Screed: With Treason, Ann Coulter once again defines a new low in America's political debate

Spinsanity ^ | july 2, 2003 | Brendan Nyhan

[The Raven]

With her new book Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, syndicated pundit Ann Coulter has driven the national discourse to a new low. No longer content to merely smear liberals and the media with sweeping generalizations and fraudulent evidence, she has now upped the ante, accusing the entire Democratic Party as well as liberals and leftists nationwide of treason, a crime of disloyalty against the United States. But, as in her syndicated columns (many of which are adapted in the book) and her previous book Slander: Liberal Lies Against the American Right, Coulter's case relies in large part on irrational rhetoric and pervasive factual errors and deceptions. Regardless of your opinions about Democrats, liberals or the left, her work should not be taken at face value.

Context: The syndicated column and Slander

As we documented back in July 2001, Coulter's writing is not just inflammatory but blatantly irrational. For years, she has infused her syndicated columns with cheap shots and asides directed at targets like President Bill Clinton, the American Civil Liberties Union and Hustler publisher Larry Flynt (among many others). Liberals are indiscriminately denounced as a group as "terrorists" or a "cult" who "hate democracy." Slander, her bestseller from last year, quickly became notorious for its errors and distortions of the facts, which we detailed in our examination of the book. From deceptive footnotes to mischaracterized quotes to outright lies, Coulter broke all standards of reasonable political debate in her quest to paint a picture of a media that is unambiguously hostile to conservatives.

Jargon: How Coulter blurs distinctions in her rhetoric

In Treason, similar techniques are employed with aplomb. Consider her use of language. The accusation of treason is, of course, one of the most grave that can be made against a citizen of any country. Article III of the United States Constitution specifies that "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

In latching onto a powerful word with a specific legal meaning and casually leveling the charge as a blanket accusation against a wide array of people (as she did with slander, which is a defamatory verbal statement), Coulter is attempting to smear virtually anyone who disagrees with her views on foreign policy as treasonous. "Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason," she writes on the first page of the book. "Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." (p. 1)

At times, Coulter portrays liberals and the left as engaged in a grand conspiracy to destroy the United States:

While undermining victory in the Cold War, liberals dedicated themselves to mainstreaming Communist ideals at home... Betraying the manifest national defense objectives of the country is only part of the left's treasonous scheme. They aim to destroy America from the inside with their relentless attacks on morality and the truth. (p. 289) At others, she instead insinuates that disagreeing with her about US policy toward various hostile foreign countries or taking any action that could be construed as favorable to those countries' interests is equivalent to treasonous support for those countries. Here are two classic examples of this tactic:

As a rule of thumb, Democrats opposed anything opposed by their cherished Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did not like the idea of a militarily strong America. Neither did the Democrats! (p. 171) Democrats always had mysterious objections and secret "better" ways, which they would never tell us. Then they would vote whichever way would best advance Communist interests. (p. 177) In the end, Coulter doesn't care about such distinctions, and goes so far as to specifically reject any distinction based on motive in judging her standard of treason:

Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. Fifty years of treason hasn't slowed them down. (p. 16) Of course, Coulter must engage in a complicated set of rhetorical tricks to accuse liberals of "fifty years of treason" (in a 2001 column, it was only "[t]wenty years of treason" - did inflation set in?). The book is primarily focused on the controversy over real and alleged Soviet espionage in the post-World War II era. We can certainly stipulate that Soviet agents who worked covertly inside the United States government did commit treason. But Coulter broadens the term to include virtually every liberal, leftist, Democrat or member of the media, in each case obscuring distinctions between individuals and stereotyping the entire group.

[No Left Turn]

I read the article, and the guy seems most peeved that she quotes a writer from the NYT Magazine and says, "The New York Time says..." Well, she's right. Newspapers don't write themselves. They're written by people. So if an author writing for the Times writes something, Ann is quite correct in saying, "The New York Times writes..." Before I take seriously anything else this guy has to say, I would need to check out his accusations against her book and a Lexus/Nexis search. I really think taking his article as some definitive refutation of Coulter is a bit unwise, as is likening AC to that fat, surly, uneducated Marxist, Moore.

[nm_realist]

So, if Spinsity or someother lib outlet writes "even Freerupblic acknowledges that Coulter's book is full of inaccuracies" when the truth is DogByte, posting on Freerepublic made those claims, this is perfectly ok and correct?

One should cut the ordinary "man in the street" a lot of slack on choice of words, etc. But an educated person who writes for a living ought to be more careful with their words and their meanings. Call me old-fashioned, but when I read something from Wm F Buckley I get the message that the writer respects his readers.

