Go to Making Light's front page.
Forward to next post: Great Political Blog Posts of Our Time
Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)
Dammit, blogosphere, you’re making me write about Ann Coulter.
People are complaining that Coulter, in a recent interview with the New York Observer, fantasized about taking the vote away from women:
If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.
It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and ‘We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?’
And there’s the usual noise about how no liberal could get away with advocating the disenfranchisement of a whole group, etc, etc, and nobody seems to notice what’s actually going on it that quote. The payload is in the second paragraph: “the Democratic Party […] has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it.” Translation: Oh, those Dems are so faggy and effeminate. The GOP is the manly party!
You may recognize this as a more vicious version of the framing pattern George Lakoff talks about, where conservatives are a strict father and liberals a nurturant mother. In Coulter’s version, Republicans are a strong father who can protect you from evil bearded brown people, and Democrats are limp-wristed homosexuals who hate daddy because he’s so strict, and will just surrender to the brown people.
We’ve seen this before, when Coulter called John Edwards a “faggot”. The McCain, Giuliani, and Romney campaigns all denounced her comment as inappropriate in a way that left the linkage between Edwards and homosexuality intact. The best example is the denunciation from the Romney campaign:
It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.
See? The formulaic invocation of tolerance? It’s just what he’d have said if Coulter had made some general slur against homosexuals. Romney gets to look as if he’s denouncing Coulter, while he actually subtly reinforces her slur against Edwards. There’s an evil brilliance to the tactic.
It’s not a coincidence that our current pseudo-fascism is coming along at the same time as an increase in acceptance of homosexuality. One important element of fascism is the worship of masculinity and fear/hatred of the feminine/effeminate. There was an upswell in acceptance of gays back in the 1920s; America’s first gay rights group was founded in 1924. In Germany, there was a widespread movement to decriminalize gay sex. The bigots — those who hate gays, and those who fear that they themselves might be gay — find macho posturing more attractive as they feel more anxiety about what they see as the spread of male effeminacy and the breakdown of patriarchal gender boundaries.
Exposing this sort of thing to the light is one way of fighting it, which is why I’m violating my ignore-Coulter policy.
What jumped out at me is that she says women are voting "so stupidly", but then goes on to talk about all the things that Republicans want to take away from women -- health care, education, day care, and of course the big one that she didn't dare articulate, reproductive rights and control over their own sexuality.
OF COURSE women are voting Democratic! That's not stupid; from their point of view, it's the smartest choice they can make!
It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Republican Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting women to vote for it.
Just sayin'.
I've had to forcibly restrain myself in bookstores from adding bookmarks to her book "How to Speak to a Liberal (If You Must)": Step One: Remove your head from your ass.
I've had to restrain myself in bookstores from adding bookmarks to her book "How to Speak to a Liberal (If You Must)": Step One: Remove your head from your ass.
Deire @3,4: I wouldn't countenance defacing books, but I can't see any problems with adding a bookmark. Except that someone may catch you doing it and invent a law on the spot that says you can't do it, demanding your arrest.
Apparently though, she rather likes hanging out with homosexuals. As posted on Firedoglake today It was shocking to see America’s deplorable scion of extreme right-wing fanaticism pour herself a glass of wine in a casual white tank top and jeans (no black cocktail dress) and effusively greet the liberal media that she’s made a career crusading.
The gays squealed with delight. They all shelved their political beliefs and giggled to one another about the famous guest, cooing over how skinny she is…
Funny, I'd think better of her if her hate and bile were consistent. Hearing about her being lovely and nice to people she screams she hates is just so banal.
My father was registered as a Democrat for years while my mother was registered as a Republican. She changed hers in 1980, when George senior changed his expressed views in order to get on the ticket. Now what was that about real men voting GOP again?
"It is discouraging how much recent political history can be explained as an expression of masculinity doubt."--me, several times over the last several years.
Does she realize she would be disenfranchising herself, should her fantasy become real?
It's a running theme in the GOP book.
See if it weren't for the blacks, "X" wouldn't have been elected. The Native American vote is going to the Dems.
So real (i.e. white) folks vote for the GOP, and all those effete, latte-sipping, faggoty, weaklings are who vote dem.
Which also lets them say the Democrats in office aren't "real" representatives of the people.
