"Conservatism is dead and Ann Coulter is its corpse."
I first wrote those words last year after hearing Coulter's semi-racist jibe, "I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'" At this year's CPAC convention she went even farther: "I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word 'faggot', you have to go to rehab."
When I wrote that last year it seemed a bit hyperbolic; today it seems prophetic. The Coulterization of conservatism is a prime example of how the moral decay of our movement.
Coulter has been serving up such excrement for years, yet far too many conservatives lap up such feculent bons mots as if they were bon bons. College kids, who are more familiar with Jon Stewart than Jonathan Swift, seem to think that she is a (snort) "satirist." Hardly. Coulter is nothing more than Bill Maher in drag -- take away her ability to say something stupid or shocking and she loses her satirical abilities.
Consider, for example, these few choice selections (courtesy of Dignan):
- "liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots..."
- "I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning."
- "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President."
- "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too."
- "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
- "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."
- "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee."
There was once a time when such remarks would have had Mr. Buckley scrambling for the smelling salts to revive Mrs. Schafly. But now hearing such comments made in a conservative forum elicits little more than an embarrassed shrug and a whatareryagonnado shake of the head that says, "That's just Ann." Then they line up around the block for autographed copies of her book.
Our political culture has truly become debased when even conservatives now accept what James Q. Wilson has described as the elevation of self-expression over self-control. (Perhaps it is to be expected, though, of a movement that has replaced the wisdom of Russell Kirk with the soundbites of Rush Limbaugh.) We have heartily embraced the leftist ideal that we have an inherent right to be as stupid and as banal as we want. As the legal scholar Stephen Carter says, "When offensiveness becomes a constitutional right, it is a right without any tradition behind it, and consequently we have no norms to govern its use."
This "right" does have a tradition, though, for stupidity has a pedigree that reaches back to our first ancestor. "Stupidity is a form of behavior," said the late media critic Neil Postman, "It is not something we have; it is something we do." Conservatism used to recognize this fact and even played a role in society by helping citizens to avoid moral stupidity.
This is essentially what Russell Kirk was getting at when he outlined his six principles of conservatism. The principle of moral order (a belief in a transcendent moral order to which we ought to try to conform the ways of society), the principle of prescription (a reliance on the "wisdom of our ancestors"), and the principle of prudence (public measures should be judged by their long-term consequences) are all means of preventing moral stupidity.
Naturally, this role, while legitimate, has strict limits. Just as doctors don't go around slapping Twinkies out of people's hands, conservatives don't attempt to prevent every act of stupidity in society. But there was a time when we at least attempted to prevent it within our own ranks.
Now we have embraced one of the most morally stupid behaviors ever conceived: the interminable use of the language of "rights." It is this appeal to "rights" that claims that freedom of speech rests on the slipperiest of slopes. Even people who reject slippery slope arguments when applied to abortion or same-sex marriage believe it is incontrovertible when applied free speech. Start chiding people for saying "raghead" , they contend, and the next thing you know we'll all be trading our pilates mats for sajjad and setting our Blackberry's to chime for salah.
Unfortunately, there are some conservatives who confuse a right with an obligation. They believe that since all speech must be protected it must also be defended. There is no disputing the fact that Coulter has the politically guaranteed freedom to spew her bile. There is also no question, at least in my mind, that we conservatives should exercise our own freedom of speech by telling her to shut her yap.
There really is no excuse for accepting her as one of our own. Perhaps if she had keen insight and a rapier wit, her cutting barbs might be endurable. But Coulter's "humor" slices like a shard from a Mountain Dew bottle found on a meth lab floor. Her remarks leave jagged gashs that grow infected and fester with pus, infecting all of us in the process.
Conservatism deserves better, deserves more civility and less Coulter. The fact that she is tolerated--much less admired--by conservatives is evidence that we have lost our philosophical moorings. If the Big Tent of conservatism really has room for the likes of Coulter, then it might just be time to close this circus down.
Other conservatives on Coulter:
Mary Katharine Ham: "You shouldn't have to go to psych eval for using it, but it's a nasty word. Just don't."
Dean Barnett: "It’s not a lack of intelligence. It’s an indifference to self-control and a preening sort of narcissism that compels her to need the spotlight, even if it’s unflattering."
Rod Dreher: "How, exactly, do we conservatives protest against the kind of bigoted garbage that Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan were upchucking against Catholics and other Christians if we accept Coulter's offensive shtick?"
Hugh Hewitt: "When Coulter employed the f-word to abuse a candidate, she made herself radioactive because the word is a simply invitation to hate. It was repulsive."
Bryan Preston: "I’m no fan of John Edwards, but that’s just a stupid joke. It’s over the line. The laughter it generated across the room was more than a little annoying."
(HT: Rusty Lopez)
Silence is consent, so well said.
On the other hand, conservativism (in the sense I suppose you mean) isn't a club with leaders and rules and penalties, is it? Anyway, as you hint ("...conservatives don't attempt to prevent every act of stupidity...") the conservative way is not to tell the loud and stupid soundbiters to shut up.
Rather, we go on doing what we do: putting forward the real arguments and explanations. We manifest another culture. If liberals themselves are so stupid that they can't see the difference between the Coulters and what we're saying (and how we're saying it)... then they deserve her. Stupid wouldbe provocateurs can't legitimately give us a bad name is we ourselves simply recognize the "1John2:19 principle" (...they went out from us, but they were not of us...).
Joe,
I'm glad you're offended by what appear to be gratuitious insults and gratuitous offensive speech on the part of Ann Coulter. Civil discourse in the U.S. has been on a serious decline for many years now, and we need people like you to point it out.
A few observations, though.
1) It is hypocritical for you to be offended by referring to John Edwards as a "f****t", only to turn around and say Ms. Coulter looks and smells like a "corpse" (and other Coulter-bashers will often refer to her allegedly mannish looks).
2) In the context in which Ms. Coulter used the word "f****t", I believe that only a homosexual who is humor-challenged would take deep or lasting offense. Though I could be wrong about that.
3) Ann Coulter is not stupid. I suspect that she might be as smart as you and I put together. Her writing certainly is, and she's a very bright extemporaneous speaker as well.
4) You might not like her commentary, but it is definitely satire. Darn good satire at that. I think that when you get the most offended by her, it's when you fail to get the joke.
5) I don't agree with everything she says, like the way she dismisses evolutionary theory as "Darwinism". But even when I think she is wrong, she has something intelligent to say. That's pretty impressive, especially for someone who is out there as much as she is.
6) As much as her negativity pollutes the public discourse, she adds something even more important: incisive, topical humor. It's hard to say whether her work adds up to a net negative or a net positive. It depends on how you weigh things. I would guess that it's overwhelmingly positive. Though I could be wrong abou that.
The call of the gospel involves the offense of the cross. An indictment of the hearer's sins. Sins being the thing that "forgiveness of sins" is all about.
Take abortion. Calling abortionists and society in general to turn around from the taking of unborn life raises heckles. You may get called a paternalist, a nanny, a do-gooder, a busybody. Even if your own sinfulness clouds your message, some of the rhetoric of those who reject you often involves a rejection of that Great Paternalist watching over us, it may involve a celebration of the noble savage who is free to make his own choices (Eden, anyone?), it may involve a denial of sin itself, it may respond to a charge of gross immorality by claiming pure morality is impossible or not practiced.
You may remember that when the Democrats took over the House, there was an intense public debate among AM radio personalities over who should be majority leader.
Consider the voting records of the two Democrats who were up for the vote, records provided by the pro-abortion NARAL. "0" is pro-life, "100" is the pro-choice position.
PA U.S. House District 12 John P.'Jack' Murtha Democrat 0
MD U.S. House District 5 Steny H. Hoyer Democrat 100
Now, whom would you guess, between these two men, did the conservatives go to the wall in attacking?
I think that conservatism in America has become more anti-paternalism than it is a preservation of Judeo-Christian ethics. In an age where Republicans are supporting unjust wars and torture, you're going to see people of faith seek out pro-life Democrats, Democrats who are willing to indict our pocketbook and our zipper and our sword.
Joe:
While I agree with your points about Coulter in theory, it's still hard for me to get my mind around the fact that you seem just as outraged about Coulter's words as you are about abortion, beheadings, or maybe Amanda Marcotte's words about the Holy Spirit. A sense of proportion is what I'm missing. Yes, I agree Coulter is over the top, but it's hard for me to put her in the same league with Bill Maher, Michael Moore or even Howard Dean. While her statements might be just as vile as all of them, those on the other side are just so wrong about the major issues, that all they are left with is incivility. Ann could tone down HOW she says things, but her message would remain the same: our opponents are wrong.