R.

[jackbill]

Question. Is Brendan Nyhan any relation to that fat liberal puke David Nyhan who used to "grace" the pages of the liberal rag, the Boston Globe?

He sure sounds like the spawn of that garbage.

[Dont Mention the War]

So, if Spinsity or someother lib outlet writes "even Freerupblic acknowledges that Coulter's book is full of inaccuracies" when the truth is DogByte, posting on Freerepublic made those claims, this is perfectly ok and correct?

Technically, yes. Most "mainstream" media outlets have no problem allowing one person's comments to represent that of an entire organization, whether they ought to or not. (Example: In any given article about the latest rehash of some abortion argument, the story will likely start with a line like "One side says X, but the National Organization for Women says Y." And then four paragraphs later, you find out that they only talked to one woman who happens to work at NOW. An even simpler example: When quoting movie reviews, a newspaper will have no problem writing "The Today Show said 'It's the best film of the year!'" even though it was only Gene Shalit saying that, and the Today show as a whole really has no comment on the movie one way or the other.)

Call me old-fashioned, but when I read something from Wm F Buckley I get the message that the writer respects his readers.

I don't think anyone would argue with you that Mr. Buckley's nonfiction works are far more carefully crafted than Ann Coulter's. I'm only saying that with Ann, you know what you're getting before you even pick up the book, so it's a bit of a laugh to see all these liberals running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to follow the instructions in the tattered old Politics of Personal Destruction Guidebooks. We get the joke. They don't. And that just makes the joke funnier.

[Puppage]

And never once is she called a liar.

[Dont Mention the War]

Question. Is Brendan Nyhan any relation to that fat liberal puke David Nyhan who used to "grace" the pages of the liberal rag, the Boston Globe?

Send him an email and ask him. The couple of times I've written him, he's responded. (I did write respectfully, for the record. I don't know how he'd respond if you called his (possible) father a "fat liberal puke. ;) )

[jonna]

Well said. I share your opinion about TREASON and quite possibly your preference in political historical scholarship.

[Im Your Huckleberry]

That's exactly what I was thinking, his article is like a loud cry of surprise from the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

They don't like the TRUTH, do they?

The cockroaches hate it when the light is shined on their activities...

[Im Your Huckleberry]

Exactly.

[Belial]

Arguably Ann is somewhat sloppy.

I'm sure that's true, but what bothers me about Coulter is the ridiculous hyperbole. I don't like people who cry about being screamed at when someone disagrees with them.

Coulter's writing is like Cheetos, there are those who like and those who don't. And then, there are the few who think Cheetos are great food.

Most everyone can agree that Ann is telegenic, although she does have a bit of the horseface.

[sweetliberty]

"fraudulent evidence"

Fraudulent evidence? Okay, admittedly I haven't read the rest of the article yet, so I'm assuming that this jackass is going to point to examples of this and provide supporting evidence. Am I expecting too much?

[don-o]

directed at targets like President Bill Clinton, the American Civil Liberties Union and Hustler publisher Larry Flynt

Priceless.

[ladyinred]

Ignoring the absolute on-slaught of vicious attacks on the President while we are at war, (putting our troops in more jepordy, and undermining our security by making us appear unstable) this writer instead says one little blonde woman is bringing politics to a new low? The democrats who under Clinton first coined the phrase "war room" for a campaign brought politics so low it has to look up to see down. Ann Coulter is merely pointing that out, and the journalist is proving her point.

[Kevin Curry]

Go Ann!

Turn it up a couple of notches and really make them squeak and squirm!

[Kevin Curry]

. . . although she does have a bit of the horseface.

Well, you match up well with the other end, so it would probably be a good idea not to criticize her appearance too much.

[hemogoblin]

Is it even possible to take a cheap shot at Larry Flynt?

[Belial]

Well, you match up well with the other end, so it would probably be a good idea not to criticize her appearance too much.

A horse's butt, Kevin? My, you're in a silly mood tonight! Don't party too hard.

[AndyTheBear]

Go easy on this Nyhan person folks, reading a book by Coulter has to be pretty hard on a leftist's self esteem. There is no telling what reaction a psychotic will take when confronted by overwhelming evidence that contradicts his psychosis.

Just pat them on the head and say "there, there, did that big bad girl hurt your wittle feelwings..."

[rwfromkansas]

This guy accuses her of fraudulent info but doesn't provide any evidence!

I was honestly trying to read this with an open mind because I have heard that said in other places and I was interested in what they say is fraudulent. But he didn't bother to give any support for his accusation. What a horrible reviewer of the book.

Ann rocks and I look forward to getting her book.