wanted to disrupt the gop primaries and field an eventual disaster of a candidate, what name comes to mind?
I’ve never listened to Levin, as his voice grates too much. I get the impression that his wide knowledge is balanced by an equally shallow understanding.
I look at it this way:
1) Trump is in it to win.
2) The “birther” question is a legitimate question. If asked, it warrants a serious answer. But by whom?
3) Cruz is a very bright guy and a very accomplished lawyer.
How to address the “birther” issue surely occurred to him before he entered the race.
4) What did we learn from the Obama hidden records imbroglio, including the possibly forged Hawaii birth certif?
5) Who has standing to litigate the question? Not some 85 year-old geezer from TX.
6) Cruz is on the primary ballots of the Several States. That seems to make the issue moot, unless the AGs of the Democrat-controlled states like NY and CA seek to remove him from said ballots.
7) Those AGs would be in the untenable position of arguing that Yes, Cruz met the requirements for being on the ballot, but Oops we didn’t do our jobs until the “birther”issue was raised.
Geoffrey Britain:
I find Levin’s voice incredibly grating. I don’t listen to talk shows much, anyway, but I’ve listened to him now and then to see what’s going on there.
GB: Sheesh, you sound like a liberal. Most unlike you.
You do not listen to Levin but his voice grates. Does a voice grate if it is not heard?
Further, how can you have opinions about Levin’s knowledge and understanding as a non-listener? From whom do you get your “impressions”?
You say nothing about Levin’s copious writings.
I respect Levin. Yes he gets angry, the anger of frustration, the anger of the voice in the wilderness, the anger of watching the Constitution trampled.
And I have read his writings.
Neo:
“I’ve noticed it before; if someone turns on Trump, they turn on him/her as a sellout.”
Well yeah. They’re simply playing the game like Left activists.
Frog,
Levin is a very smart man. But he and Coulter made a serious error in blowing the trump horn as a means of stopping the border crash. Why do you and your fellow trump fans believe he will do a single thing realistic about illegal aliens flooding into our nation? What in his past words and deeds makes you believe a single thing he says? But if you and others see him as the messiah to replace our current messiah that is your right.
PS – Although I admire Levin’s intellect, when he begins to rant his voice is grating. And the “birther” fiasco is simply extremely dirty politics on par with “And when did you stop beating your wife?”
Frog,
I have tried to listen to Levin, I find myself unable to get past that grating tone. I’ve read a few of his writings. Not enough to form a definite opinion but enough to get an initial impression. Which is why I used that specific word. Perhaps I’m mistaken but going back and forth is, more often than not, an indication of a lack of depth in understanding.
No one bats 1000. Levin doesn’t either. Going back and forth? Other examples where a change of mind, or a new concern, is bad?
And hey, Levin’s smart and he’s Jewish. Can be a grating combo, especially in the female mode!
Levin is a great conservative author.I find his radio ‘persona’ to be grating and childish.His ‘New York Slimes’& ‘Washington Compost’ comments are better suited to a nine-year-old.I’ve come to the conclusion that he is 100% schtick and will no longer be tuning him in.”Someone that really gets it”? For sure, The off button!
Frog:
Well, I don’t think changing one’s mind is “bad,” necessarily, and I think that Levin sincerely felt that Trump was a good candidate now (and not back then) for one reason: immigration. I think that in recent days Levin has changed his mind again, for very good reasons, and now sees Trump differently. I don’t think Levin is a very perceptive judge of character if he didn’t see that before, but that’s hardly “bad,” and changing one’s mind is not inherently “bad” either.
As for your last little paragraph—insulting smart Jewish females—it doesn’t reflect well on you. Is that your idea of a humorous remark?
“… especially in the female mode!”
