David Frum Attacks Me (Now I Can Die a Happy Man)

The debate over the heart and soul of conservatism continues, and the latest skirmish is apparently between neoconservative David Frum and yours truly.

Frum, it seems, was offended by my recent comments about conservatism on Bloggingheads, an online talk show where bloggers debate the issues of the day. My intent was to respond to an e-mailer, who had asked me my definition of what constitutes a conservative. Interestingly, I don't think I even mentioned Frum in this particular segment, though I have certainly mentioned him in the past.

For those unfamiliar with Bloggingheads, it should be noted this is essentially a relaxed, off-the-cuff setting, where bloggers typically engage in casual conversations with other bloggers. If my definition was lacking, it may be due to the fact that a proper explanation of conservatism -- and why Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, is not a conservative -- would require more than the two minutes that were devoted to the topic. In fact, it's a college thesis.

But from the very beginning of his excoriation of me, Frum misleads the audience.

He begins by noting that I've been on Bloggingheads "a couple times," and refers to me as "one of the occasional participants in Bloggingheads" -- all of which is true, assuming you think that co-hosting a weekly diavlog (dialogue meets video blog) means I am an "occasional" participant who has been on a "couple times."

Sadly, his penchant for getting the facts wrong and exaggerating does not end there.

Of course, Frum is angry that I have questioned his conservative bona fides, primarily because his solutions to the problems conservatives face always seem to involve conservatives becoming more liberal. Plus, I find it insultingly ironic that a neocon Bush speechwriter would be giving conservatives advice on how to be popular.

To be sure, Mr. Frum is a very tough customer, so long as there is nobody present to challenge him. He's much less intimidating when faced with a formidable opponent. In fact, listening to a recent interview between Frum and radio host Mark Levin clearly demonstrates the kind of pusillanimous pundit he is. During the interview, Levin warns Frum: "People may disagree with you, but you don't make it an obsession ... or a habit ... to keep attacking them personally."

Clearly, Frum has not taken the advice.

I suppose I'm in good company, though. In 2003, Frum called Bob Novak and Pat Buchanan "unpatriotic conservatives" for opposing the Iraq war.

And then there was the Newsweek article he wrote, titled, "Why Rush is Wrong," where this great conservative brings up Rush Limbaugh's "drug dependency," his "tangled marital history," and his "personal bulk" -- as if they were relevant.

That -- and he's a Canadian. (It had to be said, relevant or not).

In his condescending diatribe, Frum goes on to mock the fact that on a recent Bloggingheads session, I suggested people interested in the definition of conservatism read the Wikipedia article on Russell Kirk, whose 1953 book, The Conservative Mind, helped shape modern-day conservatism.

Frum then attempts to imply that my knowledge of the conservative movement is solely based on merely having read Wikipedia. He does not take into consideration that it is easier for me to recommend that the casual viewer click on a link to learn about Russell's canons of conservatism than it is for me to suggest they pick up Kirk's tome, though they should do that, too.

This is actually the second time in four days that Frum has attacked me, by name. The first time, I ignored it, when he blogged:

"A Matt Lewis conservative" is a conservative who has not read the books he thinks he admires -- and cannot even itemize the ideas he says he upholds."

Frum probably doesn't realize that as an intern at Morton Blackwell's Leadership Institute in 1999, I was assigned to read Kirk, as well as Burke, Bastiat, Hayek and many other leading conservative philosophers and thinkers. Yet his impulse was to attack my intellect, which is consistent with his background as an elitist who attacked Sarah Palin as lacking sophistication and Limbaugh as none too bright. Frum, you see, has a habit of attacking the intelligence of his critics.

Of course, the debate is ultimately about my insistence that liberals not be called conservatives. Just today, I noted that respected Atlantic columnist Marc Ambinder had a post titled "The Six Top Conservatives Obama Listens To." On Twitter, I called attention to the fact that Ambinder's list included such great "conservatives" as New York Times columnist David Brooks and Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Ambinder wisely changed the word "conservative" to the more accurate "Republican" -- but if you look at the url string, you can see the original title.

Why does it matter? Because words do matter. Labels matter. Titles matter. Ideas have consequences, you know? (Yes, Mr. Frum, I realize that was Richard Weaver -- at least, according to Wikipedia.)

And on a practical level, it matters because newspapers like The Washington Post and The New York Times frequently employ token conservatives. In many cases, they provide the only diverse viewpoint readers see. And if David Frum is your token conservative, that's a problem, because it means you never hear the real conservative viewpoint.

Get the new
PD toolbar!


Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!