Things have changed in a very short time. Ann Coulter burst on the scene during Clinton's impeachment with a book called High Crimes and Misdemeanors. She is a constitutional attorney. I remember the first time I saw her on TV. I couldn't believe there were actually conservative women out there who could mix it up with all the lefties who have been on our airwaves for so long. You have to admit, don't you, that the first time you saw her you were glad there was someone from our side fighting back against the Clinton slime machine?
I realize I'm probably not helping our cause with the usual lefties who post here. But isn't that the point? Has the civility of your writing made any difference in the minds of the anti-evangelicals here? I guess you can argue that your civility has put this blog head and shoulders above any and all blogs on the left, but has it advanced the conservative cause with any of the "hate us" types who post here? Perhaps, but it's not noticeable in the overall hatred for evangelicals in the comments.
I think it's hilarious that all the Conservatives are being so politically correct and also bit by posting about Ann Coulter. You guys complain about how evil she is...oh and ugly, which isn't very nice, but then you go and give her press.
And everyone is totally freaked out because of what YOU heard her NOT say. A smart commenter on Hugh's blog wrote the following and I totally agree.
"She Said What She Said...
...not What She Didn't Say
Based on what she said and the way she said it, she did not call him a "faggot." She merely referred to calling him a "faggot," if she were to call him a "faggot." That's not the same as calling him a "faggot." She explained why she would not call him a "faggot." She said that, were she to call him a "faggot," she would be whisked off by Lib PC Police to rehab for reëducation."
That's the truth. She didn't call him a faggot, or referred to what would happen if she did. I think the fact that so many conservatives are bent out of shape about this, just shows how much they lack in critical thinking skills.
Ann rocks, and needs to be applauded by our side, not vilified.
Thanks, Joe, for sticking to your guns on this. I feared that you would stop criticizing her when you started working for FRC.
Two quibbles:
1. Was the gratuitous shot at liberals really necessary? Maybe so, to prove to your fellow conservatives that you weren't going soft.
2. I'm not sure I understand your criticism of freedom of speech and rights. Are you suggesting that there should be legal consequences for Ann's use of the words "raghead" or "faggot"?
jd writes
"Has the civility of your writing made any difference in the minds of the anti-evangelicals here?"
Is the reason for Joe to be civil to make a difference in the minds of anti-evangelicals? Perhaps the reason to be civil is because its the right thing to do! I would be offended if anybody was being nice just to influence me. But if I was anti-evangelical, I may be more willing to list to a guy that was civil and find out why! It reminds me of the stories of evangelicals in N.O. handing out high quality masks to homeowners to protect their lungs, but only if they listen to them for a few minutes about Christ! How horrible! Just hand out the masks, befriend, serve and even serve your enemies, this is the Offense of the Cross and it is spreading the Gospel.
Joe is absolutely right about Ann whether it be satire or not. If it is satire (and I believe it is most of the time) then it is sick satire.
But perhaps Joe could stop referring to her as a corpse or whatever. She is wrong, but not anymore of a sinner than I.
Joe,
This post comes to as perfect as they can come.
Thanks
"Perhaps it is to be expected, though, of a movement that has replaced the wisdom of Russell Kirk with the soundbites of Rush Limbaugh.") Now, I love Russell Kirk as much as anybody. But he did not get get us on the national scene either. Rush Limbaugh may be "indelicate" as they say, but he at least got us somewhere in the culture. If we had to rely on Kirk, Buckely, Etc. there would not be conservative radio, Fox News, and many other outlooks for conservatives. Buckely's show, for instance was good, but maybe 100 people watched it. On PBS, no doubt. We had to rely on a liberal network to see THAT. there would be a couple of books published every 5 years, about conservative ideas, and you would have to order them from some obscure book publisher. so lets give Limbaugh, and Coulter thier due. Limbaugh especially, has opened, and even BUILT doors for the conservative message to get to the public arena, it did not have.
Along with Limbaugh, whatever perceived good he may have brought, come strings with very unpleasant consequences. His loud, in your face style of arguing, and disdain for truth have bread a horde of obnoxious offspring. The moment I came to see him as the worlds low life was when he thought it would be funny to demean a little girl whose father's politics were contrary to his.
Hell hath no fury...
like a woman who lost her friends on 9/11.
She just happens to be on the conservative side, and commands a wider audience. I bet the 9/11 wives are still insulting conservatives- the media just know it will only play in the blue states.
She hasn't killed conservativism. The ridiculous tendency of the Republicans to marginalize us has. Since Reagan we've had Bush I, Bob Dole, and Bush II. Donde esta el conservative?
You are better off arguing women shouldn't be part of the debate at all, than suggesting she's stupid, corpse-like, etc...
I fully agree.
August states:
"You are better off arguing women shouldn't be part of the debate at all, than suggesting she's stupid, corpse-like, etc..."
Right, right....., we better like her or else we have a problem with women with authority or power or whatever. Are you Hillary?
Baus On the other hand, conservativism (in the sense I suppose you mean) isn't a club with leaders and rules and penalties, is it?
That’s true, it isn’t. But conservatives belong to many clubs and events and we certainly don’t have to invite Coulter to speak at them.
If liberals themselves are so stupid that they can't see the difference between the Coulters and what we're saying (and how we're saying it)... then they deserve her.
Liberal? There are many “conservatives” who can’t see the difference. ; )
Seriously, many younger people seem to know nothing about conservatism that doesn’t come from talk radio or books by people like Ann Coulter. They have no sense of what our arguments are because they are never exposed to the arguments, only the rants.
Matthew 1) It is hypocritical for you to be offended by referring to John Edwards as a "f****t", only to turn around and say Ms. Coulter looks and smells like a "corpse" (and other Coulter-bashers will often refer to her allegedly mannish looks).
Let’s parse that phrase: "Conservatism is dead and Ann Coulter is its corpse."
This has nothing to do with her personal appearance. Although I don’t find her attractive, I certainly don’t think she looks like a corpse. The first part of the phrase sets up the metaphor (conservatism as a genuine, robust movement has ceased to exist) for the second part (and Ann Coulter is the embodiment of what conservatism has become).
2) In the context in which Ms. Coulter used the word "f****t", I believe that only a homosexual who is humor-challenged would take deep or lasting offense. Though I could be wrong about that.
I’m not a humor-challenged homosexual and I took offense to it. I’m not a fan of John Edwards but to imply that he is gay is just sub-sophmoric and shows a disdain not just for the candidate but for her audience.
3) Ann Coulter is not stupid.
I completely agree. I don’t think she’s stupid. If she were it might be more excusable.
4) You might not like her commentary, but it is definitely satire.
Satire is ridicule that exposes stupidity, vice, and folly through exaggeration and humor. Coulter’s exaggerations and attempts at humor expose mainly her own stupidity, vice, and folly. Yes, technically its satire in the same way that Family Guy and other idiotic drivel can be classified under that rubric.
JD Yes, I agree Coulter is over the top, but it's hard for me to put her in the same league with Bill Maher, Michael Moore or even Howard Dean.
But why? Because her underlying point is correct? That is how the Left excuses the offensive and dumb things that come from Maher, Moore, and Dean: They’re right so it makes up for how they say it.
I’m afraid that we conservatives are starting to fall for that excuse too.
Based on what she said and the way she said it, she did not call him a "faggot." She merely referred to calling him a "faggot," if she were to call him a "faggot." That's not the same as calling him a "faggot." She explained why she would not call him a "faggot." She said that, were she to call him a "faggot," she would be whisked off by Lib PC Police to rehab for reëducation."
Coulter say:s "I'd say something about John Edwards,…” (What is she wants to say that she can’t?)
Coulter says: “…but if you use the word 'faggot', you have to go to rehab." (Does Coulter want to use the word faggot in reference to Edwards?)
Stacy says no. Coulter had no intention of calling Edwards that term, but was only explaining what would happen if she did. But why is that explanation necessary if she has no intention of using that invective? And if she has no intention of using that word then what is stopping her from “saying something about John Edwards”?
Surely, Stacy, you can’t be serious? If you truly believe that then you need to examine your own critical thinking skills.
Ann rocks, and needs to be applauded by our side, not vilified.
Applauded for what? For claiming to be a Christian and then referring to people as ragheads, faggots, and old Arabs and then wishing that that certain people would die? About the only thing worse that Coulter’s dumb remarks are the way that people are so stringent in defending them. It's shameful.
ex-preacher 1. Was the gratuitous shot at liberals really necessary? Maybe so, to prove to your fellow conservatives that you weren't going soft.
