Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark Levin

Mark Levin is something of an aberration amongst conservative pundits. He's no opinionated blowhard like Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. He's smart - really smart.

Which makes Levin's new book, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, fascinating to read - even if you're liberally-inclined.

The concept of Liberty and Tyranny is a simple one. Written last year - when the lack of cohesive leadership within the conservative movement was at its most obvious - Liberty and Tyranny is essentially a call to arms for conservatives.

Styled after Karl Marx's 'Communist Manifesto,' it explores what conservatism really is, where the movement's origins lie and what its goals are. He challenges what it means to call yourself 'a conservative' - and Levin even finishes his 'manifesto' on the same note as Marx - a conservative version of the call to action: 'Workers of the World Unite!'

The book demonstrates what a multifaceted concept 'conservatism' has become - and how competing conservative voices often clash as they stand up for opposing values.

What Levin accomplishes is stripping down the values of competing voices, peeling away each prejudice until all that's left are the essential ingredients that make up a 'true' conservative.

It's in recognizing shared values that libertarians, social conservatives and other self-styled conservatives can find a common purpose, even if they disagree on other important issues.

It's in achieving this that Levin's manifesto becomes frighteningly effective.

In attacking liberalism, Levin resorts to crude, but effective techniques. His first step is in refusing to call the left-wing 'liberals' at all. He prefers the more chilling: 'statist.'

As the word "liberal" is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more accurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist.

But Levin uses more than name-calling to skewer the left wing - identifying key hypocrisies within the liberal agenda and nailing them with aplomb.

For example, Levin identifies how liberal government bypasses the 1st Amendment 'Right to Free Speech' by encouraging political correctness - the muzzling of free expression through accusations of racism, sexism or bigotry.

The Statist veils his pursuits in moral indignation, intoning in high dudgeon the injustices and inequities of liberty.

He similarly highlights how the left-wing use the U.S. Supreme Court to undermine popular law - 'legislating from the bench' to bypass the democratic process.

This is what he calls a 'soft tyranny' - a concept he lifted from Alexis de Tocqueville's book Democracy in America. Levin argues that America has been heading down this path of 'tyranny' ever since Roosevelt's 'New Deal' - and his manifesto warns conservatives that they share a common duty: Opposing the growth of a 'conglomerate' federal government.

Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto is quite unlike any conservative book I've read before, because it has gravitas. Most conservative authors (like the clownish Glenn Beck) produce lightweight literature that's easy to dismiss. Mark Levin, on the other hand, makes a credible case that resonates even with die-hard liberals like myself.

It's not light reading - Levin has a doctorate in law and writes like it. But Liberty and Tyranny is nevertheless an energizing read for conservatives and a thought-provoking one for the rest of us. He might not win any new recruits, but anybody brave enough to read this book will certainly have a new perspective on the ideology of the right wing.

Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark R. Levin is available now for $15.00

'King' Khan is detained at Newark: Flag burning ensues.

It was just a few weeks ago that Continental Airlines caused a controversy by forcing former Indian President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam to undergo routine airport security screening - an 'affront' to his status as a dignitary.

Well, now the Americans have 'done it again,' by daring to detain Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan at Newark Liberty International for an unthinkable 66 minutes.

Outrage ensued - with 'King' Khan's fans burning U.S. flags and protesting at what they decried as 'ill treatment' of their beloved star. Indian politicians angrily demanded an investigation.

But an investigation into what, exactly?

The rest of us regularly get detained at airports. What makes Shah Rukh Khan so different? Or is it just another example of this curious mindset which argues that certain people (be they former presidents or Bollywood legends) apparently don't need to abide by the same rules as the rest of us.

I mean, let's set the record straight here. Shah Rukh Khan is an actor. Yes, he might have starred in over 70 Bollywood hits, but he sure as hell doesn't have diplomatic immunity! For people to expect Americans to treat him 'differently' than the rest of us is offensive and fanciful!

Shah Rukh 'King' Khan: Not really a king.

