Blasts at liberal 'traitors' win US book war

The Observer ^ | Sunday July 27, 2003 | Lawrence Donegan in San Francisco

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Big publishers cash in as right-wing polemics sell in their thousands

Two large American publishers are to launch off-shoots to capitalise on the latest literary phenomenon gripping the United States: the right-wing diatribe. Hillary Clinton's autobiography leads this month's US bestseller lists, but over the last year it has been books written from the opposite end of the political spectrum - many of them accusing her husband of everything from treason to destroying the American way of life - which have gripped the imagination of the book-buying public.

Among the most successful has been Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism by newspaper columnist Ann Coulter, which calls all Democrats traitors and urges the rehabilitation of Red-baiting Senator Joe McCarthy, who led a witch hunt against liberals in the Fifties.

Despite being widely ridiculed for its tendentious logic - even by right-wing reviewers - Treason has sold more than 500,000 copies in just three weeks.

Coulter's sales have been matched by those of The Savage Nation by Michael Savage, a right-wing talk-show host who was recently fired from a TV programme for telling a gay caller: 'You should go and get Aids and die, you pig.'

Like Treason, the premise of The Savage Nation is that all of America's ills are caused by liberalism, Democrat politicians and the liberal media.

Other conservative authors such as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, who both host shows on Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel, have racked up hundreds of thousands of sales, prompting Crown Books and Penguin to launch new imprints catering to Americans' appetite for anti-liberal polemics.

'The centre of culture has moved to the Right,' said Steve Ross, vice-president of Crown. 'Conservatives are a vast and historically under-served readership. There is a significant marketing opportunity there and a civic responsibility.'

Adrian Zackheim, already a New York publishing veteran at 27 after bringing out Margaret Thatcher's books in the US, is heading Penguin's attempt to exploit the trend.

'We have several imprints that serve the Left, but none that serves people who are coming from the Right, and we feel that section of the market needs to be served; especially at a time when, post-11 September, there has been an upsurge in interest in politics among all Americans, whatever their persuasion,' said Zackheim.

'People are in a new place. It has dawned on them that politics is not just about the difference between vanilla and vanilla, that politics matters, that their lives depend on it: 11 September brought that home to everyone.'

Best-selling books that espouse right-wing views are not a new phenomenon. In 1960 Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative was a surprise bestseller, and it provided the starting point for his disastrous 1964 presidential campaign.

Zackheim insists, however, that the new upsurge in sales of conservative books is unprecedented. Like most observers of the publishing scene, he attributes it to the spread of right-wing views by radio talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, who has 15 million listeners a day, and the Fox News Network, whose slogan is 'fair and balanced' yet is anything but.

The scandals surrounding Bill Clinton's presidency were the springboard for Regnery, a small Washington company which has been the leader in publishing conservative polemics since the mid-Nineties. It was then that it brought out Unlimited Access, the memoirs of an FBI agent who claimed that he saw the former President's alleged infidelities.

Marji Ross, Regnery's president, says its books sell because they make a splash. 'We tried to make our marketing about news in the book, not about the publication of the book.'

Another popular explanation for the success of Coulter and company is simply that their views chime with those of the American people. Brad Miner, a former literary editor of the National Review who left recently to head an offshoot of the Book of the Month Club catering to right-wing readers, cites a recent opinion poll in which 41 per cent of Americans said they considered themselves conservatives, as opposed to 18 per cent who thought they were liberals.

'The main concern of the public has been the obvious bias of the mainstream media and the under-representation of the prevailing ethos in the country,' Miner said.

'These books are popular because they attack that bias and the attitudes of the elites who have helped sustain that bias and have long treated those fundamental American values with contempt.'

The Right stuff

Among the right-wing theorists selling books in large numbers are:

Ann Coulter Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism Sales: 510,000

Sean Hannity Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty Over Liberalism Sales: 350,000

Mona Charen Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First Sales: 150,000

Michael Savage The Savage Nation: Saving America From the Liberal Assault on Our Borders, Language and Culture Sales: 450,000

[lodwick]

Goldwater's "disastrous" campaign was mainly due to the capping of JFK, and Lyndon's Daisy nuke ad.

Good post - thanks.

[gitmo]

Thank you. I was getting ready to look it up.

