Commentary Magazine


For His Own Sake, Mark Levin Should Leave the GOP

Anyone who listens to the radio talk-show host Mark Levin knows he’s become a harsh, nightly critic of the Republican Party. To understand just how harsh, you should listen to his monologue from the other day.

Mr. Levin begins by declaring he is “one inch away” from leaving the GOP. He goes on to accuse the Republican Party not simply of being wrong or misguided on this or that matter, but of being composed of people who have told repeated lies—“damn liars.” He describes them as “losers” and a “bunch of children,” of being “munchkins, backbenchers, immature,” and of being “damn fools.” They are “pathetic, impotent, passive, childish, [and] self-defeating.” They are “dissembling, corrupt crony Republicans… who won’t even take a stand, who announce defeat, who announce surrender before the battle even ensues.” These “pathetic Republican sheep” do nothing more than “rubber stamp” what President Obama wants. And while he concedes the GOP won a huge midterm victory, he informs us that “this Republican Party had nothing to do with this landslide election.” (His listeners did.) In fact, the GOP is “in the throes of destroying itself.”

“What kind of party is this?” he asks. “What does this party stand for? It stands for nothing!”

In Levin’s telling, “The overwhelming majority of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for Obamacare, voted for amnesty, voted to violate the Constitution and violated their oaths of office and undermined the last election and undermined your franchise.” And then Levin adds this:

I will not participate in this scam. I will not participate in the dissolution of this Republic. I will not participate in the propaganda machine that has become the Republic Party and its mouthpieces and cheerleaders in the pseudo-conservative media. [Just the other day Levin referred to the Wall Street Journal’s superb editorial page as being “intellectually corrupt.”]

It seems to me, then, that Mr. Levin, if he believes what he’s saying—and what he’s saying is fairly representative of his nightly commentary—not only should leave the GOP; he’s morally compelled to do so. How on earth can he justify being part of what he deems to be a thoroughly corrupt, craven, unprincipled, and unconstitutional party?

He can’t. And so for his own sake, in order to uphold his own integrity, Levin should go the extra inch and publicly declare he is no longer a Republican and that he no longer speaks for Republicans. I believe in the politics of addition rather than subtraction, but in this case the differences are too deep and irreconcilable. The threats to split are becoming tiresome. He needs to find, or create, a party that represents his views, his philosophy, his style, his tone, his approach. It may help to think of Mr. Levin as being to today’s right what the political activist Howard Phillips was to the right of an earlier generation. (“In 1974, Mr. Phillips also left the GOP, fed up with its continuing failure to carry out anything resembling policies comporting with Mr. Phillips’ understanding of philosophical conservatism,” according to this story in the Washington Times.)

Mark Levin would be better (and his blood pressure would certainly be lower) if he were free of the GOP. And a few people might argue that the GOP would be better if it were free of him.

Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »

13 Responses to “For His Own Sake, Mark Levin Should Leave the GOP”

  1. KENT LYON says:

    Mr. Wehner’s pique is showing again. He seems to covet the role of Grand Inquisitor, attempting to excommunicate Mr. Levin from the house of conservative worship. He keeps ignoring that mote-and-beam-in-the-eye passage from the New Testament.
    Mr. Levin will be Mr. Levin. He has provided service to the nation in the Justice Department for which we are appreciative, as has Mr. Wehner provided service in the federal government. And I for one not being without sin can hardly cast the first stone in either direction. But one would hope that both Mr. Levin and Mr. Wehner would elevate their rhetoric to a higher plane and continue to enlighten us with information, wisdom and insight rather than vituperative bickering.

    • JOHN BURKE says:

      Why shouldn’t he be “piqued” by attacks on the GOP and its leaders that are more vicious than anything said by prominent Democrats? Levin has excommunicated himself. Maybe you can join his new party.

      • JONATHAN BURACK says:

        Nothing vituperative in Wehner’s comment here at all. As to Levin, the only issue in my mind is whether he really buys his own shtick, or whether like all the radio talk show carnival barkers, he is just another focused entirely on his own ratings and sponsors, knowing that ranting and red meat are ALL those ratings depend on. The function of such shows is to focus the road rage of the fools who make up the core listeners of the shows.It is LONG past due for the Republican Party to dismiss them and stop acting as if they have anything good to contribute.


    Levin is like a hormonal hydrant, unplugged, avenging itself on dogs.

    The real content of his show is not his politics but his endless fury and delirium. He repels. It’s as if he is paid to play a hysterical and ridiculous Republican.


    It’s about time a conservative pundit goes after Levin in a conservative forum. Levin is a humorless, mean, nasty man and I, for one, would personally push him to get over that inch of calling himself a Republican. I have never seen the national treasure, Brian Lamb, look exasperated with someone he was interviewing, except when he was interviewing Levin a few years ago. Good work, Peter.

