Mark Levin: Sounding the alarm for our freedoms

ABC Radio Networks’ Mark Levin has become one of the hottest properties in Talk radio, via his top-rated show on WABC NYC. He’s one of America’s preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers, and has appeared on hundreds of television and radio programs. Levin is also a contributing editor for National Review Online, and writes frequently for other publications. His book “Men in Black” was released February 2005 and quickly climbed to Number 3 in the nation on the NY Times Best-Seller list.

Levin also served as a top advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet. In 2001, the American Conservative Union named Levin the recipient of the prestigious Ronald Reagan Award. He currently practices law in the private sector, heading up the Landmark Legal Foundation in DC.

Levin took over the WABC 6:00 PM slot on September 2, 2003. Before that, he hosted a popular Sunday afternoon program.

Mark has been a frequent guest and substitute host on The Sean Hannity Show, and has also been an advisor to Limbaugh, who frequently refers to him on the air with the nickname “F. Lee Levin.”
The Fall 2006 ratings were released last month and Levin is #1 on the AM band across the board, in virtually all demos, in The Big Apple: Monday-Friday, 6pm to 8pm: AM news, talk and sports stations: 12+ #1 WABC 4.1; Adults 25-54 #1 WABC 2.9; Adults 18-49 #1 WABC 2.4; Men 25-54 #2 WABC 3.7; Women 25-54 #1 WABC 2.0; and Men 18-34 #1 WABC 2.2.

Here, Mark talks a bit about his love for Talk Radio and few things we need to be aware of when it comes to that very important old document from our Founding Fathers.

Tell us how your Landmark Legal Foundation is fighting unconstitutional rulings such as the 2005 Eminent Domain case (Kelo vs. New London) where private property may now be taken for non-public development (for greater tax revenue) locally. What are its other big fights right now?

Landmark has been involved in school choice, property rights, unconstitutional taxation, free speech, and free enterprise cases since 1976. One of the biggest cases we were involved in several years ago dealt with over 20,000 farmers and ranchers who owned land along the Platt River in Nebraska. A couple hundred
environmental groups decided that they wanted to change the flow of the river. Basically they wanted to eliminate all the irrigation activity along 200 miles of that river which would obviously destroy all the land in many cases that have been in families for several generations.

They did the same thing in Oregon too.

They’ve done it in Oregon they do it all over the country. They target these areas. Anything to destroy property rights, property ownership, in the name of the children of course. So anyway we got involved in that case and spent many, many years on that as lead counsel. We had a deal with the Federal Bureaucracy at many levels—the Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency and so forth. The result was a compromise in which the landowners were in fact able to maintain their land and irrigate their properties. So we called it a compromise but in fact it was a victory.

Kelo was such an extraordinarily important case that a number of groups were involved in providing advice and counsel to the litigants in that case. We were not a named party.

Other groups were not named parties and the Institute for Justice, as well as private counsel, did an absolutely superb job. The problem is when you have five activists on the Supreme Court who do not respect the original meaning and text of the Constitution. No matter what you argue will be unpersuasive to them. This is the problem with our Judiciary today—especially the Supreme Court. That majority of five, in my view, acts as an American Politburo and they rule in ways that are tyrannical. If you’re not going to comply with the Constitution then you’re undermining the rule of law. If you’re undermining the rule of law what in the world are these Justices doing? It’s no different than any other committee that would be sitting there and making decisions about how the rest of us are going to live.

Tell us about your book “Men in Black.”

I’m pleased to say, we sold 200,000 copies of a book about the Supreme Court, which is unheard of. The impetus behind writing that book was to give a plain English explanation of how our liberties are being stolen from us and how our system of government is being undermined by a handful of individuals who serve
on the Supreme Court; and how this has actually been going on now for decades. We have a Supreme Court that continues to seize power from the people; continues to deny them their franchise.

Yes, we vote, but if five lawyers on the Supreme Court can continual and repeatedly neutralize our votes then just how free are we? The court is constantly legislating, constantly making decisions that belong in the Executive Branch—even now about the war and illegal immigration. What I wanted to lay out was that these are not exceptional human beings in the sense that they are smarter or better or more wise than the rest of us. They are not supposed to be making these decisions.

They have a job. It’s a limited job, it’s an important job but it’s not the job to run the country and impose their personal policy preferences on the rest of us.

How do you differentiate your program from the other Conservative
radio hosts out there?