WTF does that mean and where does it come from? I dare you to stand in front of my wife and say that. 😉
Geoffrey Britain:
I agree Mark Levin’s voice is very grating, and I get tired of his “angry” schtick, a la Michael Savage, but he is, in my opinion, the smartest political commentator I’ve heard on radio (unless Thomas Sowell and David Limbaugh have shows), and I would highly recommend his books, which I have found to be much more in depth and detailed than the similar fare I’ve read from other commentators.
He has always made it clear that he is not endorsing Trump, although that might be because he never endorses anyone. I never felt his support for Trump is all that strong, and I get the impression that the point he wants to make is that Trump’s stance on immigration issues is actually pretty reasonable, if you strip out Trump’s personality, and his less than precise speech, and the media distortions of what he really says. But maybe I’m projecting.
Like Neo, and as I’ve said before here, I do not support Trump for the nomination. Cruz is my guy, and I think Rubio would be a good second choice, minus the Gang of Eight and related issues. I have been impressed by his performance in the debates, although I haven’t seen the latest one yet.
Trump’s rhetoric suffers from a lot of the same things that Obama’s does… he never claims what he will do, but what he will accomplish, and he spents too much bashing people, although for the most part, I think they deserve it. I had no sympathy, for instance, for Senator McCain when the two of them had a tiff. McCain insults voters. Trump insulted McCain. War hero or not (and I respect him for that, and always will) Grampa Simpson had it coming.
There is one difference between Trump and Obama. Obama never mentions or credits the people he relies upon, whereas Trump constantly refers to the fact that he will get the best advisors he can, and will “learn” everything he needs to know. Obama always acted, and still acts, like he knows everything and has no need for learning.
Trump is an asshole, and that’s the main reason he’s not my choice, but he’s not stupid. I think he could easily rally the LIVs since he’s rallied a lot of much smarter people to his cause, and I think he would be formidable in the general election, because unlike the last two several Republican candidates, Trump can counter much of the power of the biased press. And let’s face it, the press would go back to doing their jobs of holding the President accountable, no matter how poorly they do it, if he were to win.
In addition, it was Levin himself who (among others) had been instrumental in helping to create an atmosphere among his many listeners that prepared the ground for Trump by having been extremely critical of Republican “establishment” regulars for years.
Trump is merely riding the wave of popular sentiment, he did not cause it. Thus Trump is a result of the symptoms of America. He is not the cause of them. Thus it wouldn’t have mattered what Levin did. When a popular movement starts, they will find a leader to represent their ideology. Regardless of what other people want.
Ymarsakar:
My point was that, for many years, Levin was part and parcel of the anti-establishment-GOP movement, and a major influence on it as well. He is a very popular radio host and a lot of people feeling disaffected with the GOP became his listeners, and then as he talked more and more about it, and they phoned in about it and talked about it, the flames were fanned and grew higher and higher. So part of it was pre-existent feelings, and part of it was increasing the feelings and spreading them among listeners, and having his pool of listeners grow and spread the word.
He did not create it, but he augmented it and disseminated it and helped it grow.
Frog and other Trump supporters can, still can that is, stand on their convictions no matter what happens.
However if Messiah Trump and Dictator in Law CEOs start getting in our way, the US Civil War II will not have North vs South cow poo poo distinctions.
If the next Messiah does anything to get in our way, he will not be treated as an ally or a neutral.
There are no neutrals in this war. If there is even a single data point that they are working both sides or with the Leftist alliance, they will not be “protected” under the Rules of Engagement.
Unlike the anti Leftist coalition backing Trump right now, they haven’t been arming up a little 4th generational army for the past few decades. They are not the “shooters”, they are the propagandists, the youth brigades, the propaganda arms of former and maybe current cultural Leftists, still indoctrinated much as Horo is still indoctrinated with his “Kremlinlogist” gently caressing poo poo.
Some of us stopped caring about elections and politics a long time ago.
So it doesn’t matter what happens in the future. But if any faction, that thinks they are “fighting the Left” gets in the way of the other factions ‘fighting the Left’, there will be no gentleman’s agreement to fire only on the Left. Like a real civil war, it’ll be a free for all, all 1000+ factions going at it.