(I don't care how famous Khan is over in India, but I'm willing to bet that most of the people working at Newark Liberty have never heard of him - hence why his protestations of 'Don't you know who I am?' would have gone unheeded!)

Khan at least had the good graces to deal with the situation diplomatically - telling his fans: "Let's put this behind us, think positively and move ahead." But he did add cattily that this experience means: "I certainly wouldn't like to travel with my family to the U.S."

But let's put this into perspective, please, Khan!

He was detained and questioned at Liberty International for 66 minutes - not even the length of one of his movies! Instead of complaining, he should be grateful he wasn't strip-searched or presented with a big man in a latex glove!

Now, I've been detained at Liberty International on two occasions - probably due to my somewhat checkered Immigration history. I will admit that it's annoying and inconvenient and I have some very valid reservations about the conduct of certain Immigration Officers.

But being detained? It's just part of life following the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Shah Rukh Khan should know: He was in America to promote a movie about post 9/11 racial-profiling in the United States.

So just as I argued regarding former-President Kalam, I don't see why there are a few angry people who feel that so-called Indian 'dignitaries' should receive special treatment at the border. The rest of us 'normal' people are forced to submit to the indignities of the security screening process and immigration. What makes people like Khan so different?

On American soil, Khan's really not much more of a superstar than I am - which is why I'm actually pleased to see him being detained at immigrations.

The fact that he was put through the same meat-grinder as the rest of us makes me feel like the Border Control staff at Newark are actually more egalitarian and more meticulous than I'd previously given them credit for. It makes me feel safer.

And if Shah Rukh Khan feels so 'traumatised' by his detainment? Perhaps it was just the injection of humility the Bollywood legend needed.

Tolerance in America

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among human creatures.

Abraham Lincoln

In the past few months, I've witnessed an awful lot of people bleating about their rights, claiming persecution and donning the mantle of victimhood. I've stood up for quite a few positions during this time - some of which I was right about, others that I might not have been.

I've come think the secret to a happy society is tolerance. But what is tolerance?

I've been thinking about this a lot and I think tolerance is actually easy. Tolerance is the subtle art of not getting up off your arse to meddle in somebody else's business.

For example, if my evangelical Christian next-door-neighbor wants to home school his kids, (teaching creationism and other delightful fairy tales) my natural instinct it to leap up and do something about it. But do you know what? Maybe it's none of my business. Maybe I should let him do whatever he wants and confine my opinions to how I live my life.

Likewise, if the two young men next door want to get married, the idea might be sickening and disturbing to you - but their union isn't going to affect you at all. In fact, to propagate a popular stereotype, their house renovations might raise the property value of the entire street. Maybe you should leave them to do whatever they want to do and confine your opinions to how you live your life.

The best thing about tolerance is that it's that easy. You don't have to do anything.

To protest religious homeschooling, you have to write an angry letter to the school board ("Dear Sir, teaching creationism is akin to child abuse!")

To protest gay marriage, you have to campaign for legislative reform and paint placards (God Hates Fags! Mal 1:3!)

To do the right thing - and be tolerant and respectful of other people's rights to live how they want to - the only thing you have to do is settle back into your chair and take a sip of your Plym and Tonic.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to support it. All you have to do is recognize that it's none of your Goddamned business (and therefore, your opinion on the matter is completely insignificant.)

Here endeth the sermon - but I think it's just as valid a lesson for liberty-lovin' liberals like me as the right wing people I'm always attacking. Looking back, I realise there's no ideological right or wrong. When it comes to Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, the Conservatives have been right on some issues, the Liberals have been right on others - and they've both been wrong on things a number of times!)

As long as they don't infringe on anybody else's freedom and nobody gets hurt, we've no right to prevent people making their own choices in life. It's called progress, Baby, and you'd best not stand in the way of it.

A shameless nonsensical rant...

So here's why I'm always bitching about some (but not all - you know who you are) social conservatives - they really don't seem to get the idea of 'liberty.'

What I should be doing is bitching about the most extreme liberals - who really don't seem to get the idea of 'personal responsibility.'