Coulter has been saying women don't deserve the vote for years. I'd not seen this aspect of it before but it's part and parcel of the GOP theme.
Joy: she says yes, she does.
But the world will be so much better run that it's OK.
Oh yeah, she's rich, so the things which bother you and me, aren't going to be as much of a problem for her; just hop a flight to Canada and get the things which are denied her here.
Interesting how she refers to "women" as though they were another species.
As though she's not one of them.
Just sayin'.
"Does she realize she would be disenfranchising herself, should her fantasy become real?"
I think she figures she can seduce enough powerful men that it doesn't matter. She's probably right. One of the things that the most sexist men don't appreciate is that sexism makes chumps of men.
What bugs me, what makes me despair, is that the GOP has been doing this for years and years and years, and yet no elected Dems seem to get it.
Edwards, who I am currently favoring, never did come up with a good narrative against Coulter's attacks.
Al Gore's book, The Assault on Reason, is one long litany of complaints against the Bush regime and the media, but it seems to be premised on the idea that talking about the whole sorry affair politely is going to get us somewhere.
It has, in fact, gotten us here.
Joy... Does she realize she would be disenfranchising herself, should her fantasy become real?
"... does not... bzzzt... comp... whirrr... compute.... does... not..."
Boom!
"Time to take Questor back to the lab for a new head fitting."
It's incredible the amount of hatred toward women that remark reveals. The implication that the Democratic Party should be ashamed because women vote for it is really revealing of her self-identification with the type of playground bullies who tease boys who aren't masculine enough for them. Ghastly.
Also, it's her assumption that compassion is a sign of weakness, stupidity, or gullibility. Maybe she's never known anyone who has been both compassionate and strong. That would be my guess... but then I'm indulging in armchair psychology now.
I've often said that in some ways I prefer the tag "Progressive" to "Liberal," because to many people "Liberal" suggests the kind of overly permissive parent who lets their kids have ice cream for dinner, i.e., weak and ineffectual parents.
She should put her money where her mouth is and stop voting. And being independent. And sit down and shut the fuck up.
It would argue in favor of her position, because it would instantly make the world a better place.
She reminds me of Phyllis Schlafly, who spent her time travelling around the country making speeches about how women should stay home instead of going out to work.
Cognitive dissonance, much?
Terry, #11: "just hop a flight to Canada and get the things which are denied her here."
I'd be in favour of a law to deny her entry.
Her specifically. By name. She's enough of a special case that it would be worth doing.
This is a picture of Canada, Ann.
NOT YOURS.
I have an idea for a political cartoon in my head, but I'm no artist. If anyone wants to try it, feel free.
Image: Rich, powerful man in expensive suit talking (business? politics?) with another man, or several other men, all well-dressed. Behind him is Ann Coulter: Sex Slave -- collared, leashed, handcuffed, and wearing a porno-style French maid's uniform. If you want to make it really explicit, put her in a bondage headdress, the kind that holds the woman's mouth open (and, not so incidentally, keeps her from talking). I don't know whether it would add or detract from the idea to have the other men each holding the leash of his own fantasy woman-object.
Caption: "Ann Coulter's Ideal America".
#19: I'd support that law.
Even though it WOULD be amusing to see the effect that being looked at as if she had two heads all the time would have on her composure... it just wouldn't be worth it.
Writerious #12: Interesting how she refers to "women" as though they were another species. As though she's not one of them. Just sayin'.
There have been persistent rumors to that effect, but it's so durned easy to focus on what that person actually says instead of obsessing over why that person failed to make a gender selection on a recent voter registration form, that it's really not worth bothering with, and would almost certainly devalue criticism of that person due to the distraction from the substantive issues involved.
Indeed, let's not fall into countering Coulter's despicable misogyny with equally despicable transphobia. The "It's a MAN, BABY" thing that seems to crop up around her isn't clever, isn't funny, and isn't helping.
The best example is the denunciation from the Romney campaign:
It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.
Except, while he was Governor, Mitt tried to block same sex marriage, so he can piss right off when telling anyone about treating people with fairness and dignity. Good denunciation, but it doesn't mean a thing coming from that jerk
She's doing nothing more than forwarding the basic neocon worldview: the infatuation with violence. Anything not violent or incapable of violence or not forwarding the viewpoint of violence should be swept under the rug, out of sight, and shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's nothing more than your basic, run of the mill, war pr0n.