Trump doesn’t need to know this. But his supporters, do. This isn’t over. Hell half of Trump’s supporters are foreign nationals and Americans living overseas. They won’t care what happens to the rest of you actually living inside the US, trapped inside.
Frog,
We all have ‘feet of clay’. Only the immature expect perfection.
“Going back and forth? Other examples where a change of mind, or a new concern, is bad?”
Changing our mind may be a very good thing, if we’ve deeply thought through the issue and base that change in reason, otherwise it’s bad because that change of mind isn’t based in principle but either in emotion or mental ‘laziness’.
Ben Franklin once said, “Having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.”
“Fuller consideration” based in ‘better information” is exactly what I mean by depth of understanding.
If I hold a point of view and am informed of ‘better’ or contradictory information in regard to my opinion, then reason requires that I reflect upon that opinion in the light of that better information and resolve the contradiction through a process of reflection, which leads to a greater depth of understanding.
Dennis Prager, another smart, Jewish guy is proof that the combination does not equate to a grating presentation. And my step-Mom is Jewish and I have never found her ‘grating’.
He did not create it, but he augmented it and disseminated it and helped it grow.
He’s not that important now a days. Maybe the conservative Americans needed radio show hosts like him to spread the news once, but with C4 lines of command and control being setup online, people like Levin become more and more extraneous over time. They get supplanted.
No matter what Levin may have done to contribute to the growth as you see it, Neo, it wouldn’t have mattered if the Tea Party or some other thing had shown the people that they could win against DC, reform DC. That failure, that being crushed by the Left’s strategic weapon, is what really messed people’s hopes up. And without hope, they see and feel despair. And with despair, comes vengeance and hate, and with hate, comes the determination to fight.
Rabblerousers or whatever people call Levin and conservative talk show hosts these days, cannot rouse the rabble when the rabble can clearly see that their lives are getting better, that solutions are getting done. At a certain point time, people are just going to go with “no justice, no peace”.
Levin’s influence is not that great on overall, especially in the case of what propelled Trump upwards, which was the internet C4 communities, newly built. On the bright side, that means we have “allies” online now. It’s not just a bunch of baron blogs that are self enclosed bunkers protecting people from the harshness of the barbarians online and in American politics any more.
Ymarsakar:
My point is exactly that: that Levin is not as important these days as he thinks he is. He helped create the Trump-monster and it’s now way out of his control.
Btw, for those that think I’m inaccurately describing current affairs, check this out.
http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2016/01/blm-reckless-burning.html
Additional comments there as well, analyzing the scenarios.
It’s not the crazy people online people should worry about. A few people talking about whatever, doesn’t matter, it won’t change a thing. There’s precedent for that. Get a whole bunch of Americans who are waking up, stirred up… that’s different. 1000 crazy people, that’s different. 100,000 people who think like that crazy person, is different. 10 million people who are organizing, is something people probably don’t want to deal with. And they shouldn’t have to deal with that… if they are who they think they are.
ConceptJunkie,
I would be pleased if my impression of Levin is mistaken. America needs all the help it can get.
“Trump is a result of the symptoms of America.”
Correct, not an exact analogy but “when the student is ready, the teacher appears”. Movements must have their leader.
“He did not create it, but he augmented it and disseminated it and helped it grow.”
I agree, however people cannot be ‘sold’ what they are not ‘ready’ to buy. Another inexact analogy; “Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?”
Ymarsakar:
What do you mean by the term “C4”?
Geoffrey Britain:
Levin and his audience have been in a positive feedback loop.
Cruz I thought was my candidate until the last debate, when he was squishy on Muslim Immigration. Sorry, if you are not willing to say we are at war with Islam and ALL Muslim immigration needs to end (even if temporary and yes, Jeb, even from India) I’m not going to vote for you when there is a candidate out there who says he supports it (knowing full well it will be negotiated down – as Trump himself points out you open with a hard line and negotiate – don’t start in the middle and negotiate left. Same as the Chinese tariff issue).
