Mark wrote this rebuttal to Peter Berkowitz’s book review of Liberty and Tyranny in the American Thinker.
Conservatism in defense of liberty
By Mark LevinPeter Berkowitz, who reviewed my book Liberty and Tyranny for the Weekly Standard, and did a pretty poor job of it, sees the most aggressive assault on representative and constitutional government in modern history and preaches moderation and, ultimately, inevitability.
In the first sentence of his review he asserts “Moderation … is an essential political virtue and a quintessentially conservative virtue.” This is the way forward for conservatism, he insists. At no time does he define “moderation” or any governing principles, other than to misapply moderation as prudence, when prudence is, in fact, about judgment.
Edmund Burke, who Berkowitz misunderstands and, therefore, wrongly cites for his proposition, supported the American Revolution (while rejecting the French Revolution). The American Revolution can hardly be described as a moderate reaction to England’s usurpations. Nor can it be said to be a popular uprising, given that a majority of the nation either opposed it or was indifferent. But it was a revolution whose purpose was to establish a civil society rooted in natural law, a just rule of law, moral order, tradition, faith, reason, and, yes, liberty. Would Berkowitz describe it as a “moderate” revolution? An “imprudent” revolution? Does he think it was a good thing or a bad thing? Of course, moderations can be imprudent in certain circumstances. The conflation of moderation per se and prudence requires such an inquiry of those who misunderstand and misapply the concepts.
For the neo-Statist (or neo-Conservative), the problem is particularly acute when applied to international relations for he usually promotes a hawkish and interventionist foreign policy. If prudence is moderation per se, then how does Berkowitz square this circle? Is bombing Iran’s nuclear sites, even as a last resort, a moderate or an immoderate act? Obviously, the question makes no sense. The test is whether it is prudent.
Thus, those, like Berkowitz, who promote moderation (not prudence) as a principle, are actually promoting a tactic or process without any core. They play right into the hands of the Statist.
.jpg)
In an attempt to remain objective, I read Berkowitz’ piece before reading Mark Levin’s response. I soon wondered, “Is this guy ever going to get to his point?” Way down in its bowels, there it was. Berkowitz’ point is: “I’m scared; let’s surrender.” Man up, Peter (that’s a proper noun, as in Berkowitz’ first name, yet fitting).
LOL Levin calls them ‘boys.’ Rightly so, the only reason for moderating is if you are wrong. Obviously Berkowitz and his ilk are apologetic about conservatism and therefore wish to change it’s meaning entirely.
When making a decision to moderate, a person must admit to himself that he is wrong in some social respect. Levin points out this process like baby steps to statism.
Moderation is also reactionary. It puts the statist as the preeminent authority which the conservative must consult before governing.
The statist is Berkowitz’ mommy, therefore ‘boy’ is an appropriate term.
It has been said that the constant dripping water can wear away the toughest stone. Principles that a lot of politicians on the right used to hold close to their hearts are slowly but surely being conceded, all in the effort to find common ground lest they be the ones who are continually pointed out as standing in the way of bipartisanship. Have you ever noticed that when democrats complain about republicans being unwilling to work with them on certain legislation, it is always because the republicans are not going along with something they want to do? Fact is, the republicans are the ones always expected to give up ground in the deal.
What we’re seeing in society today is the result of years and years of the constant dripping water that is liberalism. When it comes right down to it, some people are just simply tired of the fight.
Peter Berkowitz, like many other “insane, and inept” bloggers is apparently trying to gain name recognition and/or notoriety by criticizing and attempting to fault find with a well established legal attorney, book author, radio personality, and genuine caring human being. From Peter Berkowitz’s article, one can see the mental illness and dementia that has set in from the thinking of the left-wing, looney tune ideologue…. One characteristic of people like Berkowitz is he is ‘smug and self satisfied in his certitudes’, even going to the extent to re-define “words, terms, and concepts” to fit his agenda…., and twisted perception of “how his world should be”. A sure-marker for the mindset of the statist. I seriously doubt that Berkowitz could even debate someone like Mark Levin on the topics covered in his Materpiece Book LIBERTY and TYRANNY for more than 30-seconds without becoming entirely confused and being left mumbling and stumbling about. His reply would begin with ‘DUH, DUH-DUH, Duh?’…….
I actually pity folks like Berkowitz, David Frum, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, and even BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, because of their arrogance, and self-imposed certitudes, they are just too damn stupid to understand the difference between the reality of natural law and freedom and marxist fascist statist theory thinking!! Hopefully they will all fade away into the twilight, and settle with the dust of forgotten idiots…….
From a conservative’s perspective, in today’s political lexicon, moderation refers to how much individual freedom should sacrificed in order to win elections to prevent even more freedom and liberty from being consumed by far left majorities. It is promulgated by fear, the same fear that promotes corporations to yield to some government control in the hope that they do not lose all control. It is often just really bad negotiation… negotiation born out of fear and a sense of helplessness and weakness. Sadly such an attitude is unnecessary and ultimately can result in the same outcome experienced by a panicked swimmer while attempting not to drown.