Actually, those accusations work equally well the other way around!


The Far Right

Take some conservatives. They boast about being 'good Americans' and supporting 'liberty' and the 'constitution,' but they do no such thing!

The first amendment means that the social conservatives should stop trying to ban pornography! Barring child porn and bestiality (which require child abuse or animal abuse to produce) I think anything filmed between two consenting adults (and viewed by consenting adults) is fine.

If you don't like it - don't buy/rent it!

It is not up to the 'moral majority' (which is neither moral nor a majority) to dictate to the rest of us!

Likewise - let's have some T&A back on the television, please. I think after a 10pm watershed, American television should show all the nudity and bad language they want. If parents don't want their kids to be 'corrupted' then DON'T LET THEM WATCH IT.

It's not the network's responsibility to monitor what kids watch (after a certain time.) If parents don't like it, they really shouldn't let their kids have TVs and access to the Internet in the privacy of their bedroom.

Don't they remember being kids themselves? Of course they want to watch the naughty stuff! (Back in my day, I used to thumb through Jilly Cooper novels just to get to the saucy bits.)

It's called the 'off' button people. Learn to use it. The television is no longer your kid's babysitter! (The DVD player is.)

Let's move on...

How about teaching creationism (old school creation doctrine, not fluffy 'intelligent design') in schools? It's totally stupid, but I'll meet the social conservatives half way on this one...

If people want to home school their kids, or send them to private school, I think it's fair enough. Teach the we tykes whatever you want (thank goodness there are responsible home schoolers like Coffee Bean who give their kids a well rounded education - and still manage to squeeze in the religion.)

I think teaching 'new earth' creationism is ridiculous and still say it's tantamount to child abuse - but it's your money, they're your kids - if parents want to send them out into the 'real world' thinking that the earth is six thousand years old and dinosaurs were just really big chickens, that's their (ir)responsibility.

But public schools, funded by taxpayers money, should only teach secular, proven fact. Not even intelligent design, which is meaningless and unprovable.

And if parents don't like that? What about letting them have 'vouchers' so their property tax can be refunded to pay for their kids to attend religious or private schools?

Hmm. Why not? Then they'd stop demanding prayer in public school, intelligent design in the public classroom and stuff like that. There would be the opportunity for them to have education their way and leave us to have (sensible) education our way. I think that's a fine compromise.

Okay, onto gay rights.

Let's talk turkey for a second. Despite long arguments with CK, I suspect he's probably right.

The Bible probably does say that "teh ghey" is wrong, ghastly, unnatural and an abomination. But the Bible says a lot of things that turned out to be rubbish (and a few things that didn't) and I'd prefer to look at a more progressive picture.

Men and women, just like animals in nature, occasionally turn out 'a bit gay.' They seek sex and relationships with their own gender. And you know what? That's absolutely fine with me.

Seriously, it's like what I wrote about pornography. If their sexual and romantic tastes were directed towards children or animals, that would be wrong (since it would involve or risk child or animal abuse.) But between two consenting adults? I think that's fine.

It doesn't do me any harm whatsoever - and that goes back to the essential rule about American society - I don't have to like it, but if that's what you want to do with your life, leave me free to do what I want to with my life in return.

So whether it's marriage or civil partnerships, I think there should be a system in place for men and women to enjoy the same rights and protects of a married heterosexual couple (and suffer the same divorce problems if that relationship breaks up.)

Anybody who disagrees? They're sticking their oar in and trying, once again, to dictate to America what is and isn't 'moral' according to their own narrow-minded agenda. That's not acceptable. You don't dictate how I live my life (unless if affects you, which, in this case, it doesn't.)

Abortion. How about that?

Well, I can see where social conservatives are coming from here. But when it comes to unwanted pregnancies, they're not the ones facing the most difficult decision of their lives...

Imagine that you're a forty-five year old single woman and you're accidentally pregnant (and there's a good chance that the kid will be seriously disabled when it's born.)