It depends who the hosts are. I just do my show regardless of what the other hosts do. My mentors are Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. They are dear, close friends of mine. Whenever I need advice I seek their advice and they are extremely willing in giving it to me. So I’m blessed by that but I am who I am. I have my own personality. I bring my own background to the air and I think it’s unique. I served in the Reagan Administration, campaigned for Ronald Reagan when the Republican establishment opposed him. I served in the Reagan Administration including as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, Attorney General [Ed] Meese. So I have an experience that some hosts don’t have.

I was never a professional radio talk show host. Although I would like to underscore that I’ve always been a professional talk radio listener. I’ve listened to talk radio since I was 12 years old. I listened to the Talk talent in Philadelphia and New York, Bob Grant, Gene Shepherd, Dominic Quinn, Bernie Herman—names people may not remember but I certainly do. I was a talk show fanatic when it came to listening to it. I went to bed with it and I woke up to it. That’s where my interest came although I didn’t pursue it originally.

My show in many ways is unpredictable but I like to have a good time. If there are major issues of the day I will deal with them but what I view as a major issue others may not. I am well aware that I’m hitting cleanup in the evening and at night after a full day of talk radio so I have to bring something unique to the microphone. The audience is extremely smart, particularly in talk radio. I don’t take them for granted. They can go elsewhere. In New York they have 47 flavors. I want them to come back to me every single night. My show, whether it’s different or not, what I try to do is bring solid substance on the issues. I bring my own strong opinions. I like to have a good time so I’ll joke around and play around as well. When I decide to do one thing or another is unpredictable.

You are known to love the radio medium. Any advice to its operators, some of who are struggling a bit right now in the face of new media?

My advice would be as in any other business, you want to hire the very best talent you can. A radio station means nothing without top notch talent, and to stick with that. I wouldn’t try to be too clever. You don’t have to go with any particular fad. I know it works, they know it works and the ratings tell us what
works. I’ll give you an example in talk radio—why in the world would you want to program 18 or 24 months out from a major Presidential election, shows that don’t take advantage of that?

For instance you wouldn’t program a food show when you’re coming on a major election or necessarily a business show, because it’s out of sync with that the public’s interested in. Also why would you try and force a Liberal agenda into a market that is largely a Conservative market?

You’re now close to 100 affiliates in just a year. What’s the secret to clearing so many, so soon?

Well our competition likes to pretend that the only reason we’re able to break out from the crowd is because we’re on the seven ABC stations. We’re on over 20 Clear Channel stations. We’re on Entercom, Emmis, Salem, Cox and Cumulus stations. Let me put it to you this way, if you don’t have ratings you’re not going to get on other stations. It’s really that critical, so the product has to be saleable. Then you need a team that’s going to help market the product and I have, I feel a terrific affiliate team lead by Darion Melito. I also have a terrific boss in Phil Boyce who is Vice President News/Talk at the ABC Radio Network and also the Program Director at WABC, and he was the one who found me. He was the one who tried my talents and he’s the one who urged along with Mitch Dolan, the President of ABC Radio and a good man, that I be syndicated.

To be honest with you, the syndication field is very cluttered. There is a weaning out that’s going on now and that’s good for the business. You want voices that don’t all sound alike. You want personalities that aren’t all alike and there is a separation taking place right now and that’s been helpful to me because I just think our show is different in terms of content and entertainment and apparently so do other people.

What are the most important topics you’re tackling right now? What are you hearing from listeners?

There are really two things that sum it all up—liberty and security. Liberty, whether it’s a rogue Supreme Court or taxes or spending or congress conducting itself in a way in which it denies us certain rights. Security, and that would include the border and illegal immigration as well as terrorism and homeland security such as the various efforts we’re undertaking to protect our citizens with intercepts of enemy communications and so forth. This is what the public is upset about. The public is engaged, intelligent, wants answers and wants to discuss these things. They want to be entertained too and that’s my job to entertain them. They don’t want a bunch of superficial platitudes. They don’t want a bunch of phony shows that may make sense to a few executives sitting in some office somewhere. We’re in the middle of a war for God sakes and if you’re not going to discuss things like that on talk radio then where are you going to discuss them?

By the way let me just add this. I hear it said that political talk is on the way out. Well what’s meant by this? What is political talk? Political talk is talk about culture and society and current events. Political talk is talk about liberty and national security.

In other words, political talk is about how we as a people want to shape our futures. So people who make a statement like that don’t even understand what political talk is all about. Typically you hear that from people who are programming music or business talk or trying to find some kind of niche to advance their own careers or business agendas. The fact of the matter is political talk covers the full horizon of issues that most Americans face every single day.

Editor’s Note: This is archived from 2/07

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg