CoulterKampf

Andrew Sullivan ^ | July 5, 2003 | Andrew Sullivan

[optik_b]

CoulterKampf The Problem With Ann

Few would dispute that she's a babe. Lanky, skinny, with long blonde hair tumbling down to her breasts, Ann Coulter has been photographed in a shiny black latex dress. She's whip-sharp in public debates, has done a fair amount of homework, and has made a lot of the right enemies. If much of modern American conservatism has made headway because of its media savvy, compelling personalities, and shameless provocation, then Coulter deserves some pride of place in its vanguard.

But that, of course, is also the problem. In the ever-competitive marketplace of political ideas - in a world of blogs and talk radio and cable news - it's increasingly hard to stand out. Coulter's answer to that dilemma is two-fold: look amazing and ratchet up the rhetoric against the left until it has the subtlety and nuance of a car alarm. The left, in turn, has learned the lesson, which is why the fraud and dissembler, Michael Moore, has done so well. In fact, it's worth thinking of Coulter as a kind of inverse Moore: where's he's ugly and ill-kempt, she's glamorous and impeccably turned out. (Her web-page, AnnCoulter.org, has a gallery of sexy images.) But what they have in common is more significant: an hysterical hatred of their political opponents and an ability to say anything to advance their causes (and extremely lucrative careers).

Coulter's modus operandi is rhetorical extremity. She was fired from the conservative National Review magazine when, in the wake of 9/11, she urged the invasion of all Muslim nations and the forcible conversion of their citizens to Christianity. As media critic, Brendan Nyhan, has documented, her flights of fancy go back a long long way. No punches are pulled. Ted Kennedy is an "adulterous drunk." President Clinton had "crack pipes on the White House Christmas tree." You get the idea. In Coulter's world, there are two types of people: conservatives and liberals. These aren't groups of people with competing ideas. They are the repositories of good and evil. There are no distinctions among conservatives or among liberals. To admit the complexity of political discourse would immediately require Coulter to think, explain, argue. But why bother when you can earn millions insulting?

Here are a few comments about "liberals" that Coulter has deployed over the years: "Liberals are fanatical liars." Liberals are "devoted to class warfare, ethnic hatred and intolerance." Liberals "hate democracy because democracy requires persuasion and compromise rather than brute political force." Some of this is obvious hyperbole, designed for a partisan audience. Some of it could be explained as good, dirty fun. It was this formula that gained her enormous sales for her last book, "Slander," which detailed in sometimes hilarious prose, the liberal bias in much of American media. But her latest tome ups the ante even further. If biased liberal editors are busy slandering conservatives, liberals more generally are dedicated to the subversion of their own country. They are guilty of - yes - treason.

A few nuggets: "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!" Earlier in the same vein: "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." And then: "The myth of 'McCarthyism' is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of Sen. Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren't hiding under the bed during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation's ability to defend itself, while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy's name."

Coulter does not seek to complicate her view of liberals with any serious or lengthy treatment of the many Democrats and liberals who were ferociously anti-Communist. Scoop Jackson? Harry Truman? John F Kennedy? Lyndon Vietnam Johnson? She doesn't substantively deal with those Democrats today - from Senator Joe Lieberman to the New Republic magazine - who were anti-Saddam before many Republicans were. She is absolutely right to insist that many on the Left are in denial about some Americans' complicity in Soviet evil, the guilt of true traitors like Alger Hiss or the Rosenbergs, who helped Stalin and his heirs in their murderous pursuits. And part of the frustration of reading Coulter is that her basic causes are the right ones: the American media truly is biased to the left; some liberals and Democrats were bona fide traitors during the Cold War; many on the far left today are essentially anti-American and hope for the defeat of their country in foreign wars.

But by making huge and sweeping generalizations about all liberals, Coulter undermines her own arguments and comes close to making them meaningless. If you condemn good and bad liberals alike, how can you be trusted to make any moral distinctions of any kind? And by defending the tactics of Joe McCarthy, she actually plays directly into the hands of the left. What she won't concede is that it is possible to be clear-headed about the role that some liberals and Democrats played in supporting the Soviet Union, while reviling the kind of tactics McCarthy used. In fact, when liberals taunt conservatives with being McCarthyites, conservatives now have to concede that some of their allies, namely Coulter, obviously are McCarthyites - and proud of it.

One of the most reputable scholars who has studied the McCarthy era in great detail, Ron Radosh, is appalled at the damage Coulter has done to the work he and many others have painstakingly done over the years. "I am furious and upset about her book," he told me last week. "I am reading it - she uses my stuff, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes, Allen Weinstein etc. to distort what we actually say and to make ludicrous and historically incorrect arguments. You might recall my lengthy and negative review in The New Republic a few years ago of Herman's book on McCarthy; well, she is ten times worse than Herman. At least he tried to use bona fide historical methods of research and argument." Now Radosh has endured ostracism and abuse for insisting that many of McCarthy's victims were indeed Communist spies or agents. But he draws the line at Coulter's crude and inflammatory defense of McCarthy. "I think it is important that those who are considered critics of left/liberalism don't stop using our critical faculties when self-proclaimed conservatives start producing crap."

Amen. American politics has been badly damaged by the scruple-free tactics of those like Michael Moore and Ann Coulter. In some ways, of course, these shameless hucksters of ideological hate deserve each other. But America surely deserves better.

