The Politics of Self-Destruction
[Update: The politcs of self-destruction meets the politics of personal destruction. I’d be interested in knowing how many of those who denounced Ann Coulter’s homophobic epithet are now reveling in this story out of partisan schadenfreude. Unless Corporal Sanchez has crusaded against homosexuality and pornography while concealing his own past, I can’t think of anything other than the fact of his past homosexual behavior to make this a legitimate story. I’ll admit, however, that there’s certainly irony in the picture of Sanchez and Coulter posing together. I wonder if it was taken after Coulter’s speech.]
* Part 1: Can Hillary Clinton win? Whenever she tries to molt her stiff, crinkly, translucent exoskeleton, she only ends up sounding false, hollow, and condescending. I admit that other peoples’ accents and dialects can be highly contagious to me, but you absolutely have to listen to Ms. Clinton on this audio to believe how uncommon her “common touch” really is. I give African-American voters — and most others — credit for being able to see through this. I don’t think Ms. Clinton does. And here is where I think she runs into a high wall of negatives she’ll be hard pressed to overcome. Generally, I’m undecided on next year’s election, but Mrs. Clinton is one of the exceptions.
* Part 2: After CPAC’s experience with Ann Coulter at last year’s convention, you have to wonder why it invited her back. I confess that I’ve never been a Coulter fan, and I frequently wonder exactly what Ms. Coulter’s histrionics really bring to her side of the debate, though they’re certainly a gift to her opponents. Not that CPAC cares much what I think, since the candidate toward whom I’m presently leaning at this early date didn’t speak at their convention, but sign me up for booing Ms. Coulter off of the national stage. The freedom to say dumb things does not convey a privilege to have them broadcast. Even had Ms. Coulter been trying to debate homosexuality as a social issue, epithets would have been inconsistent with deep-red conservatives’ “hate the sin, love the sinner” mantra, and repellent to more liberatarian voters (me among them) who don’t see the need for government to regulate private behavior among consenting adults. Ms. Coulter has become an anchor. Conservatives would be wise to cut the chain and let her fall to the abyss, where she can rest beside Pat Buchanan.
So, when is Fred Thompson going to jump in and save the Republican party from itself?
I have never liked Coulter either, and this latest incident makes me believe it is by design. I think it is a way to make money. Howard Stern’s faithful listeners either love him or hate him, and both listen to see what he’ll say and do next…
I think that’s right. Shame on us for rewarding it.
Howard Cosell, no fool he, certainly had that act down to a science.
On the other hand, I was pleasantly surprised and quite impressed with him on the several times that I heard him doing interviews on the radio program ‘All Things Considered’.
I think it was Tom DeLay that said something similar about Rep. Barney Frank on the floor of the House. That was a geniune making of an ass of oneself. Coulter saying this in such an event – reaks of book and memorabilia promotion. I have always thought Rush Limbaugh was a TV evangalialist/infomercial/used car salesman, but this thing with Coulter makes me place here a couple of notches below even that.
Fair enough. Coulter’s a firebrand, a loose cannon, and occasionally an embarrassment to those whose side she claims to represent, but let’s step back and look at the broader picture.
Is her f***** remark (honestly, I can’t believe I’m discussing this. It’s right up there in significance with Anna Nicole Smith’s funeral and Britney Spear’s shaved head), but is Coulter’s comment really any worse than Al Gore’s “extra chromosone right-wing” jab from a few years back? I mean, she’s a journalist, not an elected official. Why does one side get burned in effigy while the other side gets a free pass? Is it because expectations are different? If so, we should ask why.
I mean at least she didn’t publish a book titled “(So and So) Is A Big Fat Idiot” like some other loud mouth attention craver we know.
So she put her foot in her mouth. Who doesn’t?
Let’s try to keep it in perspective.
I don’t read sites like Kos because they tend to be foul-fingered screeds pieced together with disjointed logic, vitriol, and unmedicated conspiracy. Glenn Reynolds linked a post the other day that gave statistical support for the idea that this is more prevalent among far-left blogs.
As a conservative, are you interested in matching that or in rising above it? Because if it’s the former, then maybe there’s no difference after all. I think the quality of our public debate and how the voters perceive it are important things. Being honest and direct is good, and I never miss an episode of South Park because I find its honesty very refreshing, but everything has a proper time and place. I don’t want to live in a country where we debate in epithets. When that happens, we’ll be ruled by the lowest common denominator.