I wouldn't say Ann's writing has a strong implicit point of view. I would say it has a strong explicit point of view.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Guardian's view on Ann's book is that her logic is "tendentious". After looking up the word, I agree.

I'm not sure you got the drift: if someone's logic is tendentious, they are trying to snow you. Do you agree that Coulter is trying to deceive the reader? I don't.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

"I'm not sure you got the drift: if someone's logic is tendentious, they are trying to snow you. Do you agree that Coulter is trying to deceive the reader? I don't."

Yes, I thought tendentious meant that; it's often used that way. But this is the definition, from post 18:

tendentious- Marked by a strong implicit point of view; partisan: a tendentious account of the recent elections.

Obviously Ann has a strong point of view--but she isn't trying to "snow" or fool anyone. She wouldn't generate 40 pages of footnotes if she were.

I detect a pattern among historians--they don't refute her, but condemn her for her style.

Of course, no one else refutes her either. I think she's getting though.

[exDemMom]

I got so tired of walking into bookstores and seeing multiple covers of Hillary staring at me. (I felt like a fly.) Yet many conservative titles are tucked away out of sight.

Oddly, I have yet to encounter that problem. At the Borders store in ultra liberal Davis, CA, I don't recall ever having a problem finding (and buying) conservative books. At the Waldenbooks in somewhat conservative Woodland, the conservative books are displayed prominently. On the best-seller rack, it was: Harry Potter/Lying History/Treason. (I bought two of the three.)

[weegee]

...heading Penguin's attempt to exploit the trend.

'We have several imprints that serve the Left, but none that serves people who are coming from the Right

And yet there are those who deny that there is bias in the media. That the librarians, editors, and even the people who compile the "best seller" lists are liberals and use their politics in their decisions is not "proof" that there is bias. Whatever...

[weegee]

And identifying Fox News as "Rupert Murdoch's" is "fair and balanced" Mr. Lawrenth?

Doesn't bother to mention that "Mr. Murdoch" also published Michael Moore's tendentious piece of socialist propaganda.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I thought tendentious meant that; it's often used that way. But this is the definition, from post 18:

tendentious- Marked by a strong implicit point of view; partisan: a tendentious account of the recent elections.

I have no problem at all if you say that Coulter has a strong point of view; those who do not, simply don't understand the situation.

But the "implicit" part of the definition goes to the point that a "tendentious argument" always is concealing its agenda. Just like The New York Times would have you think that it's a bastion of nothing-but-the-facts truthtelling when in fact its "facts"--lately is some disrepute--have been carefully selected to avoid helping Republicans with too much inconvenient truth.

The article could have said "opinionated", and gotten away with it. But "tendentious" is always a perjorative.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Thanks for clearing that up. I wonder how they could say her point of view is implicit? She is extremely explicit in her views.

[KittyKares]

Re: definition of tendentious

Thanks, I was too lazy to look up that word!

[KittyKares]

Re: not having trouble finding conservative books in liberal cities

I am surprised. I live in a moderate to conservative county in California, and the bookstores here were shoving Hillary in your face as you walk in. Maybe these particular bookstore owners are liberal. I assumed it was this way everywhere. Thank goodnes it is not.

[Bigg Red]

a great book

^^
Yes, it was. It's been a few years since I read it, but I recall that Aldrich was at great pains to warn his readers that the focus of his book was not the sexual scandals but the horrendous security breakdown that occurred during the Clinton infestation of the WH.

[gitmo]

It's been a few years since I read it, but I recall that Aldrich was at great pains to warn his readers that the focus of his book was not the sexual scandals but the horrendous security breakdown that occurred during the Clinton infestation of the WH.

There was scant mention about sexual scandals, other than Hillary's Christmas tree. But the systematic dismantalling of White House security was shocking.

[exDemMom]

It's not that I don't see Hillary's mug, it's that I also see Ann's smiling face. I've yet to see the conservative books hidden.

[DPB101]

A classic use of the word:

"I have seen the Khmer Rouge and they are not killing anyone...Wars nourish brutality and sadism and sometimes certain people are executed by the victors but it would be tendentious to forecast such abnormal behavior as a national policy under a communist government once the war is over."

-- Sidney Schanberg. New York Times. Shortly before Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge took power and murdered between one and two million Cambodians.