Yeah, I think it was. I’m trying point out that we don’t want to become like the Left. If Coulter were on the other end of the political spectrum she’d never get noticed – her voice would harmonize too well with the Koskids and other nutroots crowd and her rhetoric wouldn’t stand out. She’d simply be a female version of Bill Maher.
2. I'm not sure I understand your criticism of freedom of speech and rights. Are you suggesting that there should be legal consequences for Ann's use of the words "raghead" or "faggot"?
No, she certainly has the legal right to say what she wants. But that doesn’t mean we have to give her a stage to say it on. CPAC certainly wouldn’t give David Duke a forum to speak so they obviously draw the line somewhere. (And no, Coulter isn’t Duke. It’s just difficult to find a mainstream example that is more extreme than Coulter.)
Tim Perhaps the reason to be civil is because its the right thing to do!
Amen, brother.
But perhaps Joe could stop referring to her as a corpse or whatever. She is wrong, but not anymore of a sinner than I.
Although it didn’t come off was well, I had intended that metaphor to be more like what Christ intended when he referred to the Pharisees as being “like whitewashed sepulchers.”
mark Sullivan Now, I love Russell Kirk as much as anybody. But he did not get get us on the national scene either.
Is that our new goal as conservatives? Obviously exposure is important but at what cost? Should we abandon what makes conservatism great in order to make it more palatable for talk radio and FOX News? I’m not saying that Rush hasn’t been a big help to the movement. But while he opened the door for people like Hugh Hewitt, he’s also left it open for people like Coulter – and Bill Maher, and Al Franken, and Jon Stewart (though he’s not that bad)…
August You are better off arguing women shouldn't be part of the debate at all, than suggesting she's stupid, corpse-like, etc...
I think it’s even more insulting that you imply that women couldn’t be heard unless they were being provocateurs like Coulter.
Love that euphamism: "in drag" -- makes a suitable parallel to the "F" word.
But she is a satirist, and one quite skilled. Unfortunately quite distasteful as well.
Stacy L Harp:
Very funny, you accuse Joe of saying that Ann called him a "faggot" and then talk on your site about so few conservatives having common sense, etc., when Joe said no such thing. He quoted her. Basically, she said that she would except that she would be whisked off and you defend it by saying that she didn't "really" say it.
Whatever!
You really need to read a little slower!
On that note, Joe, I take back the fact that you called Ann a corpse. You said that she is the corpse of conservatism, which is completely different. It's amazing how we read what we want to read and immediately jump to conclusions.
It's pretty clear to me what Ann said and what she meant by what she said.
Political correctness has run amok in this country and i'm sorry to see Joe supporting it. I'm even more sorry to see so many of our intellectual elite conservatives supporting it. Some just to get lauded by the MSM.
But Ann said what she said, not what others are accusing her of saying.
She does what she does well, perhaps too well, and in this case it is pointing out how out of control our political correctness is in this country. Joe even parses the words to make it seem like Stacy is dumb, and apparantly i'm just as dumb.
But I cannot stress this point enough, we do not know what she would have said about John Edwards while using the word faggot. Maybe before her speech she wrote an outline that said, "Currently the Democrats in Congress want to repeal the don't ask don't tell policy in the military. John Edwards is personally behind this push helping all the fags in the military to be open about their homosexuality."
Then she thought to herself, "Hmmm, if I say something about John Edwards supporting faggots, they'll want to send me to rehab. Instead i'll make social commentary on how political correctness has run amok in this country."
Should she be using such rotten language to describe people? I don't think so. Did she call John Edwards a faggot? Nope.
Political Correctness has run amok.
Apparantly using political correctness to hide behind, or as an excuse/defense for sick behavior, words, attitudes, etc has also run amok.
If you think this is about political correctness, then you aren't listening! Political correctness is about not saying something because it can offend somebody or a group of somebody's. Joe is simply talking about a better way to act and civility because it is the right thing to do! (I think)
What is sad is that people don't understand this difference.
Great post.
The reason why it's so important for Joe Carter to call down Ann Coulter is that political discourse will only improve in this country when those "on the same side" criticize the verbal louts.
Joe's comments are one point for integrity in conservatism.
We need to distinguish between semantic content and illocutionary force. The semantic content of an expression is what it literally means. The illocutionary force is what the speaker intends to convey, and it usually goes well beyond any semantic content.
The semantic content of Coulter's statement is that she can't use the word 'faggot', so she won't make her joke about Edwards. The sematic content includes nothing about what she intended to use the word for. But the illocutionary force, given the kinds of conventions we have regarding this sort of joke, is very clearly a lot more than the mere semantic content. The illocutionary force includes both of the following claims:
1. The idea that calling someone a faggot is bad is stupid.
2. John Edwards is a faggot.
There's no way any normal, competent speaker of English familiar with the kind of humor Coulter is relying on can hear what she said without being very clear that she meant to convey both 1 and 2. That is simply how the kind of thing she said works.
There is another odd thing about the "faggot," speech by Cuolter, the so called liberal, drive by media, hasn't jumped on it. The New york Times actually talks about the conference and Coulter's speech but doesn't find the "faggot' part news worthy. Ap and Reuters didn't cover the story either.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/03/associated-press-reuters-awol-on.html
Joe,
Thank you for your responses.
I am normally a big proponent and defender of civility at the Evangelical Outpost, and elsewhere. It is ironic that I also usually end up defending Ann Coulter when you write about her.
As I said in my first comment, I am very sympathetic to your concern about Ms. Coulter. She is a fountain of very harsh criticism, some of which appears to go beyond the bounds of civility in public discourse.
However, I usually end up defending Ms. Coulter here because I perceive that you (and many others) attack her unfairly. Defending someone from an unfair attack is itself a form of civility, so my defense of Ms. Coulter's apparent incivility is actually a stand for civility itself.
Why is your attack unfair?
Because you don't give sufficient weight, or even close to sufficient weight, to the context of Ms. Coulter's very mischievous rhetoric and polemics. Without a proper discussion of the context, you are ignoring the whole motivation and deeper meaning of what she is trying to say.
What context am I talking about?
The context is that people on the left side of the political spectrum say all manner of outrageous things every day of the year, but rarely get called on it.
In fact, such outrages are just as likely to be celebrated by our culture and our media (and increasingly, by even our more sober institutions like academia and government) as they are to be condemned. But generally speaking, outrageous and inappropriate rhetoric is only condoned and/or celebrated when it appears on the liberal/left side of the ledger.
For example, it is almost a badge of honor in our society to condemn Israeli self-defense as proto-fascist Zionism. Or to scorn President Bush as stupidly incompetent (although of course, he is also diabolically clever and manipulative at the same time). And let's not get started with Vice-President Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
Here's another example.
If you go to the front page of the website of the University of Chicage School of Law, you are presented with a large photo of some anonymous student, and the photo has sound-bite like quote superimposed upon it. A few weeks ago, one of the quotes being used (on a randomly rotating basis) was, "If Bush wants to win back the trust of the American people, he has to begin by being honest with them.." The quote comes from a January 16th column in the Chicago Tribune by law professor Geoffrey Stone.
I exchanged a couple of e-mails with the law school dean, and it looks like the quote has been pulled from the stock of quotes being used. But for a couple of weeks, this crudely insulting bit of partisanship was being thrown in the faces of about 20 to 30% of the people who visited the main page of the website.
Not a very big deal, perhaps, but the University of Chicago has been one of the top five law schools in the country for many years now. It appears that very few institutions are immune from Bush-Derangement-Syndrome.
So back to Ann Coulter.
If civil discourse in the U.S. wasn't so dramatically uncivil already, then I would agree with you. Ms. Coulter is over-the-top and polluting the world with her obnoxious barbs.
But since there is a largely one-sided tolerance for even worse rhetoric coming from the liberal world, her polemics are actually a very valuable way to highlight the nastiness on the left-side, and to provoke a hypocritical reaction from liberal public figures.
Even more importantly, by dissecting the politics and social agendas of liberals and leftists with strong biting humor, she performs the very valuable service of highlighting and illuminating the struggle of ideology between left and right. There are very few pundits who latch on to and analyze the controversies in current events as effectively as she does.
A few observations about your response to me:
You said,
Let’s parse that phrase: "Conservatism is dead and Ann Coulter is its corpse."
This has nothing to do with her personal appearance. Although I don’t find her attractive, I certainly don’t think she looks like a corpse.
When I said that you said that Ms. Coulter smells and looks like a corpse, I wasn't talking about "Conservatism is dead and Ann Coulter is its corpse." I was talking about the following, from the third paragraph of your post:
And though she possesses the same pallor and stench, Coulter isn't exactly a corpse.
You forgot about that line, didn't you? I'd say that's in the same ballpark as implying someone is a "f****t".
