JONATHAN CHAIT APRIL 26, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
There are a few writers who contribute to National Review's blog who understand that many other writers for National Review are poorly-informed propagandists. Generally, this minority of intelligent conservatives have tended to avoid criticizing their more rabid colleagues, or have couched their criticisms in the most gentle terms. But last week, in the midst of a wide-ranging blogospheric debate about the epistemic closure of the conservative movement, Jim Manzi, one of the right's more interesting and original intellectual figures, decided to unload on somebody, and he picked Mark Levin, a Limbaugh-esque talk radio host.
Manzi picked out one chapter in Levin's book, which concerned global warming, and demonstrated that it consisted largely of discredited denialist hocum. The response from the more orthodox NR writers was predictable. Kathryn Jean Lopez chastised Manzi for criticizing an ally in the war for liberty. Raging maniac Andrew McCarthy raged maniacally. Basically, the response to Manzi was the blog equivalent of this:
Apostate conservatives, based on their familiarity with Manzi's position, have produced some interesting commentary on the affair here. Conor Friedersdorf writes:
This kind of exchange causes everyone who writes for The Corner to wonder what exactly they’re “allowed” to say without certain of their colleagues scolding them, focusing on their tone while utterly ignoring the substance of what they say, and otherwise making it appear as though untouchable status at National Review is granted via some formula: it considers size of radio audience, quantity of additional books one expects to sell on being invited on their show, and potential career damage should the conservative entertainer in question turn against you in private, or else instruct the least thoughtful sycophants in his audience to wage ideological jihad against you. As I know from experience, Mr. Levin has lackey bloggers who’ll willingly launch character attacks against anyone at his slightest urging.
David Frum waxes sardonic:
Manzi could have safely disputed Levin’s claims on global warming if he had observed a couple of conditions. First, acknowledge Liberty and Tyranny as a good and important book. Second, acknowledge Levin’s “service” (i.e., leadership) of the conservative cause. Third, isolate criticisms to one particular finite point – avoid drawing any larger conclusions – and be sure to wrap any criticisms in a blanket of compliments. Just because one particular chapter happens to be slovenly, ignorant, and hysterical should not lead you to question the intellectual merit of the book as a whole. ...
Reading through the comments in the Corner, there’s no mistaking who’s in charge, who’s subservient. Two Corner contributors complained about Manzi’s “tone.” Levin is the most vituperative radio host this side of Mike Savage – but imagine anyone at The Corner complaining about Levin’s tone.
On the narrow point, I actually side with Manzi's critics here. It's true that the complaints about his"tone" are wildly hypocritical, especially from McCarthy, and indicate a double-standard. On the other hand, these kinds of double-standards are hardly unique to the Corner. Almost any online publication maintains a double-standard between internal and external criticism. Writers at the American Scene or the Frum Forum might disagree with each other, but they're not going to call each other wingnuts, as Manzi did to Levin. You can admire Manzi's courage in speaking truth to power while acknowledging that NR's denizens weren't totally out of bounds in taking offense at his manner.
Of course, this points to an inherent problem with maintaining a blog that functions as a bulletin board for the conservative movement. The standards of entry are extremely low, and the number of contributors is vast. The practical effect of this is to force a huge number of conservatives to grant each other collegial deference. This makes it harder for a conservative like Manzi -- who, for all his flaws, does craft arguments with data gleaned from outside the hermetic universe of conservative talking points -- to actually call a spade a spade.
7 comments
"Basically, the response to Manzi was the blog equivalent of this" ... followed by a blank space. I have a feeling you meant to embed a YouTube video (or something similar) there. What was it?
- jweintra
April 26, 2010 at 12:09pm
C'mon Chait, writers at TNR pretty much all disagreed publicly with mini-me Kirchick. I remember a few choice postings. And as to former writers of TNR there has been a number of flame wars, the latest between Leon and Andrew. Your view of this double standard is nothing but self glorification or lack of awareness, take your pick. Don't you even remember that huge outcry here at TNR's boards when Marty criticized Chris Orr? (it wasn't the criticism, it was the disparity in power that outraged us,a boss publicly criticizing a writer is terrible on many levels). Simply put, why should there be a double standard? outside of disparity in power why should you not label something idiotic another writer says as being idiotic. If Jonathan Cohn did suddenly change his mind and say, yes there are death panels, or went to the extreme left and said only single payer should have passed so the bill should be repealed I would expect you to label it as idiocy. We all appreciate that Marty is your boss so he is pretty much off limits but outside of that why would you think we want to pay for a magazine where the writers are not honest? Manzi, unfortunately, works for a magazine where idiocy on some level must be a pre-requisite so you are lucky at least not to have to deal with that. But don't call not labelling idiocy idiocy a virtue, call it what it is - naked self interest.
- blackton
April 26, 2010 at 12:19pm
by the way, I have found Frum forum to be not bad. I have seen the responses to a number of articles and it is not wingnut heavy, in fact as to the Arizona bill it seems to be pretty heavy against.
- blackton
April 26, 2010 at 12:23pm
Whatever else is the case, Manzi did manage to elicit this gem from the appropriately named McCarthy:
Translation: if presented with a problem I would not investigate that problem, or assemble experts of it to do so. I would assume it's not a problem, trust whichever 'experts' can window dress my gut instinct for me, and let whatever dissenting experts remain go off to a gym and pump each other. If, having done so, they can figure out how to translate their problem in terms that we all understand are the critical priorities- taxes, regulation, government bureaucrats and, of course, the dirty Muslims- they can come back to me, and we can see if tax cuts for the rich are the best or the only means of addressing it. Speaking of which, Manzi was wrong on at least one point in his initial essay. Levin's global warming chapter was not wingnuttery, at least not if this response is the benchmark. Of course, when you set the bar that high, even Idi Amin can seem reasonable.- I Majorajam
April 26, 2010 at 12:27pm
But Jonathan, in fora where the wingnuts aren't allowed to run wild or aren't in charge, whether at periodicals or blogs, there wouldn't be the crying need for the Jim Manzis. I say three cheers for Jimbo. You have inaugurated the Wehner Fallacy here; why not create the Manzi Award, and confer it with some regularity on worthy conservatives who speak truth to their powers-that-be and who deconstruct the hermetically sealed world of epistemic closure?
- liberal reformer
April 26, 2010 at 12:54pm
Jonathan Chait writes: -- Of course, this points to an inherent problem with maintaining a blog that functions as a bulletin board for the conservative movement. The standards of entry are extremely low, and the number of contributors is vast. I was sorely tempted to stop the quote at the word low. We don't need to go to any conservative blog to see this effect. We see it at The New Republic where the number of posts critical of any Israeli policy can be counted on one hand with a few fingers to spare. I don't count as ardent criticism a vague assertion of support for the Israeli Labour Party.
- ndmackenzie
April 26, 2010 at 1:36pm
I Majorajam, and the most amusing thing is how McCarthy can't even put 2 and 2 together being that the major source of funding for these jihadists waging this global war against us is the oil that they are selling to us, and which might incidently be a leading cause of man made global warming, then I have to say that McCarthy is pretty much a shit head. When Al Gore was recently ambushed by Fox, I wish he had asked them why they love Al Qaeda so much that they want to continue to fund them by the burning of fossil fuels. On many conservative web pages I have never once gotten a sane response to this question outside of the deluded belief we can drill our way out of it.
- blackton
April 26, 2010 at 1:46pm