Back when I first started blogging in 2003, I came up with the motto “one person, one voice, one opinion; consider it as you will.” It warrants repeating every now and then.
Now is a good time for now.
One of the easiest ways to detect a flawed argument is when either support or opposition to a philosophy focuses not on the philosophy itself or any proposal based on it but rather solely the person or persons espousing same. Note that I said support as well as opposition, for believing in a message based on the messenger rather than the message itself is as superficial as taking the opposite tack. Certainly the credibility of the messenger, highlighted by their track record and the like, comes into play; more on this in a bit. However, it is the message itself that is paramount.
A couple of Christian examples on this, one Biblical and one contemporary. The apostle Paul in his first letter to the problem child otherwise known as the church in Corinth laid into them for several reasons. One of them was how members were identifying themselves as followers of Paul or one of his fellow ministers such as Apollos or Cephas (better known as Peter) instead of followers of Jesus. As he scolded, “What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe — as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.”
For an illustration taken from modern times, consider Billy Graham. Most everyone knows his name and what he’s about; he’s an evangelist. Yet Graham has never cultivated personal followers. If you’ve never done so, take the time to listen to a recording of him preaching at one of the hundreds of crusades he’s conducted over the decades. His message is never about himself. It is focused solely on Christ, crucified and risen.
Getting back to the influence of a messenger’s credibility on their message, with the example of Graham in mind it warrants mention that a vital consideration in determining same is noting what level of preeminence the messenger place on his or her self as compared to the message. Even for the most self-effacing it’s a delicate balancing act. There has to be a willingness to present the message. This requires at least some amount of self-promotion in order for the message to be heard. That said, the true messenger invariably places preponderance on the message itself. Their role is to be as skilled a conduit for the message as possible for the purpose of promulgating the message, not the messenger.
To summarize, a messenger doing their job is not seeking the limelight even when it shines on them. It is the message and only the message that matters.
Taking this into the political realm, let’s look at the three unquestioned leading lights of conservative thought in today’s media: Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Mark Levin. What, beside a shared albeit not identical political philosophy, unites them? Further, why are they the ones in whose wake everyone follows?
Dismissing the moronic rants of imbecilic haters who rail against anything and everything connected to Limbaugh, Beck and Levin for what they are — as said, moronic rants of imbecilic haters — two traits readily come to mind. One is, ironically, the absence of “one.” None of the three are one-man gangs. They have assembled top notch staffs who do things right, putting the necessary work into research and verification of facts. All three readily credit their people. They lead, but they’re not flying solo and they say so.
The second shared characteristic is all three thoroughly understand that regardless of the power and truth in their message, presentation counts. Limbaugh, Beck and Levin are entertaining. Limbaugh is a master of mock pomposity, the art of on the surface appearing to be a walking ego trip while in reality delivering this image with a wink saying it’s in fun; a persona not to be taken seriously. Beck is living theater laced with compelling apocalyptic warnings. Levin is that rare pundit whose philippics are culminations of carefully laid and detailed lines of truth rather than little if any support not summarized in four words: because I say so.
Limbaugh, Beck and Levin are hardly in lockstep with each other. They don’t agree on every everything, and they spend little time cheering each other on. In fact, Levin has stated more than once he is hardly a fan of Beck. Nevertheless, the three stand together. They draw the biggest crowds, whether it’s on the radio or television or in person. In Beck and Levin’s cases they sell the most books. In all three cases they are where they are because they are the best at what they do. Period.
What of those who aren’t yet believe they are?
There are many superb writers on conservative matters. Three that immediately come to mind are Victor David Hanson, Dan Collins and the Anchoress.
Please note I didn’t list Michelle Malkin.
If quantity was quality Malkin would be a shining star. She is a literary perpetual motion machine, constantly turning out copy. Unfortunately, seldom within her volumes of words can much original copy be found. Malkin is a RSS feed with legs, churning out a never-ending stream of snips from the writings of other people with little to add save a multitude of variations on “me too” and/or “hey look at this.” There’s not a lot of there there.
Malkin’s books sell well. Yet when conversation turns to conservative pundits known to people on the street who don’t obsessively follow politics, her name comes up about as often as someone goes into a convenience store asking where the non-alcoholic beer is located. Why?
Refer back to why Limbaugh, Beck and Levin are so popular. They share the credit and they present the message in an entertaining manner. Malkin does little of the former, and as those who slogged through the online videos she made when her site Hot Air was starting up know there is a reason why there isn’t a seat being held for her at any network. However, there is another factor not yet mentioned that plays a huge role in why the pecking order is what it is.
Limbaugh, Beck and Levin man up.
Malkin? Not so much.
Earlier this year when a furor erupted over Limbaugh’s “I hope he fails” comment at CPAC, not once did Limbaugh back down. He said it, he meant it, and he stuck by his guns when not a few people allegedly in his camp decried his lack of civility. Beck doesn’t apologize for his statements. Levin doesn’t apologize for his statements. Their response when queried as to whether they believe what they say is “damn straight, Skippy.” They are the point man. They speak their piece and whatever comes as a result, bring it. Responsibility is on me.
Malkin uses marionettes to convey her message whenever she wants to take potshots at someone on the right.
Those who can do; those who can’t criticize those who do. Malkin isn’t in Limbaugh’s, Beck’s and Levin’s league. Not even close. Looking at Hot Air’s main writers and the one-note samba they play concerning the aforementioned along with Sarah Palin, who’s demonstrated more leadership via the occasional post on Facebook than the rest of the Republican party put together, it becomes quite clear that Malkin’s natural eye color is bright blazing green.
While Allahpundit and Ed Morrissey endlessly drone on about every perceived shortcoming of Limbaugh, Beck, Levin and Palin while paying them the occasional backhanded compliment for the sole purpose of attempting to support plausible denial whenever called out on it — Allahpundit’s meltdowns when the pressure’s on are the stuff of legends — Malkin skates on by, playing the role of Internet queen to the hilt. She provides no substance and takes no responsibility for her employees playing flamethrower.
There are two methods in media that draw attention: create quality or generate heat. The latter is quite easy. Find the hot button issues, pour some gasoline on the fire, and sit back as everyone rushes in to argue the issue. Hot Air is aptly named. It generates tremendous heat, all the better for driving up the site visit total so Malkin can charge more for advertising. But quality? No. Unless a medley of “look at me — SQUEE!” at which Malkin excels and Allahpundit’s theme song “Poor Poor Pitiful Me” by Warren Zevon, popularized by Linda Rondstat, is your idea of a perfect pair for tops of the pops.
Perhaps if Malkin were to start being honest and do her own criticizing of other conservative pundits instead of hiding behind Tweedledee and Tweedlebetamale there would be some reason to respect her. Perhaps. Right now there is none. Malkin values the messenger far more than the message. Provided she’s the messenger.
It is regrettable in the extreme that Malkin comports herself in the manner she does. She has at least something to offer, albeit not nearly as much as she is credited for. But her active engagement in surrogate sniping leaves me cold. I’ll listen to someone else for the message. Thanks anyway.
As said at the beginning: one person, one voice, one opinion. Consider it as you will.
Loved the post. I think you nailed it. Did you know the word for servant Paul used in vs 5 has the general meaning of what we would call a waiter or busboy? High profile positions..