I’m not a humor-challenged homosexual and I took offense to it.
I said deep and lasting offense. And I also admitted that I could be wrong.
But if Ms. Coulter had said, "All atheists are morons and baby-killers" (and maybe she has!), I don't expect that I would be offended at all. Rather, I would be curious to see what the heck she is talking about. [Note to readers: I'm an atheist who likes to troll the E.O. every now and again.]
I completely agree. I don’t think she’s stupid. If she were it might be more excusable.
O.K., you don't think she is stupid. But then, in the very next sentence, you accuse her of stupidity (and you refer several times in your post to her stupidity). So I guess what you're saying is that, "Ms. Coulter is smart (or even very smart), but her writing is stupid."
I couldn't disagree with you more strongly. Her rhetoric is arguably misguided and inappropriate, but her writing is very, very sharp (or at least it is about 90% of the time). And I find her to be consistently funny, and occasionally hilarious.
Baggi,
If Ms. Coulter was referring to homosexuals in general as "f****ts", as opposed to John Edwards, then I too would have found that to be disgusting and stupid and bigoted.
It's because she was talking about Senator Edwards that her remark was funny and appropriate. Believe it or not, homosexuals are not "f****ts", and it is shameful to think of them in those terms, much less say such a thing in a public forum.
Well stated, Joe. Ann Coulter is a joke and a disgrace. You either value civility or you don't. Its irresponsible for her defenders to say that conservatives are the party of civility but excuse or even laud her incivil behavior.That whole satire excuse is wearing thin. There are many more intelligent, articulate and civil commentators that can define the conservative movement without needing to resort to her circus act. If anyone thinks that she is a positive asset for the conservative cause, then they should look back on how well the conservative movement was served by the various bigots and crackpots in the years before the conservative ascendancy. The American people don't like bigots or crackpots, and they tend not to vote for people or parties that are friendly to them.
Robert The American people don't like bigots or crackpots, and they tend not to vote for people or parties that are friendly to them.
Excellent point!
I'd vote for Ann Coulter over Hillary Clinton in a heartbeat. But it's true that most people wouldn't.
Oh, I forgot to ask you, Joe, does the fact you described Ms. Coulter as having the "same pallor and stench" as a corpse mean that you are likewise ineligible for public office?
Or were you making a valid point about Ms. Coulter's offensiveness? Is it okay to illustrate her nastiness by being nasty oneself?
Matthew Oh, I forgot to ask you, Joe, does the fact you described Ms. Coulter as having the "same pallor and stench" as a corpse mean that you are likewise ineligible for public office?
Point taken. I had intended to use those terms in reference to her personality but since "pallor" means extreme paleness and Coulter is rather pale it makes it more image related than I had intended.
I rewrote that section to take out those words.
I applaud your editing, but I should point out that Ms. Coulter was not calling Senator Edwards a "f****t" because she thinks he's a homosexual. She was using the word as a derogatory epithet referring to Senator Edward's alleged femininity and dovishness and nanny-state-ism.
So your intended use of "pallor and stench" is still quite on a par with Ms. Coulter's intended use.
But your re-write is appropriate, so bully for you.
If you are so inclined, you might want to check out a column that Ms. Coulter wrote recently about the Duke alleged-rape case:
"The Stripper Has No Clothes"
It is a tightly reasoned essay that wades into the politics of Republican versus Democratic judges. It manages to be smart and funny without being obscene or otherwise disgusting. You might actually like it and appreciate it.
Ms. Coulter is just an entertainer-just like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity. Anyone who would take her words too seriously should just lighten up and realize she's just trying to make a living.
What I did find offensive last year was how she appeared on "christian" television shows as some sort of christian spokesperson and was featured in the (christian) Values Voter Summit. I found it highly repugnant that she was put forth as some sort of representative of christianity. I don't have a problem with her so much as the christians who thought it was appropriate to bring her on their shows or invite her to a values voter summitt.
I do fell kind of sorry for Ms. Coulter. She seems like a sad lonely person. Sure she has fame and money, but how could she be proud of what she is doing or have a sense of integrity? We should all pray for her as she has lost her way.
Stacy L. Harp says:
Well Stacy, in your logic above, why don't you try replacing the word "faggot" with "nigger". How well do you think it works then? Technically correct is not the same as morally correct. Or even smart.
If I made a 15 minute speech about you Stacy, and I used the word "faggot" every other word, but without calling you that directly, what would you think my intent was?
Your position on this is morally repugnant and purposely self-deceiving. Maybe you believe in Jesus but you certainly don't believe Jesus.
Matthew wrote in response to my post;
If Ms. Coulter was referring to homosexuals in general as "f****ts", as opposed to John Edwards, then I too would have found that to be disgusting and stupid and bigoted.
It's because she was talking about Senator Edwards that her remark was funny and appropriate. Believe it or not, homosexuals are not "f****ts", and it is shameful to think of them in those terms, much less say such a thing in a public forum.
Matthew, I believe you and Joe are both pretty smart fellows, so it dumbfounds me that when Ann Coulter is too clever by half, you both don't get it.
Let's recall what she said (Read joe above) and then let's remember what she said on Fox News not so long ago.
To quote Ann Coulter:
While discussing politicians and celebrities who "run to rehab in times of crisis," earlier today on Fox News Channel, conservative pundit Ann Coulter mocked the idea that someone should have to be "rehabilitated" for using a word that is considered a slur against gays.
"You use the word 'faggot' and you're going into rehab?" Coulter asked incredulously on Fox's Live Desk A-List.
The best selling Godless author was referring to Grey's Anatomy star, Isaiah Washington, who used the word twice in reference to co-star T.R. Knight. Knight later publicly "came out" when word broke out about the on-set scuffle the two actors had.
[...]Coulter maintained that going to rehab was "a way of avoiding the actual bad thing you did," like "have an affair with your aide's wife."
San Franciso Mayor Gavin Newsom "apologized Thursday for having a sexual relationship with his former campaign manager's wife," the Associated Press reported a few days ago.
"Now," Coulter continued, "unless you were caught drunk driving like Mel Gibson and that's what the issue is...it's substance abuse you know, you use the word 'faggot,' and you're going into rehab?"
"Come on," Coulter added.
Clearly her remarks have nothing at all to do with John Edwards. Period. It's social commentary and comedy mixed together to provoke just exactly the type of reaction Joe Carter is having, but meant to expose the hypocrisy of the left.
It is not calling John Edwards a bad name. It is probably just as Curt put it on Flopping Aces:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/03/03/ann-coulter-the-lightening-rod/
"Why did she pick Edwards to throw this red herring out there, I would imagine it had to do with his hiring and firing of those foul mouthed bloggers recently."
Predictably, Joe is offended by Coulter but as is obvious from Joe's previous posts on Ann Coulter, he's looking to be offended by her, just like the liberals are in this country because he doesn't like her.
But for those of us who do not have a negative emotional response to Ann Coulter, it shouldn't be too hard to see what she meant and it had nothing to do with calling John Edwards a bad name.
Maybe I overlooked it in the post, but what does this article have to do with the evangelization of the lost, the preaching of the gospel, or the advancement of the kingdom?
As I understand the situation Ann Coulter is a Roman Catholic which means she's lost and without hope having believed a different gospel - the Romish gospel of works and idolatry.
Maybe instead of bashing Coulter on your website you might instead consider writing her a letter explaining the problem of sin, the grace and mercy of the cross, the reality of an eternal hell, and then inform her that you're praying for her.
You are praying for her, right Joe?
Good post! You might like to know that some prominent conservatives are already criticizing Coulter for her inappropriate remarks. I just wrote a blog post where I quoted from Michelle Malkin's and Hugh Hewitt's admirable responses. Here's the link if you are interested:
http://lestdarknessfall.blogspot.com/2007/03/malkin-criticizes-coulter-for-slur.html
Things have changed in a very short time. Ann Coulter burst on the scene during Clinton's impeachment with a book called High Crimes and Misdemeanors. She is a constitutional attorney.
Her books are notorious for 'mistakes', errors, and outright lies. BTW, what exactly does that mean that she is a Constitutional attorney? What cases has she taken in front of the Supreme Court? Has she actually handled any serious cases at all about the Constitution or did she just have a short gig at a law firm after she graduated law school?
I remember the first time I saw her on TV. I couldn't believe there were actually conservative women out there who could mix it up with all the lefties who have been on our airwaves for so long. You have to admit, don't you, that the first time you saw her you were glad there was someone from our side fighting back against the Clinton slime machine?
You must have done some serious drugs during the Clinton administration if you think he suffered no intense criticism until Coulter came around. On the contrary, he was well criticized before and after her.
