The Nation, the Christian Right, and Levin's Caricature of Marxism

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/mark-levin-american-marxism/

The Nation is a well-established liberal magazine with deep roots in the American political order.  As connected as it is with the power centres of the Democratic Party, the publisher (Katrina vanden Heuvel) is (ironically) widow to the recently deceased Stephen Cohen – the renowned but controversial Russian studies scholar who rejected and decried the Anti-Russia campaign being led by the US Establishment and particularly the DNC. I'm sure there were some interesting conversations that took place in their home.

The periodical is not a Christian one and yet it has some value if read with discernment. I am therefore an occasional reader. This review caught my eye because of the popularity of Levin's 2021 book 'American Marxism' which currently dominates Right-wing circles. I have not read the book cover-to-cover and can't bring myself to invest the time to do so, but I've sufficiently perused it and I've certainly heard it discussed. And beyond the reading, I've caught enough of Levin on his show and in interviews to get the gist of what he's saying. I've been waiting for a good review that exposes the confused thinking he exhibits and (due to his popularity) reveals something of the destructive nature of his confused and frankly childish caricature.

The Nation review (by Michael Kazin) more or less sums up what many of us realised long ago – Marxism is a catch-all term being used by the Right to smear anything they don't like or oppose. They even use it on themselves if someone holds a nuanced view. It's a misleading and dishonest tactic, but very effective as Marxism is synonymous with evil in American culture. It is an evil system to be sure, but few Americans can define it or interact with it or have even a basic understanding of its ideas or the context from which it arose. And even fewer can engage in an intelligent and informed discussion regarding to what extent Marxism is even pertinent when discussing Soviet history, contemporary China or the Left in the United States. And though it's an evil system – as are Enlightenment Liberalism and Capitalism, that doesn't mean these systems have nothing to say or nothing to contribute when it comes to analysing and thinking about the nature of society in general and specifically the one in which we live.

Levin's work is not a serious inquiry, it's simply a demagogic exercise meant to whip up and outrage his target audience, and if that's the goal, then it's very effective. But it's also highly destructive as it has clouded and corrupted the minds of many within the Right – to the point that rational or moral discourse seems no longer possible. Levin can't be wholly blamed for this. He's but the latest in a now long and established line of Right-wing authors that have produced similar works. What makes Levin unique is simply this – the arguments are getting worse and the reasoning is more sloppy and misleading than before. In other words there's a patent dumbing down taking place within their movement that is following the trajectory of the culture at large. This is Levin's real contribution.

If any ideas are expressed that seem to hint of Marxism (true or imagined), you're immediately demonised by Levin. History tells us (something Levin knows little about), that the most virulent opponents of Marxism represented another 'ism' or system of thought that was (and is) just as dangerous – that of fascism. And the Right along with large sections of the Christian Right is quickly succumbing to these influences and embracing ideologies and ethics that are dangerous and evil and yet they're blind to it because in the American Right's narrative, fascism and communism (despite being polar opposites) are really the same thing.

To add a layer to the discussion, it could be argued that the totalitarian systems which can emerge from almost any political order take on a functional similarity. But at that point they've largely abandoned the ideologies upon which they were built and have become dictatorships which are viewed as an end in and of themselves. But such thinking is beyond what the Right-wing street and certainly Levin's audience is able to process, let alone if we start incorporating of historical examples such as the medieval Catholic order into the discussion – which was another authoritarian and at times totalitarian system. A capitalist example would be something like the tyranny of the company town – a model which continues to expand and be re-worked at larger levels of society.

For Christians to fall in with the far right and flirt with fascism is tantamount to apostasy and as many such Christians do not possess any Biblical discernment (the Book being largely foreign to them) they are embracing Levin and his message and falling prey to his errors. The leadership within the Evangelical community (including false teachers like James Dobson) has played a significant role in this unfortunate turn.

Evoking the memory and cultural influence of Hayek and Bloom, Kazin draws comparisons with Levin and yet one wonders if the comparison is valid. In the end Kazin seems to doubt the comparison too. Hayek and Bloom were intellectuals. They may have been in error and riddled with flawed analysis and judgments, but their works were serious. The popular audience of today is not interested in such works – enter the 'dumbed down' world of Levin as Kazin rightly puts it. Tucker Carlson can also be viewed in this same light and might even be more dangerous.

Levin may have worked for Ed Meese – the criminal Attorney-General associated with Reagan (who despite his continued and habitual prevarication remains a respected figure in Christian Right circles), but that doesn't mean Levin is a serious intellectual. In fact it simply testifies to the fact that his integrity is such that he had no qualms about working for one of the most corrupt Attorney-Generals in American memory – one who ranks alongside crooked figures like Mitchell Palmer, Harry Daugherty, John Mitchell, William Barr, Janet Reno, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, Eric Holder, and Jeff Sessions. Not that I hold any Attorney General in much regard but these figures were especially egregious.