As for the citizenship issue, yeah it’s BS but politics ain’t beanbag and if Cruz and his supporters get weak and whiny on this obvious political hatchet what will happen against Putin or the Iranians? What do you think the democrat machine will do in the primary? if you’re whining about the Donald now you really are in for it after the primaries.
Maybe you instead prefer a candidate who didn’t get dirty and wasn’t willing to throw verbal bombs at their opponents? Like Romney? How did his campaign work out?
The citizen issue is a style issue, not a substance one, and performance is ranked not on the content but the performance. That’s why it’s called “politics” and not “philosophy”. The average voter isn’t going to care about the details.
Eric says:
“Well yeah. They’re simply playing the game like Left activists.”
This is why the right doesn’t usually act like Left activists. They’re an unhinged mob.
Neo-neocon said:
“He [Levin] helped create the Trump-monster and it’s now way out of his control.”
Levin regularly discusses points of constitutional law and history on his show. I think there may not be as much overlap between his audience and Trump supporters as you imagine.
Glenn Beck and Ted Cruz went to the border to hand out teddy bears and soccer balls to illegal immigrant children flooding across the border.
Now Beck is faking tweets to make it appear that Trump voted for Obama. Something is going on with Cruz and Beck.
On a slightly different topic:
We had our Maricopa county GOP committeeman meeting tonight; Maricopa county is centered around Phoenix, and contains about half the entire population of AZ. Winning the support of this one county is necessary to win the state.
Two things happened:
1) The body passed an “Anybody But McCain” resolution to the party, telling them that we would rather endorse anybody but John McCain for Senate in 2016. This is another kick in the balls to go along with his censure a few years ago. The vote was about 900 to 500.
2) Despite obstructionist tactics all night, the body had a recall and got rid of the 1st and 2nd vice chairpeople for the county party: two people who were McCain loyalists and had been sabotaging the straight-shooting chairman. These votes were about 1000 to 600.
Really, there was some underhanded shit that went on but we pulled out a victory in the end. McCain may have some serious problems in 2016.
@Matt_SE:
Good report. Encouraging.
Matt_SE:
Oh, I know that the Constitution is another topic Levin spends quite a bit of time on. I’ve sometimes listened to his show for more than a few minutes when he’s doing that rather than GOP-bashing.
He does both. I certainly never said that all of Levin’s listerners are Trump-supporters. Many are, however, and my point was that he did help to create the Trump-monster.
PatD:
I have no idea about that Beck tweet. Some are saying the tweet about Trump voting for Obama in 2012 was a real Trump tweet and then it was deleted; I happen to think it’s not real. I seem to recall that, by the time 2012 came around, Trump was not supporting Obama and I don’t know why he would have voted for him.
Speculation about whether Cruz could possibly be involved somehow in the Beck tweet is purely idle speculation, based on essentially nothing.
However—and this is a fact, not speculation: Trump hated George W. Bush, called him “evil” and said he should have been impeached by Pelosi’s House. Trump supported McCain in 2008, not Obama, but after Obama won he certainly praised Obama in this manner:
Trumpsters are like 600 pound Iowa boars, it takes numerous swats with a 2×4 to make them see the light.
@neo-neocon:
Trump has a long history with the Bush clan. In 1988 he was all in for Bush I.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usb0iE5WiZI
That went south when Bush broke his promise not to raise taxes. Relations got better to the point where Trump hosted a million dollar fund raiser for Jeb Bush’s governor’s campaign in 1999.