Joe is correct on this one. Coulter is an humiliating to conservatism. What I think he often doesn't realize, though, is that Coulter isn't the problem but a symptom. There have always been stupid, crude people on all sides of the political spectrum. At one time William F Buckley was preferred among conservatives not because there weren't cruder people on the right but because the right was made up of smarter people who wanted to get things right. Now it is made up of many people who are not as smart and who want to win more than be right.
Matthew
If you go to the front page of the website of the University of Chicage School of Law, you are presented with a large photo of some anonymous student, and the photo has sound-bite like quote superimposed upon it. A few weeks ago, one of the quotes being used (on a randomly rotating basis) was, "If Bush wants to win back the trust of the American people, he has to begin by being honest with them.." The quote comes from a January 16th column in the Chicago Tribune by law professor Geoffrey Stone.
I exchanged a couple of e-mails with the law school dean, and it looks like the quote has been pulled from the stock of quotes being used. But for a couple of weeks, this crudely insulting bit of partisanship was being thrown in the faces of about 20 to 30% of the people who visited the main page of the website.
Not a very big deal, perhaps, but the University of Chicago has been one of the top five law schools in the country for many years now. It appears that very few institutions are immune from Bush-Derangement-Syndrome.
I went to the site. It looks like they put a big picture up (I assume of one of their professors or students) and a provacative quote (I assume from them). The idea seems to be that the Univ of Chicago is a place where people say interesting things. I didn't get the idea that you're supposed to agree with them. It's interesting that the right now tries to call disagreement with the Bush administration mental illness. You know hard leftists also had a habit of calling anyone who disagreed with them mentally ill. Perhaps you should reconsider Joe's argument.
While I agree with Joe about my dislike for Coulter's style, I think he misses an important point:
The ELECTED representatives of the left are making statements just an inappropriate. I am notably thinking of Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schummer and Howard Dean. To give one example, Howard Dean said, (I'm going from memory here, but this is pretty close): "I don't want to belong to the party that wants to send children to bed hungry at night."
I could find plenty more examples.
I applaud Joe's public condemnation of Coulter. But if the lefties who comment on this list want to applaud, they'd better stop voting for some of the aforementioned and start requesting a new DNC chair.
jared
Baggi,
If someone, you, me, Joe, or Ann Coulter, were to refer to homosexuals as f****ts, that would be bigoted, nasty, disgusting, and unacceptable.
I agree with you that Ann Coulter did not call any homosexual a f****t. In fact, she later said that she would never insult homosexuals by implying that they were similar to Senator Edwards (which is something I knew she was going to say; it's a little scary that I know her thought-processes well enough to predict that).
"F****t" has several meanings or usages. One meaning is a very bad, obscene slur against homosexuals. Another is as a very rude epithet for a wimpy, effeminate person, such as when Governor Schwarzenegger refers to someone as a "girly-man".
Ms. Coulter called Senator Edwards a f****t, but it was clear she didn't mean he was a homosexual, just a fop with bad policy positions. She probably singled him out because he had hired (and fired) those two potty-mouthed bloggers who had made honest-to-goodness bigoted remarks on their own blogs.
If Ms. Coulter had referred to any homosexual at all as a f****t, for whatever reason, I would be on Joe's side in this controversy.
I agree that technically speaking, she didn't actually say the senator was a f****t, but she implied it directly, which amounts to exactly the same thing under the circumstances.
Boonton,
The idea seems to be that the Univ of Chicago is a place where people say interesting things. I didn't get the idea that you're supposed to agree with them.
Exactly right, Boonton, that is the idea. And apparently the person who is responsible for the website thought that it was "interesting" to say, "If Bush wants to win back the trust of the American people, he has to begin by being honest with them.."
And apparently you think that is an interesting thing to say as well.
I disagree, I think it is a lousy, horrible slander, and totally inappropriate for a prestigious law school's website's main page. I don't think you suffer from B.D.S. (Bush-Derangement-Syndrome), since your slander is a reasonable opinion for someone to hold, and people certainly believe far worse things.
But if you worked for the University of Chicago, and actually decided to put such an insulting, disrespectful, and gratuitously partisan piece of silliness on the main page of the law school website, then I would think that you too might very well be a candidate for B.D.S.
There's a difference between thinking President Bush is a liar, and advertising that belief in a totally inappropriate forum.
By the way, B.D.S. is not a medically recognized mental illness, it's a term of scorn for people who may or may not be unhinged by their obsession with anti-Bush politics.
Thanks for the feedback, amigo.
I disagree, I think it is a lousy, horrible slander, and totally inappropriate for a prestigious law school's website's main page.
Hmmm, what was this horrible slander again?
"If Bush wants to win back the trust of the American people, he has to begin by being honest with them.."
Has Bush been honest? Is it really so out of line to argue that he has been dishonest and this has cost him the trust of the American people? I'm not asking you if that's a true argument (though for the record there probably is quite a bit of truth in it), only if it is so out of line it is the same as calling him a faggot? Seriously, saying the President is dishonest is hardly new. It is probably the oldest criticism made.
By the way, B.D.S. is not a medically recognized mental illness, it's a term of scorn for people who may or may not be unhinged by their obsession with anti-Bush politics.
Exceep the unhinged part seems to aflict Bush defenders much more when they try to label any criticism of their man as some type of mental illness.
Well said, Joe. I have never been a fan of Coulter, and I can't understand why people like her. She adds nothing but vitriol to the debate, and she is an embarassment to those she support.
JohnW
Ms. Coulter is just an entertainer-just like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity. Anyone who would take her words too seriously should just lighten up and realize she's just trying to make a living.
Perhaps you could be as kind to wake me up when conservatives have someone they would like us to take seriously? So far it's been a nice decade long nap (maybe longer). In the meantime, then, you won't object if we just write you all off as class clowns? Seriously the most intelligent conservative I've seen in the last five years is Stephen Colbert!
Boonton,
I don't really consider myself a conservative, although I do hold some conservative views.
Coulter is disgusting, although what is more repugnant is conservatives and some christians embracing her as some sort of conservative/christian spokesperson and buying her books-this is a really sorry state of affairs. That her book "Godless" could be a bestseller says a lot about the dumbing down of our society.
And let me be clear-I think Ms. Coulter is a tool of the current right-wing authoritarian regime. Her work could be placed in the same category as Nazi propaganda. So, I was wrong, we should all be concerned about Coulter (and Hannity, Limbaugh, OReilly, Mike Savage...)
Boonton,
You want serious humor on the Right? Have you missed the precise wit of Buckley?
But, yes, it's been a long time since there was anyone so enjoyable on the Right.
Boonton,
Has Bush been honest?
Yes.
Is it really so out of line to argue that he has been dishonest and this has cost him the trust of the American people?
Boonton, I wrote exactly what I think of the "argument" that President Bush has been dishonest. I didn't say it was out of line at all, I said,
... your slander [that W. is dishonest] is a reasonable opinion for someone to hold, and people certainly believe far worse things.
In other words, I specifically stipulated and agreed that it is reasonable to consider President Bush to be dishonest. What is unreasonable is to call President Bush dishonest and untrustworthy in a most gratuitous way on the main page of the University of Chicago School of Law's website.
For example, it is also reasonable to consider Senator Edwards to be a f****t (I don't think he is), but it is unreasonable to publicly state that in just about any public forum you could imagine.
An even better example would be if the person who ran the U Chic law school website put up a quote that said:
"If Boonton wants to win back the trust of the American people, he has to begin by being honest with them.."
Wouldn't that be an "interesting" and provocative thing to say?
Of course, it's such an outrageous example (since you're not a public figure) that it stretches the analogy a bit too much. But just think about it for a minute, Boonton. Could you imagine someone, somewhere, with some website doing that to you? And wouldn't you think it was a pretty messed-up thing to do? Wouldn't any honest person be seriously ticked off to be slandered in such a casual, gratuitous manner?
[... is it] so out of line [that] it is the same as calling him a faggot?
I think it is much worse than what Ann Coulter did.
The University of Chicago, and its law school, are institutions dedicated to research, truth, learning, and intellectual freedom and responsibility. Ms. Coulter is a analyst/polemicist with a professional reputation for pushing the limits of good taste and knocking them over.
Now if the U Chic had labeled President Bush a f****t, that would have been worse! :)
Except the unhinged part seems to afflict Bush defenders much more when they try to label any criticism of their man as some type of mental illness.
Calling President Bush or anyone else dishonest is not a mental illness. Having a need to announce your belief that President Bush is dishonest in an inappropriate venue is not necessarily a symptom of mental illness either, but it's pretty pathetic. And I'm glad the website of the law school no longer uses the Bush quote.