I always find it humorous when the chest beating knuckle dragging ijits come up with some idea that basically boils down to "everyone who has our worldview should be allowed to vote".
Er, right. That's what democracy is all about, ya know, making sure that everyone gets to vote, as long as they vote fascist republican.
I linked to this in open threads, but it bears reposting.
Coulter isn't a fringe figure in conservative figures, they're proud enough of her to put her on a poster full of other righty heroes. A poster stating that "No education is complete until it includes us.":
"Hang the leaders of the Conservative Movement on the wall in your office, home, or dorm! Young America's Foundation is excited to offer our latest breakthrough poster that brings together the strongest leaders and advocates of the Conservative Movement in a unique group photo! This is the only poster of its kind that includes these twelve conservative luminaries: John Ashcroft, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Robert Novak, Ward Connerly, Dinesh D’Souza, Walter Williams and many more."
Ask Mark Frauenfelder put it, "They had me with the first seven words of their pitch."
I generally have a 'don't feed the ugly, ugly trolls' policy when it comes to Coulter myself, because paying attention to her doesn't do anything but raise the blood pressure (and perhaps make people dumber-- clinical test results on that point are inconclusive).
But when this story started appearing on my friends' list, my first reaction was 'she ought to check the statistics on that, because I don't think there's any evidence suggesting women are more liberal than men.' It didn't occur to me until a few seconds later that the possible factual inaccuracy wasn't what made this a story... I think I'm just too used to Ann Coulter saying ridiculous things.
There's so many different offensive things going on here, it's hard to choose. But I think to me, the most offensive thing is the implication that tuition and day care are women's issues, as if men have no responsibility to care for their children.
Are we living in "The Handmaid's Tale"? The bit where the televangelist called for women to be disenfranchised and sent back home to cook and make babies. (She succeeded, only to discover that it applied to her, too!)
>Indeed, let's not fall into countering Coulter's despicable misogyny with equally despicable transphobia. The "It's a MAN, BABY" thing that seems to crop up around her isn't clever, isn't funny, and isn't helping.
Thank you, Dan @ 28 -- and while we're at it, Randolph @ 13, let's keep her sex life out of it, too. We may think she's ridiculous, but a fair fight is a credit to us...and she gives us more than enough material to work with!
I've seen pictures of Ann Coulter, and there's a wrongness about her look that I've not seen in the real women I know who have that bodyshape. Perhaps it's the personalities, and if I hadn't know who the photographs were of... But I would be unsurprised to discover that Ann Coulter were anorexic, trying to deny her own femininity, while her spouting of vitriolic shit frightens so many young women into the same denial.
Maybe she'd be happier after a sex-change?
I find it an odd response to dismiss a respected right-wing pundit's advocated disenfranchisement of half the country's citizenship as "noise" and claim that the real issue here is her (implied) attack on homosexual men. She's not attacking effeminate men for being like women here; she is directly attacking women. Making this be about men is kind of a stretch.
Someone I read earlier made the point that the real message communicated here is that women's votes are optional but men's aren't. One could just as accurately and perhaps with more justice say that Republicans would have no chance of getting elected without male suffrage and the stupidity they've been using it for lately, but you wouldn't get that printed in the Observer.
Also, it's her assumption that compassion is a sign of weakness, stupidity, or gullibility. Maybe she's never known anyone who has been both compassionate and strong. That would be my guess... but then I'm indulging in armchair psychology now.
If she thinks that compassion is a sign of weakness my guess is she's never known anyone who has been compassionate or strong.
I find it an odd response to dismiss a respected right-wing pundit's
Are you calling Ann Coulter a respected right wing pundit? Listened to, yes. Respected by whom?
My gods! She quoted Chesterton! She actually QUOTED CHESTERTON! May her tongue shrivel up in her mouth!
(And yes I know that he was in many respects quite reactionary himself but if he were alive today he most definitely would not be and she does not deserve to touch his words with her facial parts. Or whichever parts she was talking out of. Gods that made me angry.)
Francis D #34: Listened to, yes. Respected by whom?
