Liberty and Tyranny – a Conservative Manifesto: Mark Levin's Interpretation of Political Ideology is Absolutist

In Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, Mark Levin creates an enemy to liberty, anyone who does not subscribe to his brand of conservatism. He establishes this dichotomy of American politics and society early. Levin explains that his manifesto is based on his "own opinions and conclusions of fundamental truths...about conservatism and, conversely, non-conservatism - that is liberty and tyranny in modern America." (1) Basically, only non-conservative ideologies lead to tyranny. In the following chapters, Levin presents his case for conservative ideological absolutism concluding with a summary of his manifesto in the epilogue.

Non-Conservatism

Levin's dichotomy, the conservative versus the non-conservative, is short-lived. In fact, he gives a face to the non-conservative, the Modern Liberal. He cleverly advances his dichotomy by re-naming the Modern Liberal a "statist." Therefore, readers continue the book with a clear enemy to liberty, the Liberal. This misnomer helps Levin maintain readers' loyalties to the false dichotomy, particularly when he accuses so-called conservatives of staitst tendencies. Levin claims "the Republican Party acts as if it is without recourse." (193) His accusations are warranted, but his argument fails when he claims Ronald Reagan's eight-years are the exception. In fact, Reagan expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit in 1986, based in the progressive tax system. Levin's conservative identity does not include progressive taxation. (199) According to his own logic, Ronald Reagan was a non-conservative and falls into the same category with other non-conservatives as tyrannical beings.

Conservativism Based on Founding Principles?

Levin's protagonist, the conservative, is a direct adherent of the founding fathers' principles. Which fathers? Which principles? Levin's historical memory is selective. His book is riddled with quotes and excerpts from the founding fathers and their relationship to Edmund Burke. In fact, the founders largely rejected Burke during the founding years. Jefferson disagreed with Burke's evaluation of the French Revolution and disdain for Enlightenment principles. Referring to Burke's Toryism in a letter to Benjamin Vaughan, 1791, Jefferson noted, "the revolution of France does not astonish me so much as the revolution of Mr. Burke...How mortifying that this evidence of the rottenness of his mind must oblige us now to ascribe to wicked motives those actions of his life which wore the mark of virtue and patriotism." Levin distorts the historical record by associating the founders with Burke during the founding. Burke's and many of the founders' political views did not intersect until much later.

While some of the founders certainly provide support for Levin's brand of conservatism, others do not. When he claims the conservatives principles are the founding principles, he only tells part of the story. He argues that "soft tyranny" is a product of statism that largely emerged with FDR, another example of Levin's enemy of liberty, which has progressively enveloped the nation ever since. His premise, however, is not historically accurate. Levin's "soft tyranny" has existed since America's founding, not some 1930s counterrevolution. Indeed the founders codified a limited view of liberty in the Constitution and imposed Levin's "soft tyranny." The three-fifths compromise in Article 1, Section 2, referred to slavery and how to count slaves for representation. The founders principles, therefore, varied and cannot be branded as modern conservatism. Debates between Federalist and Anti-Federalists over the government's size and scope further complicate Levin's wholistic claim to founding principles.

Levin's Absolutism

Levin's portrayal of American political ideology is simply not supported by history. His interpretation of conservatism's roots is absolutist and offers no alternatives or compromise. Since he ties conservatism's roots to the founders, it is best to judge his work on those terms. Levin argues that conservatism shares the founders' principles while non-conservatives hold an opposite position. The founders, however, shared some of Levin's statist qualities just as some Modern Liberals share the founders' principles. The founders interpreted liberty to mean something different than their American descendants. Soft tyranny was part of the nation's founding, not a 1930s counterrevolutionary construct. American principles have always been relative and varied, even during the founding period.

Levin's thesis would be much more powerful without the historical illusions. The problem with his manifesto is the wholistic claim to America's founding principles, a partial historical interpretation that advances his absolutist position. It is, therefore, historically inaccurate to claim modern conservative principles as the founding principles. Levin's work, however, is not without merit. His manifesto embodies a relevant platform for the modern conservative movement. It can also be tied to some founding principles or some founders' ideologies but not all. Perhaps his assertion that conservatism is the antidote to tyranny would be more effective if he embraced conservatism's tyrannical past.

Levin, Mark R. Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto (New York: Threshold Edititons, 2009)

The copyright of the article Liberty and Tyranny – a Conservative Manifesto in History/Philosophy Books is owned by Shaun Martin. Permission to republish Liberty and Tyranny – a Conservative Manifesto in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Apr 21, 2009 1:44 PM

Guest :

Ms. Martin states "Levin's portrayal of American political ideology has little historical basis." Yet there are over 30 pages of foot notes and reference sources at the end of the book providing support for his work. Perhaps if Ms. Martin bothered to actually read the book, she would know which fathers and principles Mr. Levin was referring to and perhaps she would actually learn something.

Instead, we see the same silly rhetoric which is propagated whenever someone does not wish to acknowledge the truth, "That reality is not absolute."

Well, Ms. Martin is entitled to her own opinion, but she is not entitled to her own facts.

May 7, 2009 8:34 PM

Guest :

30 pages of foot notes means nothing. Doris Kearns Goodwin has pages of foot notes in her books as well, but she is one of the biggest plagiarists of our times and, in addition, is a poor historian.

The very nature of history excludes absolutism. All historical interpretations are going to have holes, no matter what they are. There is no one, correct history, and anyone who claims that there is or that they know it is delusional. Each generation writes history anew.

Texts which are suppose to be theoretical in nature cannot depend on history for that reason. It is one thing to be examining the outcome of policies and evaluating their effectiveness, it's another to make a philosophical argument. If you look at some of the great philosophers, Locke, Mill, Arendt, Marcuse, even Marx, you see that they do not base their philosophy on an interpretation of the past. Philosophical arguments are undermined when they are based on historical interpretation.

May 11, 2009 8:51 AM

Guest :

Guest two argues philosophical arguments are undermined when based on historical interpretation. This book "Liberty and Tyranny" is a book about constitutional intent and interpretation. I fail to see how you could leave history out of the argument.