Perhaps you could be as kind to wake me up when conservatives have someone they would like us to take seriously? So far it's been a nice decade long nap (maybe longer).
There are lots of serious conservatives. In fact, there are so many that I really wonder what in the world you're smoking this morning.
But just in case you really believe what you wrote, let me give you a few examples.
Claudia Rosett
Thomas Sowell
Bill Whittle
Mark Steyn
John Derbyshire
Charles Krauthammer
Michelle Malkin
Peggy Noonan
George Will
Hugh Hewitt
And there's a whole stable of them at one of my favorite magazines,
City Journal.
Perhaps my favorite writer at City Journal (and I recommend him strongly to you) is Theodore Dalrymple.
And of course, the best conservative writer of all [ besides Joe Carter ;) ] is Christopher Hitchens. Except that Mr. Hitchens is not actually a conservative, but a Trotskyist.
So are you awake, yet, Boonton? Are any of these fine folk as intelligent as Stephen Colbert?
Michelle Malkin? The one who wrote a book defending the internment of Japanese-Americans in WW II? Truly disgusting.
I noticed on Malkin's blog that even she had the decency to roundly condemn Coulter's "joke." I wonder how many of your "serious conservatives" approved of what Malkin called Coulter's "verbal diarrhea."
Michelle Malkin? The one who wrote a book defending the internment of Japanese-Americans in WW II? Truly disgusting.
Where you there, ex? You know, after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. The attack that destroyed the majority of our Pacific Fleet. Do you remember who did it? Did you experience the panic, the fear? Did you have to worry that the Japanese fleet's next stop might be California or the Panema Canal? Somehow I think not. It's real easy to sit back with 60+ years of hindsight from your safe, cushy little life and criticize people who actually had to make tough decisions on the fly, but it's also rather arrogant. It assumes that you would have made better decisions, based on what I can't imagine, and that you are somehow able to foresee the results of your decisions, that have never been made. Did the US overreact when it interned the Japanese-US citizens (not to mention significant numbers of German and Italian US citizens)? Maybe, but ultimately we won the war. Would we have won it had we not interned those citizens? Impossible to know. So why don't you STFU and just be thankful for the freedoms you enjoy, bought for you at a very dear price by people 60 years ago that were willing to make the incredibly tough decisions that you are too gutless to.
Ex-preacher,
Michelle Malkin's criticism of Ms. Coulter was right on target, the best out of all the criticisms I have read.
But I still can't agree 100% with what she says. Yes, Ms. Coulter dropped a stink bomb, yes, it was harmful to Ms. Coulter's hosts. But that is what she does for a living -- and that is exactly what Ms. Coulter did at last year's CPAC convention with her "raghead" remarks!
If CPAC doesn't want to hire Ms. Coulter again or regrets hiring Ms. Coulter, I don't have a problem with that. But I don't have a big problem with what Ms. Coulter did either. She made a point about Senator Edwards, and about going to "rehab", and she made it well.
Now let's talk about Michelle.
Defending the WWII internments of Japanese-Americans is "truly disgusting"?
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Is defending the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki truly disgusting as well? Is defending the fire-bombing of Tokyo and Dresden truly disgusting as well?
Is defending welfare-reform truly disgusting? Is defending abortion truly disgusting? Is defending the invasion of Iraq truly disgusting, or the invasion of Afghanistan?
Controversies often provoke feelings of disgust. That doesn't mean debating a controversy is disgusting.
Michelle Malkin is a very smart and very decent person. I'm disappointed that you found her book to be so disgusting that you hold it against her. Perhaps you shouldn't be so judgemental of people who work in good faith to challenge the accepted wisdom.
Peace,
Matthew
Somehow it doesn't surprise me that someone who would think Coulter's remarks were just fine would also think the internment of Japanese-Americans was a brilliant idea.
Did you know that a majority of the US citizens in Hawaii were of Japanese descent in 1941? Guess how many of them were interned? Exactly 0. Do you know how many Japanese-Americans were found guilty of having aided Japan? Exactly 0.
Many people at the time knew it was wrong and said it was wrong.
Maybe it is easier to sit here 60 years later and see how wrong it was. But what does it say that Malkin sits here 60 years later and says it was right?
If you want listen to me, how about the Gipper? Here's what Ronald Reagan had to say when he signed the bill giving compensation to the survivors:
"Yet we must recognize that the internment of Japanese-Americans was just that: a mistake. For throughout the war, Japanese-Americans in the tens of thousands remained utterly loyal to the United States. Indeed, scores of Japanese-Americans volunteered for our Armed Forces, many stepping forward in the internment camps themselves. The 442d Regimental Combat Team, made up entirely of Japanese-Americans, served with immense distinction to defend this nation, their nation. Yet back at home, the soldier's families were being denied the very freedom for which so many of the soldiers themselves were laying down their lives.
. . .
"The legislation that I am about to sign provides for a restitution payment to each of the 60,000 surviving Japanese-Americans of the 120,000 who were relocated or detained. Yet no payment can make up for those lost years. So, what is most important in this bill has less to do with property than with honor. For here we admit a wrong; here we reaffirm our commitment as a nation to equal justice under the law."
Ex-preacher,
Somehow it doesn't surprise me that someone who would think Coulter's remarks were just fine would also think the internment of Japanese-Americans was a brilliant idea.
I didn't say that Ms. Coulter's remarks were just fine. I said that to attack her as a bigot was unjustified.
Ms. Coulter's remarks were inflammatory and offensive, but she said them as a challenge to those who would ignore the offensive rhetoric of persons who are liberal or left-leaning.
I did not say the internment of Japanese-Americans was a brilliant idea. In fact, I didn't say anthing at all about the the internment of Japanese-Americans, pro or con. Re-read what I wrote and tell me that I am wrong.
What I did say is that it is not disgusting to talk about it, and that it is not disgusting to defend it. For all you know, I might believe it was a bigger mistake than President Reagan thought it was.
... what does it say that Malkin sits here 60 years later and says it was right?
Michelle Malkin's book about the internment was not a simplistic argument that the relocations were right and we should be happy about them. Her thesis was that the internment was a lot different from what most people believe it was, and that at the time, it was a rational and defensible response to the threat, both real and perceived, posed by Japanese-Americans on the West Coast.
Have you read the book? Do you know what it says and what it doesn't say?
Did you know that a majority of the US citizens in Hawaii were of Japanese descent in 1941? Guess how many of them were interned? Exactly 0. Do you know how many Japanese-Americans were found guilty of having aided Japan? Exactly 0.
Japanese-Americans were generally very, very patriotic Americans. But the situation was not as black-and-white as you seem to think.
Why is it wrong to take a look at the internment and try to figure out what exactly went on? Why is it wrong if Michelle Malkin researches the question and writes a book that challenges your beliefs?
My point, in any case, has nothing directly to do with the internment. My point is that Ms. Malkin is a good writer, a serious conservative personality, and a very decent person.
I suppose that part of the price of being an intellectual is taking some heat when people don't like what you have to say. But it is particularly ironic that you, as an ex-Christian troll at the E.O., would be so quick to jump to unjustified conclusions about Michelle Malkin.
You get so much grief here about your beliefs and your willingness to challenge Christians that I hoped you would have a higher threshhold for allowing yourself to rush to judge others.
My comments were aimed at ucfengr, not you Matthew. In fact, I had not read your comments when I posted.
I don't consider myself a "troll," but I suppose you feel entitled to name-calling. I do not in the least feel that my criticisms of Malkin are unjustified. No, I have not read her book and I don't intend to. I believe that I understand her basic argument, but do feel free to enlighten me further.
Malkin is a good writer, no argument there. I don't know your basis for calling her an "intellectual" or "a very decent person." I am not saying she is not a decent person, I just don't know. But I do find the notion of justifying what our nation did to Japanese-Americans disgusting. I am even more disgusted by her suggestion that we emulate that sort of behavior in our treatment of Arab-Americans today. You liken it to disgust over welfare-reform. I would put it closer to disgust over anyone who would justify the shameful legacy of segregation and discrimination against African Americans.
Ex-preacher,
I don't consider "troll" to be a put-down, just a description. That's why I called myself a troll in comment 22 (paragraph 28).
In fact, you could consider Joe Carter to be a "troll" for publishing a Christian blog in a materialistic universe :)
So no offense meant, and sorry that I called you something you didn't like.
If you are an agnostic about Michelle Malkin that is fine by me, but I myself usually don't assume someone's book is in error just because he doesn't agree with me. To go further, and state that the book is truly disgusting without even reading it is just flat-out wrong.
You're not acting as a good representative of anti-Christian skepticism, my friend.