I don’t know why Trump hated Bush II. Maybe it was because he thought Bush made bad decisions after 9/11. In the video, he says that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That is probably true. Some evidence suggests Iran helped the 9/11 hijackers. The reality is that pathetic US Security let the hijackers over stay their visas, train for their attack, and execute. While some agencies had clues, Jamie Gorelick’s infamous wall prevented the agencies from sharing critical information. The Iraq adventure cost the US trillions of dollars and thousands of lives and yielded nothing. Trump says we should have never gone in. If you hate losing money and wasting lives, then Trump has a point.
In retrospect, it seems that invading Iraq was not such a good idea, just as toppling Gaddafi was not such a good idea.
Many conservatives were hopeful that Obama’s election was a good sign for America. It was, but Obama blew it. Race relations are at their lowest ebb in generations. And most everything else.
PatD:
In retrospect, invading Iraq was a good idea except for the fact that the presidency of Barack Obama and his actions as president re Iraq were not foreseen. Nor could they have been foreseen.
Everyone, including the present administration, had declared the war a success in 2011. Do you not remember? Obama went against the advice of all his military advisers and made it into a failure, and counted on people to blame it on Bush.
As you have done.
I know about the history of Trump and the Bushes. In fact, I wrote an article about it for the Weekly Standard. See this.
@neo-neocon:
You missed the earlier history of the Trump/Bush relationship, that I cited, in your Weekly Standard piece,
Obama threw away everything that the US gained in Iraq. True. But we could have stayed there and fought, and the end result would be the same: Shiite control of Iraq. That could be foreseen because Shiites outnumber Sunnis in Iraq. Democracy in action.
Once the Sunni bully boy was gone, Shiites win. Was that in US interests? Probably not, because a Shiite victory in Iraq is a victory for Iran.
Neo could have substituted the name, Rush Limbaugh, for Mark Levin while she left everything else the same. Rush claims he hasn’t endorsed Trump but he spends much of every program shouting about how wonderful Trump is. If Mark Levin really does have buyer’s remorse that would be one of the few differences between himself and Rush.
Rush is a fan of Trump’s fighting style. Except for the rudeness, it mirrors his own.
I liken his reaction to that of a fighter in a bar who’s been holding his own against all comers, and the random hurled beer bottle, for an hour, when suddenly someone else JUMPS IN and starts kicking the crap out of the attackers alongside him.
At that point, you’re almost giddy with relief and the unaccustomed sense of having an ally, even if only for this one fight, who is actually landing blows.
The guy is only human.
Probably not, because a Shiite victory in Iraq is a victory for Iran.
Democrat victory in CW 1 was a victory for the North, because Democrats were in power in the North via elections. That’s how that logic turns out.
America won in Vietnam, because American Democrats were on the side of the Soviets, since the Soviets won at the Fall of Saigon, America also won.
That’s the kind of “strategic” thinking on display there.
What do you mean by the term “C4”?
Command, Control, Communications, and Computers.
C3 is the normal WWII logistics train setup. C2 is even more limited and primitive than that, no radio, have to use couriers or signal flares.
Basically America, when fighting the Left, had maybe a C1 or a C2 level of centralized organization before. They had no communications, other than some independent radio hosts or political pundits. Not the media. Not underground covert based networks of email lists of Leftist journalists, the way Leftist journalists actually do operate due to the exposure of JournoList.
Everything was fragmented, but not in a good. McVeigh didn’t even know what the strategic objectives could be, he had no communications with the rest of America. And that’s someone who can figure out a fertilizer bomb and actually have enough Willpower to use it. There wasn’t a culture tying them together, with people who thought like him, who might have told him there was a better way. After reading Unintended consequences, McVeigh purportedly stated that he would have done things differently had he read that book before the Oklahoma thing.
It’s my own take away from what people have done in talking about and researching and even implementing 4th generational warfare. 2003 to 2007 Iraq and Afghanistan helped fill in the gaps, which comes as a result of a civilian background.
This is why the right doesn’t usually act like Left activists. They’re an unhinged mob.