Meese (referred to as 'a sleaze' by one US attorney) is part of this crew – figures who despite being lionised by their political blocs are associated with criminality, financial and ethical corruption, and the trampling of US law. Levin's credentials carry weight in Right-wing circles but there's nothing about him that should impress us nor should his claims to being a culture warrior and defender of integrity be taken seriously.

Levin is not so much a lawyer or political figure as he is an activist trying to build a cult following. It has proven more lucrative and obviously more influential. Riding on the coattails of Limbaugh and Hannity he became a Right-wing radio figure in the 2000's and in keeping with the medium's demagogic style he has tapped into a certain segment of the Right and has risen to fame and fortune. It was a path taken previously by Glenn Beck and in many respects Levin has appropriated some of his audience and role within the 'mainstream' of the Right-wing radio spectrum. Despite the fact that he wears his ignorance on his sleeve, he is perceived as an intellectual and has become one of the functional gurus of the movement – regardless of the fact that not a few figures within the Right have been critical of his work and his weak and flawed framing and argumentation. But like Beck during the early Obama years, he's grown powerful and influential within his circles, and criticisms of him are mostly muted. Like Beck, he will undoubtedly implode at some point and fade away into the second tier of programming giants. Beck still has one of the more popular radio shows and he's still making a lot of money but his star has faded significantly. He's no longer the national figure he was fifteen years ago.

Every idea Levin opposes is labeled as Marxism. Despite the DNC's affiliations with Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the wider project of American Imperialism, their insufficient zeal and heretical nuance exposes them as Marxist. Levin's reasoning is tantamount to this – Everyone who is not a Right-wing Republican is a Marxist. Marxists are evil and subversive. Therefore non-Republicans are evil and subversive and need to be opposed and destroyed.

As lame as that is, that about sums up his argument and appeal. And yet given the current cultural milieu, it's dangerous. Simplistic ideas, irrational appeals, and labeling the opposition as seditious and evil makes democracy impossible and leaves the door open to all kinds of powerful and frankly malevolent forces – forces that are permutating and fiercely proliferating within the Right and the larger culture at this moment. Levin provides both fuel and cover for these violent and potentially violent movements and yet if cornered he would distance himself from these dangerous groups. But it needs to be stated clearly that he's helping to create the climate in which they can grow and whether he denies it or not he's granting them a type of legitimacy. How that's patriotic is a legitimate question. Who's the real subversive here?

And yet he must be careful and he seems to be aware of this as he quickly backs down at the suggestion of overt violence. Instead he calls for divestment, boycotts, and litigation – hardly the tools of one engaged in the existential life and death struggle that he has promoted. It shows that in the end he's not all that serious and his anger and outrage are contrived and subordinated to his personal goals and interests. He's not willing to put himself on the line. He simply wants to cash-in on the anger bubbling up from disgruntled and disoriented sections of the public.

As Kazin reveals, Mark Levin clearly knows nothing about actual Marxism but his rhetoric tickles the ears of his audience and that's his real goal. He stirs the pot, promotes outrage, and let's not forget – Levin gets rich in the process. He's tapped into that same root that other charlatans like Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Ingraham have also discovered. And that in the end is the real story. Limbaugh became a superstar by becoming a foil to Bill Clinton, and Beck did the same with Obama. Levin's American Marxism has put him in the running as Biden's chief media opponent. He's still outranked by Hannity in terms of radio audience but he's not as closely or personally tied to Trump as Hannity is. He seems to tap into a certain audience and if his star continues to rise he may in fact eventually become the top Right-wing radio host – though he's nowhere near Hannity in terms of their FOX television shows. Regardless, Levin has entered the top tier of Right-wing media celebrity and as ridiculous as it is – he's become the go-to 'expert' on all things Marxist and he continues to make the rounds appearing on everyone else's shows and podcasts. And he has (despite the fact that he's not a Christian) become very popular in Evangelical circles.

As the socio-political ideology of Evangelicalism has little if nothing to do with the Scriptures, it is no surprise that the moment has been laid wide open to the influence of thinkers outside the faith – Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and even secular Right-wing thinkers. This demonstrates that the very people who make the most of having a 'born again' experience, don't actually believe that regeneration means anything or that it separates Christians in any kind of epistemological or moral sense from the world around them. If it did, then Levin, Beck, and other such non-Christian and even anti-Christian thinkers would have no voice or influence. But as the Evangelical movement has succumbed to false teaching, the full harvest of their apostasy is only now becoming evident.