Peter Berkowitz of the Weekly Standard also concluded that Mark Levin was: "To be sure, there is a vital place in democratic politics for passionate partisans like Levin who rouse the base and adopt a take-no-prisoners approach to political argument. And better to have your enthusiasts on the airwaves where their principal job is to entertain than in the universities, which (officially, at least) remain devoted to dispassionate intellectual inquiry. But rightwing talk show hosts' extremism on behalf of liberty and tradition should not be allowed to set the tone for officeholders and party leaders. Nor should their immoderation slide over into an attack on moderation itself, especially since a delicate balancing act sustains their core conservative commitments."
1. Denying consumer choice and hiding aspects which are under high sources of scrutiny and highlighting those which incur none or little. In layman terms, he is very discrediting.
2. Can see the same if a human being is looking up or down, rivals and enemies, teacher or student. Very damaging if he cannot prove he is a family man and a trustworthy businessman. As an insect and human rodent, nothing you say has any real meaning or taken serious. This is like taking Bernard Maddoff seriously as a financial advisor; who would?
3. Does not reply openly and honestly to criticism but views criticism as obstructionist to the statist; a do as I say tradition of winning land and not letting go of it ever until force is used; a give it back and take no prisoner refund only mentality.
4. Several conservatives reversed the principle of truth and adopt a zero tolerance; however, there is supposed to be a zero tolerance for lies or corruption based on conservative principles. The same could be applied if one was on the other side of the spectrum.
5. Untrustworthy and linked to groups who wish to overthrow the government and impose zero tolerance while saying one thing and doing another. He is not alleging others are. He is claiming he is the leader and other rivals are statists with no accountability.
Read his entire criticism and determine who the disappointment and intellectual liar is: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/conservatism_in_defense_of_lib_1.html
My personal comments about Mark Levin: TERRORIST AND CAPTURED MOLE!
1. And so where did you develop your economic views if you did not take any economics classes or mention the Austrian School of Economics? Did you read it on a blog or find the research material of someone?
“For Berkowitz, rather than a fairly obvious truth that it is government, more times than not, which is responsible for misery throughout human history -- particularly given recent real world examples of widespread misery from the former Soviet Union and East Bloc, where creative destruction and capitalism were rejected, to our own automobile industry, which, as I explained in the same chapter, is hardly an example of the free market at work and, as is clear, has cost taxpayers, investors, and employees dearly -- he paints the argument for the voluntary use of labor and capital as rightwing extremism. I would discourage him from reading Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and a score of other less prominent economists, some of whom, dare I say, are teaching at universities and colleges. Conservatism borrows from all kinds of "rightwing extremists." If you reject capitalism as producing far more good than bad, albeit imperfect (which I explain repeatedly throughout the book), then you do far more than embrace "moderation." You reject conservatism.”
2. When you say “creative destruction” do you mean 911? If so I find you elusive and very insulting.
"Comprehend a future without creative destruction. It is bleak, backwards, and destitute, like most authoritarian societies. Yet the Statist has persuaded some erstwhile conservatives of its demerits. Typically the argument is formulated around protecting America's industrial base. The question is asked: How can America allow its industries to fail and outsource its vital needs to other countries? From where will we get our steel? How will we build our tanks? This is a circular argument. The Conservative urges an economic environment stripped of debilitating regulations and taxes that hinder the performance and competition of American industry. He believes American industry is more than capable of competing against foreign industries and, in most cases, does so. However, where industries are subjected to the Statist's heavy hand rather than the free market's invisible hand, they are obstructed and burdened in ways that are counterintuitive and self-defeating. Ultimately, it is an unworkable formula, as the rest of the world is not obliged to adhere to it but rather will look for ways to exploit it. The Statist, therefore, is destructive of the very ends and the very people he professes to represent"
3. If people bought your book, then they know how horrible and gullible the victims of Bernard Maddoff felt when they found out who he was and what he was up to; the good faith he sought is conveyed in the most disrespectful way possible; criticizing them for not allaying support to an undignified predator. Ronald Reagan would have hung you in a tree for treason and claiming to be teaching us about life, such the case with Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh; you all just cannot stop and end this standoff. Now the argument is you do not deserve our wrath and are partners?
“Liberty and Tyranny confounds it critics, as it did Berkowitz. By combining philosophy, history, law, economics, and current events I make the case for conservatism and against non-conservatism. The book can be cherry-picked here and there if a reviewer wants to make out-of-context points and arguments, as Berkowitz has. There is much more to the book than Berkowitz wants to admit because his agenda was not so much to honestly review it but rather to try to advance his own case for "moderation." As such, my response to his review of my book is also an unflattering review of his Weekly Standard piece… There really is no other philosophy that respects the individual and nurtures humanity generally. Despite what some say, including the Weekly Standard when it published this subtitle -- "And extremism is no virtue in politics" -- it is a "broad-tent" philosophy that applies to all people. I tried to capture its wonderment in Liberty and Tyranny. So far 850,000 people have read it, and I will leave it to them to draw their own conclusions free from Berkowitz's agenda.”
No comments:
Post a Comment