Posted on | November 11, 2010 | 7 Comments
Somebody needs to research whether Media Matters rang the anti-Semitism bell when the Left was routinely accusing the Bush administration of being controlled by a sinister cabal of Zionist neo-cons.
Better yet: Why wasn’t it Jew-hating when Media Matters was going after Pamela Geller? (Twenty-one hit pieces in September alone.)
Remember that it is wrong to accuse liberals of not having standards. They have exactly two standards: One for them, and one for everybody else.
UPDATE: Commenter Joe in the previous post links to Jeff Goldstein’s mocking link to a post by Professor Bainbridge telling us that the problem with the conservative movement is . . . Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Mark Levin and Dan Riehl?
Somehow, I’m thinking that the ghost of Russell Kirk might object to being invoked in support of that argument. And, relevantly, is Professor Bainbridge ignoring the charge of anti-Semitism against Kirk?
“And not seldom it has seemed as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States – a position they will have difficulty in maintaining, as matters drift in the Levant.”
Just kidding. I’m not going to do the full-on Media Matters guilt-by-association smear on Professor Bainbridge. Rather, I’m trying to point out that this argumentum ad verecundiam trick of invoking Famous Dead Conservatives to condemn Famous (or Semi-Famous) Living Conservatives is generally invalid — mainly because the Famous Dead Conservatives you cite were, in their time, denounced by their enemies as hateful Know-Nothings.
Trying to use Mark Levin as Exhibit A in an indictment of anti-intellectual populism is likely to prove a difficult project: He’s Phi Beta Kappa and a magna cum laude graduate of Temple University.
UPDATE II: Mess with the bull, you get the horns:
I cite to several intellectuals in Liberty and Tyranny. [Professor Bainbridge] quotes Russell Kirk. I am a big fan of Kirk’s. I even cite him in my book, which the professor clearly has not read. I also cite Tocqueville, Locke, Montesquieu, Smith, Lewis, Friedman, and many others. Somehow I missed the professor. Does that sound like an anti-intellectual? And I routinely do the same on the air.
I don’t cite Bainbridge in anything I do because he is sadly inconsequential. . . . His influence, intellectual or otherwise, appears minimal in academia or elsewhere. I’m sure he’s a smart guy. He might even be likeable. But who knows? Who even cares?
Levin links to Bryan Preston’s fisking of David Frum:
When the Democrats all but locked Republicans out of the health care bill negotiations, Frum denounced . . . the Republicans, for not “compromising.” When the Democrats passed that bill over the objections of the majority of the people, Frum denounced. . . the Republicans. Now that the Republicans have won big over the Democrats, here comes Frum to denounce . . . the Republicans. Seeing a pattern in any of this?