Enemies of freedom.
I swear, reading Coulter can lead to a temporary intelligence loss. Perhaps reading anything by anyone as aggressively stupid would. Last year I read a chapter of "Godless" online and it did a number on me for the better part of a day, until I had teased apart all the differently dishonest strands of argument. I've had more fun cleaning out drains and less pain having a firecracker explode in my fingers.
Last year I was in Amsterdam, and the middle-aged whores wearing the world's ugliest lingerie would rap their windows as I passed: look at me! I decided I'd rather not, and I apply the same aversion towards Miss Ann.
As to her appearance: I saw her on the Tonight Show, along with George Carlin, and she looked exactly as skinny as an ex-junkie I knew before she took up running. Her voice was very nice, though, honeyed, cultured, rich, no matter how cheap and obvious her words were.
It's interesting, in an alarming sort of way, that we have both Limbaugh and Coulter chewing on their own feet recently, like they were trapped on a desert island together and had just run out of coconuts. Who will be the third pundit for the trifecta?
My quatloos are on O'Reilly.
Weirdly, the opposite is true in Britain. Labour got a bigger share of the male vote than the female vote in every election since 1945, and vice versa for the Conservatives.
http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/rp/1997-98/98rp03.htm#CROSS
The same thing is apparently true in much of Europe, and Australia: women tend to be more conservative, or at least vote more conservatively. The US is the outlier here, with women more liberal than men.
Why? Good subject for a thesis.
Maybe it's because the left parties in Europe grew from the trade union movement, which historically was mostly male (because the workforce was too); American unions never had the same strength.
Maybe it's because left-wing views tend to go with higher levels of education, and men tended to have better access to education (though this was presumably the case in the US too).
Maybe it's because many of the European left's early triumphs, like national insurance, safety at work laws, right-to-strike laws etc, benefitted the mainly male workforce.
Maybe... well, any number of reasons.
The same thing is apparently true in much of Europe, and Australia: women tend to be more conservative, or at least vote more conservatively. The US is the outlier here, with women more liberal than men.
I do not see the US as an outlier. The Republican party in the US at present is not even slightly conservative. It is reactionary - and therefore any genuine conservatives (as opposed to "Conservatives") will currently be voting Democratic as the Democratic party is genuinely conservative (i.e. it doesn't want to change very much or very fast).
Men are more likely than women to take risks* and hence to vote for parties who want change (which is itself a risk). Therefore women are more likely to vote for genuinely conservative parties - and the current Republican party lives up to its Conservative billing about as well as a Peoples Democratic Republic ever lived up to its...
* I don't want a discussion about why - but there is a fair amount of research showing this to be the case.
Megan, #28. "Thank you, Dan @ 28 -- and while we're at it, Randolph @ 13, let's keep her sex life out of it, too. We may think she's ridiculous, but a fair fight is a credit to us...and she gives us more than enough material to work with!"
I don't understand the objection, here. Her looks are part of her public persona and, really, without the in her looks give her, she'd be near-universally hated by the very sexist men on the radical-right; she's a strong, abrasive personality. I also don't think she is in any sense ridiculous; I think she's very dangerous.
What I find fascinating about Coulter is the fact that she is taken seriously when she has nothing interesting or original to say.
Hmm. But the gender gap in the US isn't a new thing; it's existed since 1980 (http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/gendergap.html) at least. I can't find data for any elections further back. So whatever is causing the gap, it can't be the peculiar features of the Republican Party circa 2007... I suppose you could argue (Reagan Revolution) that the GOP has been a radical party since 1980, though.
More data needed! (I swear, when I die they'll find that graven on my heart, like "CALLOUS" on Broody Mary's.)
ajay @ 39:
My wife suggests that maybe it's because a bunch of the so-called "women's issues" in the US experience (healthcare, education) aren't *even* issues over here or in Europe (They're just provided as basics).
Are guns more of a male issue? There's another US issue that doesn't really play elsewhere.
So think about what remains as "conservative issues" versus "liberal issues". Fiscal responsibility is the first that come to mind and yeah, we can see that being a coin-toss, gender wise.
44: Abortion, too. Not an issue in mainstream British politics at the moment. If the Conservatives came out as pro-life I bet that would reduce their female support...