The Left and their anti counterparts, will be effective so long as people don’t give them something better to use.
That’s how things work in a war. Nobody pays attention to the idealist that talks about how “things should be”. They only care about military power and pragmatism, they don’t care about winning on points and then losing the battle as a result of it.
The people who care about the idealistic abstract cover ups are the people not fighting on the front lines, they’re too busy choosing ice cream colors.
Really, there was some underhanded shit that went on but we pulled out a victory in the end. McCain may have some serious problems in 2016.
On the topic of that, Matt’s example is a good demonstration of realistic application of the phrase “Think Global, Act Local”.
Have a broader strategy, but try not to do impossible things at the tactical level, keep it within the feasible, while supporting that grand strategy.
Busing people from one end of the country to another, to vote in some “election” or do campaigning, isn’t grassroots networking. It’s called astroturfing. It’s a kind of power projection like the way carriers provide the United States military, but it’s not from the ground up. There’s no structural root reaching all the way to the core of the planet. It’s just a bunch of things floating and moving.
Sorry, if you are not willing to say we are at war…
People actually believe “saying” something is the same as “doing it”. It’s like Hussein Obola’s mind control techniques. If he says he is transparent… well, he must be, right. If a politician says he is going to build a fence… why, it must already be true.
Deeds over words. For those with warrior virtues, at least. Not a bunch of sheep and livestock in America, thinking they are “free”. They’re free all right, free range. Free range outside America too.
Once the Sunni bully boy was gone, Shiites win.
The Kurds win. Or have people so easily forgotten what they are now regurgitating.
I haven’t had time to read all the comments and will have to come back to them later, but I want to say that Levin “going back and forth” is a sign of paying attention and responding to actions and events. Until November 2008 I listened to Prager, Medved and sometimes Hewitt, and occasionally Limbaugh and Mark Levin–I’ve always liked his delivery. Since then I listen to KUSC (classical music) and Prager’s designated hours–no politics. My husband and I have 3 adult children–all conservatives–that hold the same principles and standards that we do. We are all planning to support Cruz, but are all thankful that Trump entered the arena and changed the discourse. He did! Levin is open-minded, not a party hack–sorry Dennis & Michael Medved! Levin is a constitutionalist and so are we. The Republican party’s actions under President Bush and under this administration remind me of our current interactions with Iran. A combination of pussy-footedness and utter defection. My son finishing his 8 years with the Marines said it best about JEB!, “If he really had our country’s best interests at heart, he would have never agreed to run.” And that says a lot about the Republican kingmakers as well.
Either cut the crap — your accusations this morning that Cruz is Canadian, a criminal, owned by big banks, etc. (see link below) — or you will lose lots and lots of conservatives.
Typical of the old generation patriots and American conservatives. They still think it’s about “winning votes” or support. They should have figured out by now, something else is going to happen.
The Tree of Liberty was not about winning or losing “conservatives”.
They don’t get it. They don’t want to get it.
That is true of Mark Levin Ymasakar: he wants nothing to do with bloodshed where it can be avoided. On the other hand, it isn’t Levin who veers back and forth, to and fro, but Trump. That is, by Levin’s lights, or from the principles he takes as his guide — in shorthand, the principles of America’s founding and framing as understood by those who accomplished those tasks. What is somewhat puzzling, however, is this idea that neo-neocon has that Levin is the problem, rather than one who highlights the problem. Levin says right out that he has not been, as neo-neocon puts it, “a big supporter of Trump”. Nope. Levin says straight out that he’s a big supporter of the principles of the founders and framers, and that where Trump aids the advancement of those principles, Trump will have praise from Levin, and where Trump moves toward the Democrats and the political left generally speaking, Trump will have criticism from Levin. It’s not hard to see, or hear, if one grants Levin his premises. It is also easy to see that Levin would prefer Ted Cruz to be the Republican Party nominee, but that he also understands the primary voters will decide that issue. And therefore it is not in the interests of promoting the success of Constitutional principles — again, as Levin understands those — to drive away all and every of Trump’s followers, but better to try to persuade both Trump and his followers to stick to the narrow road in support of the Constitution (using the shorthand for the unique American regime), between the perils of Scylla on the one hand, and Charybdis on the other.
sdferr:
Apparently you misunderstand what I’m saying.