You're not financially, emotionally or physically ready to bring this baby into the world... Yet somebody else, sitting in the smug comfort of another state (and another life,) decides that they should make the decision about what's best for you and your unborn baby. Then they take no responsibility for what happens after they've decided that your baby should be born.

I don't know. It's a trickier issue because we're talking about another life. But I think, within reason (say, up to 13 weeks, or when there are medical issues) we might just have to accept that what's best for mother and baby might, just might, be up to mother and baby to decide.

And I don't think that's a decision any pregnant woman makes lightly (or forgets in a hurry.)

The Far Left

Let's leave the social conservatives alone for a second and move onto the liberals. These guys can be just as bad, if not worse.

I mean, take Barack Obama, dictating that the oil companies 'make too much profit.'

I'm sorry, but if you run a private business and operate within regulations, you should be free to make as much damn profit as you like! It's not like the oil companies are even the biggest businesses in America. The pharmaceutical industry makes billions more than Exxon. What are you going to do? Start redistributing their profits next?

Good luck, America. I think the supply of new and exciting drugs will start to dry up pretty damn quickly when that happens.

This is America - the land of opportunity. You should have the freedom to (legally) make as much profit as you want - and keep it (or redistribute it to your shareholders.) The government should butt out!

While we're at it, what is up with this reckless abandonment of personal responsibility? I thought the conservatives were bad enough, trying to ban pornography. Liberals want to ban smoking and trans fat (and have succeeded in New York.)

I hate eating in a smoky restaurant as much as the next person - but I think there should be bars in New York that are allowed to let smokers in. Give people the choice - smoking or non smoking. If they want to go to a smoking bar, that's their responsibility and their right.

Likewise, if you don't want to have smoke blown in your face, you should also have that right. I agree with some specific 'smoking' bars, but I also agree with a ban in every other public venue, like cinemas and sports arenas.

It's the same with trans fat.

Okay, so it's really, really bad for you - but nobody's forcing you to shove Kentucky Fried Chicken down your gullet. If you eat too much fatty food and have a heart attack, that's your shauri. You made that choice (and this is America. It's your right to.)

Banning trans fat is the start of a slippery slope. Next what'll it be? Dairy? Salt? If the liberals had their way, we'd all be eating nothing but a homogenized vegan slop.

It gets worse. I recently heard of a bartender on Long Island who got arrested because a woman he'd served got into her car (over the limit, since she'd been drinking elsewhere) and killed some poor kid on her drive home.

Lock that lady up and throw away the key - I'm fine with that. But the bartender? He was just doing his job? I know bartenders are not meant to over serve, but by suggesting he's responsible for the girl drink-driving also suggests that she isn't.

**adopt sarcastic tone** Poor little lamb. Despite the fact that she was probably drunk when she rolled up to the bar in the first place, it's not her fault that she drove drunk. It's that mean ol' bartender, who served her a drink even though she was already tipsy. All because she would have yelled at him if he didn't.

Liberals seem so desperate to relieve us of responsibility for anything. Why doesn't anybody man up, hold up their hands and say: "Yeah, I made a bum decision and I take responsibility for it?"

That'd be refreshing.

The Big Picture

At the end of the day, the far left and the far right have the same vision. They see America and it's problems and want to fix them.

Statistics prove that banning smoking saves lives. People claim that banning pornography would reduce sexually transmitted diseases. The Bible said that the world was created in six days and somebody in the Tennessee backwoods wants to teach their boy that (and demand that every copy of Jurassic Park get burned.)

Perhaps banning these things would work for the 'greater good.' But manipulating society to 'make it better' is social engineering. It's the sort of thing you'd expect in Communist China or North Korea.

This is America. Whether they're right or wrong, we should have the right to make our own decisions here.

It's inalienable, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As long as that pursuit doesn't interfere with anybody else's, why should it be restricted?

In the upcoming election, people banter around words like 'patriotism' and phrases like 'a good American.' Well, isn't this what being a good American is all about? Defending the freedoms that the founding fathers fought and died for?

Even if they never anticipated that those freedoms would be the right to produce pornography, marry another man and gorge ourselves to death on fried chicken!