As a matter of fact, if she had just said that John Edwards is an empty suit who talks like Huey Long and lives like Louis XVI, she’d have been right.
As a conservative, are you interested in matching that or in rising above it?
Mostly, I’m interested in simply ignoring it and not being sidetracked from real issues by it. But it’s nearly impossible to do so when every newspaper, TV news show, and even my favorite blogs are picking up on it. I find it curious and disheartening that at a time when we as a nation have real fiscal problems, housing bubbles, creeping inflation, an ongoing unpopular war, and other legitimate issues of concern both domestic and foreign, that we spend even a passing moment on Coulter’s silly comments [or Smith’s burial location for that matter.] It’s to the point where the only headlines are on the order of: “This just in–Coulter still controversial!”
No kidding? So what?
I never miss an episode of South Park because I find its honesty very refreshing
Each to his own. I find it offensive and raunchy, and only different by degrees and not by kind from other pseudo-social commentary fluff like the Simpsons, King of the Hill, Futurama, All American Dad, etc. Seems the more crass and crude the program the more we esteem it to be a great intellectual creation. I don’t get the appeal, but again, that’s just me. Probably just not smart enough. But I can live with that.
As a matter of fact, if she had just said that John Edwards is an empty suit who talks like Huey Long and lives like Louis XVI, she’d have been right.
Of course she would have been right. Even Democrats would likely acknowledge that much. But that wouldn’t have gotten her face on the front page. And therefore she would have been a failure. Instead, she called him a “bundle of sticks” and here we are debating it days later. She’s a shrewd manipulator of the media and a very smart woman. The whole thing was clearly calculated to get exactly the response it got. We’re the suckers for keeping it alive.
You’re obviously very smart. You’re here, aren’t you?
Joshua wrote:
“As a conservative, are you interested in matching that or in rising above it? “
This implies that it is the liberals who started or who dominate the hate war. I cannot agree at all. There is plenty of trash talk on both sides that liberals and conservatives should rise above.
Sonagi, I think I was careful to say “far left” and cite Kos as an example. I do think that a segment of the left is worst about this.
Joshua,
I don’t want to derail the thread into a back-and-forth discussion, but I find the far right worse than the far left in terms of hatefulness; no surprise since I’m liberal and you’re conservative. Mostly, I dislike it when one side fingers the other; you know that saying about four fingers pointing back at you. For the sake of our country, let’s avoid the divisive polarization fueled by both far left and far right pundits and politicians. We can disagree without being divided if we respect each other and appreciate that our fellow Americans of differing political views love the country and hopefully the planet as much as we do.
So can we agree that Ann Coulter and Daily Kos are bomb-throwers who are bad for the quality of our public debate?
With high profile Hollywood types expressing opinions about this constantly, some of them extremely inflammatory (Michael Moore et al – and thank you, creators of South Park, for Team America), an obviously engrained anti-conservative bias in the vast majority of American media, popular shows like Politically Incorrect, the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report keeping up a consistent attack on conservatives, I’m skeptical of the assessment that the Right is more of a polarizing force. Perhaps for breathing?
Example; Coulter’s admittedly boorish comments are all over the press. About the same time Bill Mayer made comments suggesting it might’ve been a good thing if Cheney had died in the suicide bombing at Bagraham AB, Afghanistan while the VP was there. How much has the media made of that?
Ok, holding my breath so I won’t be so polarizing. . .
I think Maher’s statements — implying that the Vice President should have been assassinated — are comparably bad. I think that should have been a bigger deal that it was. One of the distinctions between Maher’s statement and this one is that Coulter’s was delivered before an overtly political organization with real power within one of the major political parties.
In that sense, I think the MoveOn-Hitler ads may be a better comparison. MoveOn’s failure to aggressively disavow those ads was rightfully seen as evidence that a significant constituency of one major political party was influenced by a hateful constituency. Ditto Coulter’s remark. Both examples were worthy of strong disavowal. Both debased our political culture. Both contribute to an atmosphere in which the primping of the candidates, what they did in their past, and which side has been nastiest eclipses the debate about defeating Al-Qaeda.
Note that we haven’t scratched the topic of what John Edwards would do about that, and ironically enough, that’s technically off-topic for this thread. (That is why I reserve plenary powers of moderation and relaxation of standards.)
See?