“Levin is the problem”? Never have I said that, never. Levin is exactly what I said—a person who has been talking about the awful establishment for years, and thus has been one of many people who have helped prepare the ground for Trump. In addition, I wrote the following, which I now call your attention to in case you missed it the first go-round: “That’s not to say the Republicans didn’t do their level best to prove him right in many, many instances where they profoundly disappointed their base.”
In other words, he was talking about something Republicans had actually done, time and again.
Nor, of course, was he the only one.
So how you translate that into Levin being “the problem” rather than someone who highlights the problem is perplexing.
Oh, and Levin can say all he wants that he’s not been a big supporter of Trump. He has this campaign; I’ve followed it. Not a supporter as in “He’s the one, I endorse him, he’s perfect.” But a supporter and a big booster.
In addition, Levin has absolutely steered back and forth, back and forth. Follow the link in my post and take a look at the post I wrote about Levin’s changes between four years ago and now. He absolutely excoriated Trump as a candidate in the 2011-12 season because of things Trump had already said. Those things have not changed, but in the 2016 campaign Levin ignored those very same things as though they had never happened and praised Trump. Now he’s finally coming down hard on him again because of Trump’s treatment of Cruz. But Levin’s earlier flip-flop on Trump was a case of ignoring what Levin already knew about him and his character and propensities.
Sharon W:
No, Levin’s changes are not just a reaction to events.
Follow the link in my post and take a look at the post I wrote about Levin’s changes between four years ago and now. He absolutely excoriated Trump as a candidate in the 2011-12 season because of things Trump had already said. Those things have not changed; Trump’s history is Trump’s history. But in the 2016 campaign Levin ignored those very same things as though they had never happened (and as though Levin had never excoriated Trump for them) and now praised Trump. Now Levin is finally coming down hard on Trump again because of Trump’s treatment of Cruz. But Levin’s earlier flip-flop on Trump was a case of ignoring what Levin already knew about him and his character and propensities.
I simply think Levin would answer you as I put it neo-neocon, and would not account to himself that he “has helped to create a Trump-monster that he may not be able to control”. This, he would simply deny — one can imagine appended to the denial “It’s just crap”. And has in fact denied. Levin says “I’m a big booster of constitutionalism.” And would probably add: period. Trump, after all, moves Trump. Certainly not Levin. And Trump’s popularity is in the manner of those twin perils mentioned above, simply something to be faced, traversed, suffered as it were. In such instances one does the best one can. [And indeed, I agree that Levin has swept his earlier heartfelt criticisms of Trump under the cloak of invisibility. I don’t say otherwise. And wouldn’t.] Which, as indicated, by Levin’s lights is sticking to the principles, advancing them where possible and attempting to avoid harms to them where not.
But if being the creator “Dr. Frankenstein” is not “the” problem in the making of a monster, then what portion of “a” problem would we accord to it? It’s a big problem, big enough to make a stink about, evidently.
But recognize too, that I am not Mark Levin, nor necessarily agree with his choices, but here attempt merely seek to afford him his own voice — which though he speaks in the dialect of Philadelphese, is nevertheless his (so I will surely fall short of him), but neither mine nor yours. I inject what I believe would be his defense for these choices.
I don’t see Trump as a monster. Either he’ll be a useful asset against the Leftist alliance, as many of his backers hope and believe, or he won’t be. It’s rather binary in that sense, although later on it gets complicated.
Levin can back whomever he wants to, given his own personal resources. It’s not an issue in a free kingdom of independent humans.