Anne Coulter, Joseph Goebbels -- is it just me, or do they look awfully similar?
As many here know, I'm certain, there's an idea in gaming known as min-maxing (or munchkin, depending on where you were taught). The basis is profoundly simple - use or bend whatever parts of the rules you can find to minimize the downside and maximize the upside of the stats and abilities your character has.
Now, the gamer that enjoys role-playing is likely irritated by the min-maxer. They feeling that the min-maxer is missing the point of the game, and very possibly ruining other people's fun.
But the min-maxer, in the end, will probably win.
That's what all of politics looks like to me, right now. The Republicans will use every dirty trick in the book, because it will make them win. The Democrats are still role-playing a free society, not acknowledging that it is not in fact a cooperative game.
Sweet suffering Elvis (to quote a guy):
My mother hiked down Main Street with my grandmother, carrying a suffragette banner, way back in the Dark Ages. She thought they'd won...
And after all that, Mom served as a Republican poll-watcher in Cook County. She would have voted to revoke Coulter's membership in the female race.
When Coulter was at Cornell (the early 1980s) her newspaper, the Cornell Review (funded by only the best conservative sources) issued death threats against the head of the gay students association, who I knew from my dorm and theatre productions. I don't know if it was Coulter herself who wrote the editorial, because I wasn't keeping track of wingnuts then (stupid me). But that can be checked if anyone cares enough to do research in Ithaca.
And as for the transgender rumors: she was in Delta Gamma, the most exclusive sorority on the campus. That, I think, refutes them.
Frances D #40:
Yeah, that's a big point. The party that wants to keep the 72-year old national pension scheme in place, that's the conservative party, right? And the party that has presided over more-or-less redesigning the balance of power between government and citizens, heavily in favor of government power, those can't possibly be conservatives, because conservatives are suspicious of government power. Right? Right?
Well, at least the conservative party doesn't support us playing world policeman and spending our lives and treasure on nation-building exercises. And they're in favor of small government and balanced budgets. Right?
I feel like there ought to be one of those dialog snippets stolen from Ghandi here:
"What do you think of the conservative movement in the US?"
"I think it would be a good idea."
I mean, I'd have plenty of problems with real conservatives, too, but at least the problems would be with someone who wanted to do something sane, but suboptimal, not head off the cliff and stand on the gas.
Lee #1:
Yes! Why on earth would anyone argue "What's wrong with the Democrats that they can't get men to vote for them?" and not "What's wrong with the Republicans that they can't get women to vote for them?" Given the gender gap, one question implies the other.
Why should she care if women are disenfranchised? It's not like she votes legally, anyway.
Randolph #41:
I understand the urge to respond to nastiness with more nastiness, but I really think sexual imagery and innuendoes about Coulter are out of line. ly prominent, and arguably for any man, as well.
Fragano has it right: Coulter has nothing interesting or useful to say. She deserves contempt for her dumb and evil ideas, not for being an attractive woman.
Sorry, garbled post.
Randolph #41:
I understand the urge to respond to nastiness with more nastiness, but I really think sexual imagery and innuendoes about Coulter are out of line.
Fragano has it right: Coulter has nothing interesting or useful to say. She deserves contempt for her dumb and evil ideas, not for being an attractive woman.
Are you calling Ann Coulter a respected right wing pundit? Listened to, yes. Respected by whom?
a recent poll of right-wing blogs puts Coulter and Malkin tied for 2nd, behind Limbaugh. category? their favorite people on the right.
i'm not sure if "favorite" is closer to "respected" or "listened-to", but it's an interesting little survey anyway.
I find the model of masculinity that Coulter seems to advocate distinctly unmasculine.* It may be necessary to use force in defence of yourself, your family, and your country, but that doesn't stop you from being compassionate, or from recognising that others are humans and deserving of your care and respect. Not to mention avoiding cruelty to animals.
* The model of masculinity I learned at my father's knee involved determination, sobriety, responsibility, hard work, and, ahem, socialism. It had its flaws, many of them, but I cannot imagine my father (for all that he clung to some remarkably Victorian views) approving of Coulter.
Now I always thought Coulter was a left-wing performance artist, like a more installation oriented Colbert... you mean she's real?