I regard Coulter as a shock-talking comedienne, nothing more, and reject any effort to treat her as a serious pundit or standard-bearer of conservatism.
Although my opinion is – to some degree – influenced by my conservative leanings (though a recent test I took placed me almost dead-center centrist!) – I have to respectfully disagree with Sonagi.
The left – and not just “the far left” – is much worse than the right.
One qualification to my statement is on how we define “far” — we can define it as the extreme nature of their comments – or – we might define it by how “fringe” they really are — how much play and influence they get.
My point being —- in a round about way —- I used to read two media watchdog groups – one on the left and this popular one on the right.
http://www.newsbusters.org/
I gave up on the one on the left, because the vast majority of their quotes showing a big conservative bias —- were from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, and Michelle Malkin or Bill O’Reilly.
The liberal watchdog group could only seem to fill its blogging space with examples from people who were clearly on the right and openly conservative or from news magazines that clearly identified themselves as conservative.
The News Busters site, however, gives you a daily dose of stuff from the “mainstream press”.
I generally skip their stuff from “The View” or stuff from an editorial or opinon writer who has always clearly labelled themselves liberal.
What I read and pay more attention to are the examples where the mainstream press shows clear bias —– including how they continually give a speaking platform to the likes of Tim Robbins and other Hollywood elites by quoting them all the time.
(Or, actually, how they harp on things like Anne Coulter’s remark).
What I am saying is, the message on the far left gets much more play in American society than the far right.
I care for what Tim Robbins or Rosie O’Donnel have to say about as much as I do for what is said by Anne Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. But, who gets played up in the press and who gets played down?
(The Bill O’Reilly phenomenon —- the waves it is creating in the press and intellectual community —– is different from this in many ways, but also terribly interesting to watch….)
@Richardson,
Do you mean you didn’t split your sides with laughter while watching Team America World Police?
I used to have a copy of that movie, long ago 🙂
Slim,
So Ann Coulter is a rightwing unfunny Michael Moore?
How would you categorize Michelle Malkin?
I thought it was clear that I appreciated Team America for highlighting the stupidity of outspoken, elite, leftist Hollywood types, among other things.
I’d note that Michelle Malkin was very unforgiving of Ann Coulter’s language. I really don’t put the two of them in the same category.
Michelle Malkin doesn’t try to be funny.
I put her above Bill O’Reilly and far above Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I don’t even put her near the same category as Limbaugh and Coulter.
Malkin actually seems to do a lot of work – whereas I get the feeling O’Reilly’s staff does his – and he also just puts people like Malkin on the air or takes from them.
I also think Malkin’s blunt style is only confrontational because the mainstream media has gotten us in the habit of not questioning things. Some incredibly simplistic or wrong statements are often just let past as “another view point”.
It is good to see someone say, “That’s stupid. Look…” and then explain why it is in fact stupid.
I also give her some slack on being at times confrontational, because I bet as a woman and a minority — she has had to put up with a lot more static about her political leanings.
Have you ever watched on C-Span one of the black (African-American) political NGOs get togethers where you might have a conservative speaker among them? The weight on those guys’ shoulders in such a forum is telling – and you sometimes see it played out in the mainstream media.
Clarification — what I was saying about the couple of C-Span examles I can remember is how a black conservative speaking out in the meeting was instantly on the defensive and almost having to apologize for speaking.
USinKorea wrote:
“I also give her some slack on being at times confrontational, because I bet as a woman and a minority — she has had to put up with a lot more static about her political leanings.
Have you ever watched on C-Span one of the black (African-American) political NGOs get togethers where you might have a conservative speaker among them? The weight on those guys’ shoulders in such a forum is telling – and you sometimes see it played out in the mainstream media. “
African-American conservatives do get flack from other African-Americans, who are solidly Democratic. Michelle’s Asian background is irrelevant since Asian-Americans are not loyal to one party. Her gender is likewise irrelevant. Look around the media, USinKorea. There are countless conservative women politicians, media personalities, and pundits.
I don’t know…How many women have gained the status of Malkin? or even Coulter? Barbara Streisand and anyone who got famous for something else don’t count.
I would think most of the women who have become well known political commentators like Malkin (or Coulter) have done so primarily through women’s issues – if not straight-line feminist activism.