[optik_b]

Sullivan has taken Coulter to task in a few columns recently. Here he says she's the Michael Moore of the right, but as a kind of inverse Moore.

[Support Free Republic]

We Replaced Patrick Leahy's Brains With Folger's Crystals. Let's See If Anyone Notices!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[ETERNAL WARMING]

The left, in turn, has learned the lesson, which is why the fraud and dissembler, Michael Moore, has done so well.

The above statement is untrue. Democrats began shrill rhetoric while Ann was still in braces.

I think Andrew is jealous. :0)

[King Prout]

Moore was around before Ann, I think.
Leftist attack-debating has been around since LONG before Ann, I KNOW.
Ann is payback, not progenitor.
Get it straight.

[King Prout]

great minds, I guess. :)

[optik_b]

"Ann is payback, not progenitor.

If you're going to get some payback you should bring a real weapon not a person who is mocked by anyone outside of right wing circles. Don't you agree?

[optik_b]

"Moore was around before Ann, I think."

True but he didn't write books and become this popular nutso until recently. He was busy doing documentaries about his crummy town and eating fried chicken.

[Bonaparte]

Yes, Andrew, but can you refute her with facts?

Can you cite even one falsehood in her book?

Didn't think so.

[piasa]

President Clinton had "crack pipes on the White House Christmas tree."

According to FBI personnel, he also had cock rings on it.

[piasa]

Now Radosh has endured ostracism and abuse for insisting that many of McCarthy's victims were indeed Communist spies or agents.

Communists arent victims- they are victimizers. Did Radosh say "many" or "all?"

And if not all, then which ones were not?

[Bonaparte]

"If you're going to get some payback you should bring a real weapon not a person who is mocked by anyone outside of right wing circles. Don't you agree?"

I don't agree. Ann gets the conservative message out very effectively, as proven by her best-sellers and repeated invitations to return to TV talk shows. America likes her. And for good reason. She doesn't mince her words.

All Sullivan does in this article is critique her appearance and makes ridiculously inaccurate claims, eg. that she was "fired" by National Review. She wasn't a hire, so they couldn't very well fire her, could they? They stopped carrying her column. There's a big difference.

Neither Sullivan nor anyone he quotes in this hit piece, is up to the task of rebutting Ann with facts. Instead, she's attacked with sly innuendo and generalities.

[Bonaparte]

"...many of McCarthy's victims..."

Sullivan's ignorance is showing, at least on the subject of McCarthy's investigations. He clearly has no idea what number of people lost their jobs as a direct result of his investigations.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Here he says she's the Michael Moore of the right, but as a kind of inverse Moore.

Well, here he's wrong. Moore is a liar. Ann tells the truth. Any criticism of the tone of delivery of either is fallacious in that it invokes style over substance. Moore's uncouth presentations don't affect the fact that his propositions are wrong and backed up by lies; Ann's sharp-witted delivery doesn't affect the fact that she is right and backed up by the truth. While some people will undoubtedly be turned off by each person's delivery, others are attracted to it, but it is only the logical validity of their arguments that count. Since liberals eschew logic, Ann is the hands down winner.

[jazzlite]

You are so right! Ann faces current reality and calls a "a spade a spade." Evidently, Andrew wants the "touchy, feely" method to be used where good and evil cannot really be identified. He wants the "good" Democrats to be named and noticed. Well, I think that "good" Democrats should speak out about the abuses of their party against our nation or change parties. If they refuse to do that then they get placed in the same category with their beloved colleagues. The principles are not different than those dealing with such atrocities as spouse or child abuse. If you know abuse is going on and you pretend it's not, then you are as guilty as the perpetrator. Ann is my gender and the women's movement did not back her. She achieved because God gave her all the "right stuff." Her beauty is a benefit but so was Bill Clinton's charm. The bottom line is that connect with the American people and Ann has achieved it.

[Bonaparte]

"Moore is a liar."

And in this article, so is Sullivan. He claims that Ann's characterization of Ted Kennedy as an "adulterous drunk" is a documented "flight of fantasy." The truth is that Ted Kennedy is an adulterous drunk -- in addition to many other things, such as a lecher who committed negligent homicide.

[mfulstone]

It tickles me to see [supposedly] grown men intimidated by an attack from a conservative [and awesomely sexy, to someone my age] babe. Coulter kinda "levels the playing field" with her nuclear truth bombs.

[ASIDE] Ann baby, do you want an orphan about my size to raise? Want to go hunting "bear" with me? (Bring sunscreen!)

[xzins]

Sullivan must oppose Coulter because she is a consistent conservative where Sullivan's lifestyle is inconsistent and contradictory to the basic premise of conservatism.....the preservation of traditional values.

[Caipirabob]

If you're going to get some payback you should bring a real weapon not a person who is mocked by anyone outside of right wing circles. Don't you agree?

The left is compelled to mock Anne Coulter because they simply can't confront the facts that she presents. The truth is a powerful weapon, it is also the major factor that separates Anne Coulter from michael moore, along with some 300 pounds or so.

[Bonaparte]

...He wants the "good" Democrats to be named and noticed..."

Hard to know how anybody who supports the democratic party platform and legislative agenda can be "good." What's good about killing the unborn? Or stripping Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights? Or banishing God from the public square? Or practicing reverse racism?

[Russell Scott]

It takes a real women to show a man, who thinks he is a woman, the art of political commentary. It's hard for old Andrew to accept the truth when he lives a lie.