How can people take guff like this seriously? And isn't she liable to hate speech laws? Do you have hate speech laws in the US? (pardon my ignorance)
Don't surrender a single anti-Coulter talking point. She's playing up the sex angle - so it can and should be used against her. Linda Hirshman wrote a very good piece in The Guardian about how Coulter's book sales have risen while her outfits on the cover get smaller and smaller:
Ann is hardly the first female author to try to sell her work with titillating pictures of herself. But usually such author photos accompany, say, memoirs of anal sex, like ex-ballerina Toni Bentley's Surrender, rather than screeds on behalf of a political movement deeply rooted in American religious and social conservatism. Like the image of senator Larry Craig in the men's room, Ann Coulter's increasing nudity is revolting mostly because it stands in such contrast to the sexual pieties of the political movement she purports to represent. Will Jerry Falwell now have to consider whether Muslim fundamentalists hate the US because of the pornographic photographs on the covers of right-wing political diatribes?
PJ @ #18: Ann C. is Phyllis Schlafly's ideological heir(ess) and current contender for the title of America's Leading Female Impersonator.
I always thought of Ann Coulter as a boxing ring bimbo, one of those women who walk around in a boxing ring between rounds and hold up a big sign telling everyone something they already know. They don't say anything original. They don't add to the discussion. They repeat what someone else told them, and they're running around half naked.
If the political pundit gig hadn't worked out for her, I would have expected she would have ended up working at NASCAR.
Laurel Lyon @ 57
Do you have hate speech laws in the US? (pardon my ignorance)
Only the laws enacted by the neoconservatives, who hate (other peoples') speech.
Aren't we assuming that Coulter is for real? I think she knows this is all crap, but it's an ecological niche that makes her very wealthy so why should she stop?
Is SecDef Gates' aide Debra Cagan Coulter's long lost twin?
As for Coulter's looks, I think they're relevant in that she has worked very hard to create a dysphoric female image, one that the "conservative" subculture she touts generally rejects as unfeminine. This is drastically at odds with her overt message, and makes me think she uses it as cover, in effect saying "I am a loud and obnoxious female, emblematic of what is wrong with educating and giving power to women; listen to my arguments and agree with them because I present a paradigmatic example of why I'm right." This strategy certainly seems to work well; she's accepted on an intellectual level by others of her ideological stripe, while not being considered an exception to her own rules. So the paradoxical nature of her presentation is used to prevent her target audience from noticing the extreme cognitive dissonance of her position.
The dimunution of her photo costumes may be a part of the same strategy: increasingly point out by example that women's salient features are physical, not intellectual; that a woman who recognizes her place must also recognize her role as sexual object.
And why does anyone listen to someone who so clearly has no original thought or analysis to provide? She's a mouthpiece, not a queen but a pawn in the political game she's playing, and not expected to be original, merely effective in spreading the orthodox dogma. I would not be at all surprised to find out that her handlers and writers* have direct connections to people much more highly placed in the Neobarb propaganda system.
* I'm assuming she has a staff, and that at least one person on that staff, though perhaps not having the title, is in fact a speechwriter. It's quite possible I'm wrong, but if she is in fact working directly for some part of the Neobarb political machine, that she has people making sure that her message is idealogically pure and politically on-message.
And speaking of on-message, make that "it seems likely that she has people".
Charlie Stross @ 46
Well, you've never seen them together, now have you?
But seriously folks, I would be more likely to compare her to Leni Riefenstahl than to Göbels. As I said above, I don't think she's a prime mover, just another flack for the team, if a highly visible one.
Exactly, Serge (@62).
Coulter is only really in favor of one thing: keeping power in the hands of Republicans, who pay her handsomely for saying crazy things, which distracts people from discussing real issues and policies (like the fact that Republicans want poor kids to go without health care, Iraq, our tanking economy, etc).
She knows full well no one is going to revoke women's suffrage and we're not going to invade Iran, kill it's leaders and convert everyone to Christianity, etc. But so long as we're talking about what insane things Anne Coulter said, we aren't talking about real issues, either. The status quo is maintained and she gets a nice fat check.