I am saying that I find her basic argument or idea to be disgusting. Is it now a rule that we must read a book (or perhaps all the books that person wrote) before we can disagree with their point of view? Maybe I should withold judgment on Hitler's ideas as I have yet to read all of Mein Kampf.
It's one thing to be disgusted by an idea: justifying the internment of Japanese-Americans.
It's another thing to be disgusted by someone who is specifically challenging your disgust because he is claiming your disgust is based, to a certain extent, on ignorance.
For example, as an Irish-American, I might be disgusted by British policies during the Great Famine (as indeed I am!). But if someone were to write a book challenging me to re-evaluate my ideas about the Great Famine, I wouldn't dismiss the book (and by implication, the author) out-of-hand as truly disgusting without even reading the author's own words and ideas.
If somehow I didn't know anything about Adolf Hitler, and someone told me he wrote a book called "Mein Kampf" (which is currently being sold in the Middle East with the title translated as "Jihad"), I might be willing to take it on faith that Hitler was an evil cretin. But I would still want to look at the book myself and see exactly what Hitler had to say.
Should I lump you in with Hitler too, since he too was a judgemental person who liked to judge a book by its cover? You, and Michelle Malkin, are not trying to establish a fascist dictatorship, so the idea is totally absurd.
If Michelle's book is such a travesty, then if you take a closer look at it, your pre-judgement should be confirmed. So go ahead, find out some more about it, and tell me how disgusting it seems to be then.
Somehow it doesn't surprise me that someone who would think Coulter's remarks were just fine would also think the internment of Japanese-Americans was a brilliant idea.
Funny, I haven't yet commented on Coulter's remarks, so how would you know how I feel about them? Are you a mind reader? What am I feeling now? Also, where did I say the internment of Japanese-Americans (not to mention Italian and German Americans) was a "brilliant idea"? What I said was that given the environment of the post-Pearl Harbor it was a reasonable response. Was it necessary? Who can say? There is no rewind button on life where we can back up time and change decisions and view their impact. But for you, from the comfort of your easy chair, to attempt to pass moral judgement on people who were trying to protect us from some of the worst regimes the world has ever seen is incredibly arrogant and pretty damn ungrateful too.
Do you know how many Japanese-Americans were found guilty of having aided Japan? Exactly 0.
Kind of hard to aid the enemy from an internment camp.
If you want listen to me, how about the Gipper? Here's what Ronald Reagan had to say when he signed the bill giving compensation to the survivors
But what was President Reagan saying in 1942 or 1943? It's very easy to be magnanimous in the after-glow of victory, but in 1942 I imagine he was too busy building a bomb shelter at the ranch to worry about the treatment of the Japanese internees.
In other words, I specifically stipulated and agreed that it is reasonable to consider President Bush to be dishonest. What is unreasonable is to call President Bush dishonest and untrustworthy in a most gratuitous way on the main page of the University of Chicago School of Law's website.
I'm not sure what this hyperventilating is all about here. The quote was not, IMO, sladerous or gratuitious. The context was a showcase of provactative quotes by what I presume are the faciality of the University. The quote you provided may be partisan and opinionated but it wasn't gratuitous, slanderous or otherwise wrong IMO.
As you agree if the quote was "President Bush is a F****T" then we can easily see the difference between a strong opinion and a childish rant that says more about the ranter than his target.
"If Boonton wants to win back the trust of the American people, he has to begin by being honest with them.."
Wouldn't that be an "interesting" and provocative thing to say?
I suppose it would but I suspect I'm not quite well known enough for such a quote to be very provacative.
Of course, it's such an outrageous example (since you're not a public figure) that it stretches the analogy a bit too much. But just think about it for a minute, Boonton. Could you imagine someone, somewhere, with some website doing that to you? And wouldn't you think it was a pretty messed-up thing to do? Wouldn't any honest person be seriously ticked off to be slandered in such a casual, gratuitous manner?
A slander is something that is untruthful but as you admitted it is not unreasonable for a person to t hink Bush has been dishonest. Why would such a quote about me be 'pretty messed up'? If someone wants to argue that I'm dishonest then he should do so. We are, of course, leaving aside the fact that Bush is a public figure who holds a very high political office. Intense scrutiny and criticism kind of goes withthe job.
And of course, the best conservative writer of all [ besides Joe Carter ;) ] is Christopher Hitchens. Except that Mr. Hitchens is not actually a conservative, but a Trotskyist.
I like Hitchens a lot too but aside from his support of the Iraq war and his dislike of Bill Clinton can you tell me what exactly makes him a conservative?
Boonton,
If you don't agree with me that, on that particular website, using a quote calling President Bush dishonest and untrustworthy is inappropriate and gratuitously partisan, then it is possible that I will not be able to explain it to your satifaction.
However, I'll try anyway.
The quote didn't meet the minimal norms of respect, courtesy, seriousness, and objectivity that ought to be associated with such high-caliber and prestigious institutions as the University of Chicago and the University of Chicago School of Law. It contributed, however modestly, to a defining-downwards of standards for discourse/debate in the country-at-large, and reflected poorly on the law school itself. Unnecessary and unprovoked pollution.
How did it do these things? Because it's just an insult, without an argument, injected into a space where people are just trying to get information about the law school. People were not visiting the main page of the law school to be "provoked" by an "interesting" quote which was actually not interesting at all aside from being provocatively lame.
President Bush, despite being a politician and a public figure, deserves respect, and should not be the target of a random pot-shot in a forum where it is not justified or relevant just because someone liked the insult and wanted to put it in visitors' faces whether the visitors like it or not.
What if the quote had been, "If blacks want to be taken seriously by the people of the U.S., they need to start by getting off their duffs and taking advantage of some of the opportunities that are available to them ..." I think that would also qualify as an "interesting" and "provocative" statement to rotate on the main-page. Do you think such a quote would be appropriate?
... can you tell me what exactly makes [Hitchens] a conservative?
I said he wasn't a conservative. He himself does admit, though, that he agrees a lot more with conservatives on the big questions of the day than he does with most liberals.
You demanded that conservatives wake you up when they find "someone they would like us to take seriously". Christopher Hitchens is at or near the top of the list of people you should take seriously who take a "conservative" line on many policies and controversies.
If you don't agree with me that, on that particular website, using a quote calling President Bush dishonest and untrustworthy is inappropriate and gratuitously partisan, then it is possible that I will not be able to explain it to your satifaction.
Keep the context in mind Matthew. If the University homepage just put an anti-Bush comment up with no other context then yea I'd agree with you that it is an unnecessary distraction, improperly partisan and gratiutous.
The context here, though, was a rotating highlight of provakative (but legititmate) opinions by the school's faculity. No doubt the underlying message is something like "this is the school to go to if you want to hear and engage in edgy political debate with smart, outspoken, faculity who do more than just read you the textbook".
Now if the entire series of rotating comments were anti-Bush I'd say you have a point. However if this one was one among others then I still maintain it was fine. And no I do not think each anti-Bush comment need be balanced with exactly one pro-Bush (or anti-Clinton or whatever) comment.
The quote didn't meet the minimal norms of respect, courtesy, seriousness, and objectivity that ought to be associated with such high-caliber and prestigious institutions as the University of Chicago and the University of Chicago School of Law. It contributed, however modestly, to a defining-downwards of standards for discourse/debate in the country-at-large, and reflected poorly on the law school itself. Unnecessary and unprovoked pollution.
I think you're having trouble making up your mind. You admitted it was a reasonable position to take that Bush was dishonest and his dishonestly cost him the trust of the American people. Are you saying that's a reasonable position to take but it is unreasonable for people to actually say they take it unless they are talking trash in a bar or a guest on the Howard Stern show?
How did it do these things? Because it's just an insult, without an argument, injected into a space where people are just trying to get information about the law school. People were not visiting the main page of the law school to be "provoked" by an "interesting" quote which was actually not interesting at all aside from being provocatively lame.
Actually it is an argument, "Bush was dishonest." "Dishonesty cost him the trust of the American People". "If he wants it back he has to become honest". I can see why Bush or one of his supporters may be angry by this argument but it isn't an insult. It isn't "John Edwards is a F****t".
And no this is not just about people trying to get information about the law school. Marketing is a two way street. Yes the page does provide information about the law school but it also provides the school with an opportunity to pitch their message to potential customers.
What if the quote had been, "If blacks want to be taken seriously by the people of the U.S., they need to start by getting off their duffs and taking advantage of some of the opportunities that are available to them ..." I think that would also qualify as an "interesting" and "provocative" statement to rotate on the main-page. Do you think such a quote would be appropriate?