  4. DAVID THOMSON says:

    Mark Levin is now a borderline nihilist. His relentless attacks on the GOP only damage the country. We have a two party system whether we like it or not. Please note that Democrats rarely, if ever spout this sort of nonsense. They realized ages ago that sticking with the Democratic Party was the only way to achieve major political victories.

    • STEPHEN PARKER says:

      While Levin is a coward for refusing to discuss Obama’s constitutional ineligibility and fraudulent identity documents, you, Thomson, are one of Wehner’s useful idiots.

    • PAUL ZISSERSON says:

      David raises a good point about, for better or worse, our system functions within a two party sysem and

      • PAUL ZISSERSON says:

        Sorry, I’m using an unfamiliar keyboard. …..and for better or worse, we have to take our political stands, if we want to have even the slightest influence on events, within those imperfect choices. In part, this shows just how full of venom, rather than a serious attempt to explain, people like Levin are. They constantly hector us about the need to appreciate our system, going so far, correctly I would argue, to claim the US to be a special historical phenomenon. Well, our party structure is part of that, as is the messy constitutional system of checks and balances which, true enough,produces frustration among all. Why doesn’t that self-proclaimed constitutional scholar, Levin, recognize this?

  5. ERIC SCHUMANN says:

    The Wehner Purity Test Machine hums along nicely. Good-bye, Levin! You can join the others excommunicated from the Respectable Right by Mr Wehner: Ted Cruz, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Lee, Sarah Palin, any Republicans who took their campaign promises seriously, and anyone else who supports a strong response to Obama, as well as all those Tea Party nut jobs. Without the Wehner Seal of Approval, your ideas (to the extent they are ever mentioned), are illegitimate, so are not worthy of discussion, and certainly not rebuttal. It’s all style and tactics that matter. The GOP doesn’t really betray the party base, it’s just much subtler and cleverer about achieving the same aims – almost imperceptibly so. We never quite seem to achieve those aims, as Obama runs up the score. But maybe – just maybe – if we lay low
    a couple more years, Jeb Bush will save us all … someday … someday …


      You got it. “[Levine’s] ideas (to the extent they are ever mentioned), are illegitimate, so are not worthy of discussion, and certainly not rebuttal. It’s all style and tactics that matter.”

      Yes, style and tactics matter. In a system where you have to convince people to win, haranguing them from a balcony with fierce words and an uplifted chin won’t work. Chewing the rug, exploding in righteous indignation won’t persuaded voters. They can’t be yelled into line.

      Therefore you are exactly right, it is Levine’ manner that is so offensive and why he deserves to be disdained and ignored. As to his ideas, what are they? Mention three or four, mention one? That’s right, he hasn’t a single idea of his own. That is why they are not rebutted. They don’t exist. That the Republicans rubber stamp Obama, that they voted to violate the Constitution, that they are “munchkins” are not ideas, but lunacy, slander and hysteria.

      Hold on. I just remembered, Levine does have an idea of his own:leaving. Peter Wehner was willing to discuss that. But nothing satisfies you.

      • ERIC SCHUMANN says:

        Interesting – unless “ideas” are wholly original, they do not exist. I hold no brief for Levine – don’t listen to him, and don’t read him. My complaint is with Mr Wehner. One idea supported by Mark Levine (and everyone else in my list of excommunicatees) – if not original to him – is opposition to amnesty for those who entered and remain in this country illegally. This idea is supported by a large majority of those who voted the GOP into control of both Houses of Congress, and was an idea central to the campaign promises of every single newly-elected Republican Senator. The leadership of the GOP (and Mr Wehner) support such an amnesty, and so do not choose to follow the wishes of the voters and take a strong stand against the President’s executive amnesty. Is this acquiescence a “rubber stamp” of Obama’s actions? It isn’t unfair to characterize it thus. But rather than articulate why this characterization is inaccurate, you resort to name-calling: It is “lunacy, slander and hysteria”. Are those your ideas? Is that your rebuttal? Do these “fierce words” convince and persuade, or do they “[yell] into line”? In any event, substance also matters. This post by Mr Wehner, and your righteous indignation in its defense, were remarkably free of any. I understand the urge to police manners, but Levin’s rudely-put complaints are giving voice to a frustration shared by many who are disappointed in the Republican leadership, and that frustration is based upon ideas that Mr Wehner and you may disagree with, but that are worthy of a fair response.

      • MARC SALZBERGER says:


        That you say: “I hold no brief for Levine – don’t listen to him, and don’t read him,” makes your defense of him ridiculous.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share This

Share this post with your friends!

Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
for full access to
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
Don't have a log in?
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.