Thinking of Mark Levin. Here’s what I wrote about 9 years ago.
_________
The Mark Levin Show and Mark’s new book:
Plunder and Deceit, Big Government's Exploitation of Young People and the Future
When I first heard you, Mark, I was taken aback by your caustic, brash, and passionate manner.
But I was also (and more and more as time has gone by) taken with your honesty, by your commitment to our nation's founding documents and the processes by which they came to be, by your ability to dissect the absolute BS of the Left, and by your incomparable ability among the denizens of the media (and most academics) to explain clearly where political action veers off the road of reality, regardless of party affiliation, and how and why it must crash and burn.
I have wondered what it is that causes people to unthinkingly react to your passion as they do and I have come up with at least six things:
1. The kindergartenization of society. Kindergarten is where all children are encouraged to "be nice," regardless of how completely effing stupid, wrong, and evil their classmates (or teachers) are. As I was told in my Educational Theory class long ago, kindergarten is the only grade where the progressive social theology has completely taken hold.
2. Mr. Rogers. Sure, Fred was a nice guy in every respect that I have heard of and studies show that kids preferred his gentle approach to the frenetic, short attention span, rapid whiplash changes of direction of Sesame Street; but quietness in one area doesn't mean that quietness is necessary or required in all areas of life. The exposure, though, to this approach over a very limited subject area tends to lead the immature audience to believe it is appropriate to all subject areas.
But it completely overlooks the necessity of certain types of behavior that, in their context, are absolutely essential for survival. If a mall is going to get shot up by some jihadist, I want someone whose bellow to get down and take cover is WAY louder than the shooter's obligatory Allahu Akbar.
I don't want a Mr. Rogers type trying to engage the shooter with "Won't you be my neighbor?" and an attempt to engage with him based on the underlying common areas of their humanity.
The underlying common areas are mostly all the same. It's the difference that makes the difference, like the very tiny difference between bonobo and human DNA. But you wouldn't marry a bonobo just because your DNA was mostly identical, even if you do have the same favorite Starbucks drink.
3. Indoor versus outdoor voices. This technique of teachers calling for "indoor voices" serves to inculcate in students the belief that "indoor voice" means serious, studious, respectful, that is, gentle girl behavior--desired by teachers and school administrators and "outdoor voice" means mindless play, loud goofing off, fighting, strife, that is, raucous boy behavior--disparaged by teachers, counsellors, and school administrators.
But it completely overlooks the absolute necessity of certain types of behavior like the latter that, in their context, are essential for survival. I want someone who is instantly able to spot the jihadist behavior (maybe even from just the sound through a restroom door of a Kalashnikov being loaded), know exactly what it is, violently take the shooter out as quickly and permanently as possible, and put a cop chalk outline artist out of business.
4. Sports. Sports are portrayed as non-essential, non-real, though fun, parts of life, filled with a lot of sound and fury among fans but ultimately (in the social scheme of the Left) signifying nothing. So the loud partisanship of fans is transferred to the loud partisanship in other areas to make the latter seem as non-serious as the former is portrayed by the Left.
"Hey, it's just the game of politics! Don't get carried away. Sometimes you win. Sometimes the other guy wins. Be collegial, like the U.S. Senate, so we can all win."
Yeah, like Israel versus Iran?
5. School history movie imagery of folks like Hitler, Mussolini, Southern racist (Democrat) politicians, and others loudly ranting. These portrayals imply that talking passionately is equivalent to the content of the speech of these who are most often portrayed in media as evil.
But look at the generally less raucous speech of folks like FDR or Margaret Sanger or Algore. Their content was and is as crazy and as dangerous as any of the loud ones portrayed as the dangerous ones, but folks have been trained, often to their own harm, to identify calm and quiet with reasonable and good, like Ted Bundy or Barry Obama (when talking to non-core constituency white people).
6. The idea that if your idea has validity, you don't need to speak loudly or passionately, because we already know that speaking loudly does not make something factually wrong turn into something factually right. But this ignores the fact that many people ARE moved by the passion and eloquence of a speaker to assent to his ideas or calls to action, even if they are wrong.
The answer to this is not to eschew a technique for good because it is used to promote something bad. This is the verbal equivalent of "Guns are used for crimes, so no one should own a gun." I would rather have someone thoughtlessly do something right by being swayed by passionate rhetoric than to have someone fail to oppose the wrong by being left unstirred and uninspired by soulless NPR-speak.
So keep up your head of steam, Denali, and drive the Left even more insane than they already are. At some point the lunacy will reach a level that everyone will be able to see it, even those whose ability to spot it easily and act against it has been blunted by Miss June since back in kindergarten.
Still like watching his show.