I think there's a big difference between arguing the faults of a individual person versus arguing the faults of an entire race. A person could examine Bush's record and mount a counter argument that he is really honest....or that if he is dishonesty he nevertheless lost the trust of the American people for other reasons etc... How do you address or justify such a claim when it applies to an entire race? How would you show that blacks are not dishonest?
Now if the quote was something like "if we want poverty rates to decrease among blacks they need to lower their rates of out of wedlock childbirths, show more respect for education in urban culture and increase their savings rates" I wouldn't object to such a provacative passage being among the rotation.
I said he wasn't a conservative. He himself does admit, though, that he agrees a lot more with conservatives on the big questions of the day than he does with most liberals.
You demanded that conservatives wake you up when they find "someone they would like us to take seriously". Christopher Hitchens is at or near the top of the list of people you should take seriously who take a "conservative" line on many policies and controversies.
I was responding to the person who said Coulter and Hannity were just entertainers who we shouldn't take too seriously. There was a time when conservatives took ideas very, very seriously and prided themselves on their respect for ideas and being right. Even as late in the game as Limbaugh it was a common mantra that to conservatives "words have meaning" or "ideas matter".
Now I find it ironic that there is a growing number of conservatives who seem quite ready to declare that words don't matter, ideas don't really matter. Don't take it seriously just support the party line because it's 'better' even though we aren't really mounting much of an argument but golly we can put on an entertaining show for you all!
Do you find it a bit ironic that your big example here of someone to read to seriously engage Conservative ideas is NOT an actual conservative!
Boonton,
Thank you for your latest response, but I disagree with just about everything you say about the anti-Bush quote.
To me, the quote was and always will be a piece of political graffitti scrawled in a demeaning and very ungracious way on the public face of the law school on the internet.
Do you find it a bit ironic that your big example here of someone to read to seriously engage Conservative ideas is NOT an actual conservative!
It's not quite accurate to say Mr. Hitchens was my "big example". I gave over a dozen "big" examples of serious conservative commentators/personalities. Mr. Hitchens is merely my favorite.
Of course I find it ironic that the best conservative is not a conservative, that is why I saved him for last. But it's not as ironic as you make it out to be. There is a long and honorable tradition of socialists and other radicals being mugged by reality and turning to some variant or variety of conservatism in a more advanced stage of their intellectual development.
For example, George Orwell's experiences with the Russian Stalinists in the Spanish Civil War pushed him to embrace and champion the cause of anti-communism (he remained a committed anti-fascist as well). His masterpieces "Animal Farm" and "1984" were a product of his intimate knowledge of the left side of the political universe.
Maybe Christopher Hitchens is my favorite conservative because I myself am not a conservative. I'm a George W. Bush Republican, not a Reagan Republican.
I think it's a little dopey for people to go around calling themselves "conservatives" and "liberals" in the first place. The liberal/conservative menu of issues is continually changing over the years, and our own ideas should be changing as well as a result of our learning and life experiences. I don't think it normally makes a lot of sense to tie one's identity up in a conservative versus a liberal strait-jacket as if one side were smart and the other side were stupid, or worse.
I'm one of the biggest atheists/materialists I know, but I don't go around advertising myself as one. I'm not shy or reluctant to talk about atheism or religion, and I'm not concerned that people would hold my atheism against me. I don't advertise my beliefs because that is just one aspect of who I am, and because no matter how smart or knowledgeable I might like to think I am, I know I will never have a monopoly on wisdom or on the right way to see things. There is much value in just about everybody's perspective.
Sometimes the views of different individuals will compete with each other, but more often than not they are also complementary.
Boontoon,
Regarding the remaining Bush supporters, It's been my observation for them not only do words and ideas not matter, reality does not matter. You see, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, his supporters feel like Bush is a plain, folksy, well-meaning, trustworthy, and honest man who can relate to the common man and just wants to protect over country from the evil-doers.
So, to some it all up. Words, Ideas, and Reality do not matter. What matters is Feelings.
We will probably just have to disagree on the law school but I think you are wrong regarding Coulter being less bad.
Even on this list Coulter is defended by her hypers as a Constitutional Lawyer (my request to hear exactly what cases she has worked on as a lawyer keep getting silence in rseponse) and an accomplished author (fact is, though, her books have been picked over very well by the Daily Howler and others and are littered with mistakes, distortions and outright lies).
JohnW,
The electorate is composed of approximately 120 million people.
Approximately 30 to 35% are, like myself, die-hard supporters of President Bush. That would be at least 35 million people.
If 35 million people disagree with you about President Bush, then is it true that the only way that could happen that makes sense to you is that we are in thrall to our emotions and are guilty of ignoring Words, Ideas, and Reality? Don't you think it is at all possible that President Bush is an honest and trustworthy person?
You write as if the man snuck into your house and stole your bicycle. What has you so convinced that not only is President Bush untrustworthy, but that it is unreasonable to think otherwise?
And why would you want to try to insult me by portraying people who agree with me as irrational? Does it make you feel good to put people down and present yourself as a better person?
I've already explicitly said twice in this comment thread that it is reasonable to consider President Bush dishonest. If you decline to extend the same courtesy to my views, then you are not demonstrating the point you think you are demonstrating.
One more question before I go: What do you think of the trustworthiness/honesty of Hillary Clinton?
Boonton,
I know that after serving as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, she had a stint as a litigator for the Center for Individual Rights. I don't know any of the cases she litigated, or how many.
I've read excerpts of some of her books in order to get a handle on the merits of what she writes in them. My impression is that they are not intellectually rigorous. It is disappointing and a little surprising that her books are not high-quality, because her weekly columns are generally just the opposite: extremely witty, logical, and grounded on the facts.
Her biggest problem in her books seems to be that she extrapolates from the current environment, or some other environment she knows very well, to people and events in other times without applying her keen skeptical sense to her own paradigms and beliefs. Without the discipline of a strict self-skepticism, her arguments fall apart into self-parody and viciousness.
... I think you are wrong regarding Coulter being less bad.
So you think I am wrong to defend Ms. Coulter for making the f****t remark about Senator Edwards. Well, I do acknowledge that out of context, the comment was obnoxious and offensive.
The reason the remark is justifiable is because Ms. Coulter is being a polemical advocate in the Democratic/Republican war of ideas and words. The Edwards remark was nothing more than a volley in the latest battle. It was well within the bounds of reasonable commentary and humor for someone who, like Ann Coulter, is a professional shock-jock type of political commentator.
Yes, ofcourse, it is absolutely possible that President Bush is an honest and trustworthy person-you could say that about anyone. However, based on his words and actions over the last 7 years, I say he is not. Many others agree with me and more will in the future as more and more facts come out now that there is atleast some congressional oversight and hearings regarding the administration. Naturally, some will never be convinced. Could they be right? Certainly, but it's not very likely.
I would say about 20 to 25% will support Bush no matter what facts come out.
I think Hillary Clinton is generally honest and trustworthy. I don't want her to be the democratic candidate though.
I do not mean to insult you-this is just a place to air viewpoints. I don't have any malice, ill-will, or hatred of anyone here on a personal level.
JohnW,
Thank you for not wanting to insult anyone. I believe you don't want to insult anyone, and that is why I highlighted what you said in comment 57:
Regarding the remaining Bush supporters, It's been my observation for them not only do words and ideas not matter, reality does not matter.
[ ... ]
So, to some it all up. Words, Ideas, and Reality do not matter [to Bush supporters]. What matters is Feelings.
I responded to these words, because to me they are, despite your intent, clearly insulting to people who believe President Bush is honest and trustworthy. And there are many people here at the E.O., besides myself, who believe President Bush is honest and trustworthy.
So how do you reconcile your desire to air your views in a non-insulting way with your comments that paint Bush-supporters as reality-challenged dismissers of Words and Ideas? Are you saying we're crazy, but it's not really our fault, so don't hold it against us?
I don't really think it makes you a bad person if you look down on Bush supporters. I just think it's unjustified and insulting. It doesn't help you win any debates, it makes your opinions seem shrill and self-centered.
About Hillary Clinton, I find her to be profoundly dishonest and untrustworthy. There are probably 100 million people I would vote for to be president before I would vote for her.
Matthew Goggins,
I was just making an observation.
Perhaps, half of the 25% of the population that will always support Bush are just ill-informed or discount all criticism of his administration because they discount anything coming from the so-called "liberal media". Many people just don't like to keep up with the news or make the extra effort to get their news from a wide variety of sources-that could be an explanation too.
I don't know, maybe someone should do a study on this.
JohnW,
1) While it's not likely to happen, I would certainly expect that core Bush supporters would reconsider their support if it came out that President Bush had in fact lied or otherwise been untrustworthy. (It's unlikely to happen because President Bush's track record so f