And I would bet if I hung around with the crowds of liberal profs and grad students and intellectuals – or ran in liberal circles – I would bet – behind closed doors and nobody could overhear — you’d hear some of them say something about like —— they don’t understand why Malking “just doesn’t get it” – because she is a woman – and an Asian American to boot – so she should readily recognize how the republicans don’t represent her interests, and she’s doing a disservice to other immigrants (if she were an immigrant) and so on….
I can imagine some thoughts like that more easily than I could picture a well-known African-American calling Condi Rice a “house” you-know-what —– and Belefonte actually SAID that…
I am a liberal who hangs around with other well-educated liberals, reads liberal blogs, and nobody has ever mentioned the idea that Malkin is a traitor to her race and gender. She is simply criticized along with any other conservative public personality.
Remember all those soccer moms who put Bush in office? It was recognized a long time ago that women don’t vote in a solid liberal Democratic block. There is a division between married women, especially stay-at-home moms, and single and divorced women. Moreover, religiously conservative women, like their male counterparts, vote Republican.
I defer to your experience. Really. I have one question though…what about well-educated, female minoritites (in liberal circles)?
the question was brought up when reading “It was recognized a long time ago that women don’t vote in a solid liberal Democratic block. ” Since I’m thinking about the circles we find ourselves in rather than the general public. Being a conservative in humanities department in college can make you feel lonely in at least several of the places I’ve studied. Being female and openly conservative seemed like you were encouraged even more to either agree or be quiet. I would think being a minority even more so.
So Ann Coulter is a rightwing unfunny Michael Moore?
–They are both jerks, but Coulter is wittier.
How would you categorize Michelle Malkin?
–Highly overrated, IMHO, but a different kettle of fish than Coulter.
USinKorea wrote:
“I have one question though…what about well-educated, female minoritites (in liberal circles)? “
What about them?
I meant that well-educated females, and inparticular female minorities, tend to be liberal a good bit more than conservative or even centrist.
That is my rough guess based on the number of years I’ve spend in and around colleges and so on…
I agree that it seems to me women fall all over the place politically and socially, but perhaps not the well-educated (and well-educated minorities)…….(and there is a rational historical foundation for why this might be…..I’d guess…)
Slim,
I’m curious as to why you find Malkin overreated? I don’t know much about her, but the more I read and watch, the better my impression gets. I’m just curious as to what you see…
Slim wrote:
“So Ann Coulter is a rightwing unfunny Michael Moore?
–They are both jerks, but Coulter is wittier.
“
THIS Ann Coulter? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aiHbUplz3k
I must confess that I only know of most liberal and conservative media personalities through print, not from actually watching them, as I did not have access to foreign stations in China and have chosen not to have television here. I googled Ann Coulter and found the above interview she did on the BBC to promote her book.
She is grossly misinformed about US public schools. She says something to the effect that we cannot even have a moment of silence because kids might pray. Well, in both public elementary schools that I have worked at, one in Illinois and now in Virginia, we have a moment of silence every morning right after the Pledge of Allegiance. Everyone in the building, teachers included, stops what they are doing and respects these morning rituals. These moments of silence in US public schools were instituted precisely to allow students time for silent prayer. I won’t say that every single US public school has a moment of silence, but there’s certainly no state or federal regulation forbidding one.
I also question the authenticity of some of her other little school anecdotes.
Is she really witty, Slim? I groaned while listening to her on that BBC clip. Can you email me some links showing her more humorous side?
Sonagi, I think it’s important to note the comparison to Michael Moore, alongside whom Alan Thicke and Bob Saget are a couple of regular H.L. Menckens.
That’s rather sad, because the old, TV-nation era Michael Moore was actually pretty funny. I’ve missed him ever since he went insane.
Joshua wrote:
“That’s rather sad, because the old, TV-nation era Michael Moore was actually pretty funny. I’ve missed him ever since he went insane. “
Yes, I agree that success and public attention went to his head. The short-lived TV Nation series, which I watched on pirated DVDs in China, was hit or miss. I find myself singing “Pistol Pete” whenever I see an NRA bumper sticker. Michael Moore’s best work, a mixture of hopelessness and humor, was his first, Roger and Me. Watching it takes me back to my teenage years in the late 70s and early 80s in Michigan, when favorite teachers with years of experience were laid off and neighbors and relatives loaded their cars and headed south, shouting back to those of us left behind, “Last one out of Michigan turn out the lights!” I love Virginia, but I feel sad to see my home state dying a slow, agonizing economic death.