The thing about freedom is, real freedom of self and conscience, is that if you have resources, like a radio station or other propaganda connections, you can use it however you see fit. The limit is that you can’t use it to make me do what you want to do, Levin can’t make me support Trump or anything else.
If Levin turns out to be wrong on any single point or feels guilty, that’s on his conscience, not mine.
If Levin turns out to be such a major problem, I won’t try to “convince” him to change his ways. I’ll just shut off any trade and contact, removing my resources from the pool and table. WHich is what America should have done for Iran and Cuba… but hey, that’s what oligopolies and crony fascist capitalist mafia types don’t do. They like the sex tourism, too much. THey like Iran’s “benefits” too much.
sdferr:
Well, I had no idea you were channeling Levin 🙂 ! I have no doubt he would deny and/or defend.
As for my Frankenstein remark, that was a joking analogy. In the body of my post I explained what influence I think Levin has had on the Trump phenomenon, and I make it clear that of course Levin was not the sole “creator” of Trump.
Nor is Trump a soulless golem, as was Frankenstein’s monster. It was not meant to be an exact analogy. I didn’t think it needed explaining, but yes, Trump is an autonomous human being, very much his own man. His followers, however, are susceptible to propaganda and influence, and many people who listen to talk show hosts day after day after day are certainly influenced by them.
Ymarsakar:
See this on the monster analogy.
It’s a dirty job, but I opined [per’aps mistakenly] that someone’s got to do it.
It seems clear though that Levin’s current choice to oppose what Trump now undertakes as Trump underhandedly smears Ted Cruz with a range of leftist demagoguery and dogma is due to Levin’s own convictions to his principles. Right? I mean, he’s not being even a bit arbitrary about those, is he? And so to that extent Levin can be seen to follow a single thread, or to be seen to be coherent, rather than weaving scattershot about the field as he traverses the developments of the primary electoral process. Leastwise so it seems to me. And in this, or in making these choices Levin does seek to influence those of Trump’s followers who are open to arguments on behalf of those principles and against the principles the Democrats hold dear.
sdferr:
Levin is inconsistent in holding to some of his principles.
In 2011-12 he criticized Trump for just such underhanded attacks (against Bush in that case) and Trump’s praise of Pelosi et al. In 2015 Levin ignored all of that, although Levin had been aware of Trump’s character and dirty fighting four years earlier. The, when Trump attacks Cruz, Levin suddenly becomes aware of the type of thing Levin was aware of all along, and objects to it.
Right. And wrong. But such is the way with applying a rule (which always wants to be universal) to the practical problem of navigation (which is always and everywhere particular, never universal). I believe that to Levin’s way of seeing these practical matters Trump had no particular following in 2011-12 which required attentive care, whereas in 2015-16 there is simply an enormous crowd of people to be reckoned with. This is what he attempts to do, keeping those of Trump’s followers on board the constitutionalist’s train to be educated and persuaded as long as possible: i.e., as long as Trump himself would cooperate. Now that Trump chooses to stand apart, lines have to be drawn — and tacit support, withdrawn.
sdferr:
Indeed. His position was pragmatic and business-oriented: to keep his audience.
I wouldn’t call that “principled,” though, unless the principle is to make money. Which is, after all, a principle of sorts.
I think Levin’s aims while including his audience and therefore his own interests in his business are yet broader than merely his business interests — those aims do seek to directly address, if not at the most fundamental levels nevertheless at a very wide level the ideas of politics — our politics — on their own terms as goods in themselves. He sees and resonates in his own way a certain beauty in this stuff, and so possesses a sort of eros for it. And he does this in some regards in ways we don’t frequently encounter in our wider media. So, I don’t draw up so cynically short with Levin. Still, a man’s gotta eat, so he too confronts as he chooses the necessities which bind us all.
Mark Levin , Glenn Beck and Ted Cruz , the new Three Stooges !
Vote Trump if you want to win !