While listening to a Gary Bower radio broadcast yesterday I was amused by how many conservative callers were slammed regarding their refusal to tolerate moderates such a McCain. Bower was partially right in stating that the reason that we have Obama is because conservatives, to the delight of Soros and the democrat majority, refuse to yield a hall-loaf in order to get the whole. He concludes that this is a right of center country and that we should support less so that we don’t lose everything. Bower went wrong by concentrating on the voter as the problem and not the Republican Party. While most conservatives and republicans despised McCain for his stance on immigration, kneecap and tax, free political speech, the TARP bailout and his position on interrogations most of us held our nose and voted defensively. However, McCain was such a poor choice that he needed Palin to provide any significant possible hopeful conservative legitimacy and to his day, after he has been forgotten, she is well remembered. The problem is not the voter; it is the Republican Party… it chose McCain. The Party may hope to mainstay moderates as an antidote for extreme leftists, campaigning that any republican is better than Obama because that is certainly true but it should also be clear that the democrats and the media so vilified moderate Bush that the cry for change gave us a president so liberal that he makes Europeans seem conservative. Although we easily could now play the opposite tune this is not the time to again offer moderation to defeat a Marxist; it is the time to offer free market capitalist solutions to take back a huge swath of lost territory. If we lost the last election because we offered a conservative alternative we would never stop hearing how we lost on the basis of conservatism and yet the facts reveal that we lost despite the fact that our candidate was so moderate that he received the blessing from the NYT’s. Despite this historical record some maintain the solution is that we now can win on moderation because a big government solution candidate proved he could win against the legacy of George Bush. Not so fast. If the democrats had offered a more moderate candidate they would have won by an even larger margin and if we had offered a more conservative candidate we would have either won or lost by a smaller margin. Obama won by five or so million votes and three million came from California. Most of this country is not like CA or NY. We now have a chance to defeat liberalism with conservatism. This is the time for real change and it must be done before the country gets hopelessly addicted to government dependency to the extent that change cannot be enacted. That is the current hope of the Obama Administration as he takes his cue from entrenched European styled socialist governments. He knows that he must take as many giant steps early on, before voters feel the pain. We don’t need a moderate to defeat this guy, nor will a moderate help America. We need founding principles, not to win, which we will anyway, but to make and keep America the Country she is and was designed to be.
Mark Levin points out the clear difference between those who wrap themselves in the mantle of Conservatism and those who are truly conservative. Those of us who recognize this important distinction stand resolute with Mark Levin.
How many of us cheered Harry Alford (BCC) on last week when he stood up to Barbara Boxer? He rightly accused her of wielding other minority groups (ex. NAACP) as weapons when she demanded their statements be entered into the record because they somehow represent diversity in the minority community. Mr. Alford blasted her with both barrels, as he rightly should.
In his ‘review’ of ‘Liberty & Tyranny’, Peter Berkowitz – and by extension all moderate conservatives – does essentially the same thing (Boxer to Alford) to true Conservatives. Only, in this instance, Berkowitz plays the part of the weapon as he is wielded by the larger confederation of neo-Conservatives. Mark Levin has called him out, and in doing so, has called out the entire cabal of those that play the part of the ‘good’, ‘reasonable’, and ‘moderate’ Conservative…the Peter Berkowitz’s, John McCain’s and the Joe Scarborough’s of the right. For those of us who take Liberty seriously, these soft, swishy Conservatives are tools of the Statist, advocating post-New Deal, post-Great Society acceptance and acquiescence. Whether they recognize it or not is of little consequence; they have chosen to turn a blind eye toward ‘Liberty & Tyranny’, preferring instead, to negotiate with the tyranny that has eroded and aims to destroy our foundation completely. Self-preservation may be one reason why they comprehend the true nature of the soft tyranny they appear to uphold…it’s either that, or shear stupidity. The Statist is a domestic terrorist in that he/she/they threaten the bedrock of our society. Do we wait until they have chiseled and blasted away all that grounds us – our traditions, our culture, our individualism, our religions, and our freedoms? How can you negotiate with that that seeks to destroy you? Civil discourse is desperately needed…and it should not begin with conceding points to the opposition, which is a sign of weakness and an inferior argument. Our greatest strength as a representative republic is that we get to select those that represent us. I would hope that before the next primary cycle, the moderates get on board with the true Conservatives within the framework of the Republican Party. The left loves to promote the ‘can’t we all just get along’ ideology. The answer is ‘NO, WE CAN’T.’ The Statist is our polar opposite; there is no compromise, there is no negotiation, there is no middle ground.
I am heartened that true Conservatives apparently recognize this – as evidenced by the huge disparity in attendance numbers at a recent local book signing in Huntington NY (Levin 6000 – Scarborough 300), and as further evidenced by the comments in the American Thinker, combined with the sales numbers of the ‘Liberty & Tyranny’ versus those of all other political authors.
On behalf of the world, get ‘Liberty & Tyranny’ translated. I believe this is the true reason for the silence in the MSM. Think of what the Statist stands to gain if ‘Liberty & Tyranny’ is contained within our shores.
I didn’t know that Scarborough got as many as 300 attendees. But then again there are more liberals than conservatives in the NY area.