#15 Serge
Souldn't that be, "Norman, coordinate" (BOING!, the little control tag flashes and the head lolls to the side)
No accounting for taste, I guess. There are conservative pundits who explain their positions with some measure of thought and reason (George Will, Wm. F. Buckley) and some even a measure of humor (David Brooks, P.J. O'Rourke), and even though I disagree with their viewpoints, I can read them without vomiting inside my mouth.
Coulter aims for coarser tastes, and the only way I know to counter her is by calmly pointing out where she is wrong.
And laughing derisively.
dsl@58, we surrender some possible talking points against Coulter not out of concern for her feelings, but because those points hurt ourselves. When you attack a female public figure for her physical presentation or lack of attractiveness, you reinforce the idea that it is legitimate to demand perfection in the attractiveness and physical presentation of female public figures. Those of us who are tired of hearing Hillary Clinton's laugh criticized rather than her position on the war need to cut that out.
Bruce (STM) #66: Coulter's not Riefenstahl. Riefenstahl had, if nothing else, a talent.
Those who must resort
To pointless vitriol,
Are hoping we'll retort
And somehow lose control.
But life is all to short,
And discord takes its toll.
If there's not much import
Then DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.
Anne Coulter was in DG? Across the street from DDD on Triphammer on North Campus?
One of my signal memories of freshman year was rush week in January during an awful cold snap, three days after course exchange, after dinner at Risley, walking past DG and DDD and observing ~75-90 freshman women in thin evening gowns, some strapless, all shivering, bawling communally in the subzero cold, makeup streaked and tears frozen. The very picture of desolate misery, like the third bolgia of the 9th circle of hell.
I never joined the Greek system - since EAM wasn't that Jewish anymore, AXS was coed chem and I wasn't chem, though a lot of my friends were, and I wasn't interested in SXA, the other coed service frat.
My other favorite memory of fraters and sorors is of SP going up in brilliant flames on slope day, 1994, because of a dumb idjit, a welding torch, and a gas line.
I'm trying to remember - which frat was it that sat right across the street from Risley?
ethan... Riefenstahl had, if nothing else, a talent.
Speaking of whom... A few years ago, I read that Jodie Foster was going to play her in a biopic, but I haven't heard anymore about that for a long time. Also... Watching "Triumph of the Will" was interesting. Very modern in some respect, but incomprehensible if one doesn't know the detailed History of the era. My favorite moment though was when the Shovel Corps bragged about its accomplishments.
Steve Buchheir @ 68... Ptoinnngggg!!!
My last year in Ithaca, I lived directly beneath AC's successor at the Review, Joe Sabia.
Google young Sabia. In person not as scabrous as his prose.
Needless to say I got no sleep on the night of November 8, 2000, and not just because of the chaotic election results.
Abi... DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.
Which was my point. By paying attention to the garbage that Coulter knows is garbage, we transmute the garbage into gold that pours into her coffers. (Keith @ 67... I don't know if she cares if the GOP stays in power, as long as they pay her well.)
What vito excalibur said at 70.
I don't give a toss about Limbaugh's weight or Coulter's looks or the way she dresses or any of that easy-target nonsense that snark too often gives rise to. (It's not like there aren't any funny-looking leftists, after all.)
And I think we ought to be particularly careful about using the language of slut-shaming regarding Coulter, because doing so ulimately reinforces her misogynist nonsense rather than countering it. She'd be just as vile, ridiculous, and venomous if she was plain and mousy and dressed like a Mennonite.
That said, I think Bruce Cohen's analysis at 64 has a lot going for it; it's possible to critique the interplay of her words and her presentation without reflecting her offensiveness on ourselves. Understanding that her looks may carry a certain meaning is not the same as passing judgment on them. And if that feels like a fine distinction, well, that's what we in the reality-based community are supposed to be good at.
Remember how the late Rev Fallwell would periodically say something so bizarre and creepy that it would ignite a media storm, which somehow mysteriously kept him in the public eye? I suspect there's some similarity here.
"I don't understand the objection, here. Her looks are part of her public persona and, really, without the in her looks give her, she'd be near-universally hated by the very sexist men on the radical-right."
I dunno... I can't see any good reason to discuss her looks at all. They're irrelevant to the discussion, whether she uses them to her advantage or not. I mean, a woman can dress any way she wants. It is after all her views that we disagree with, isn't it? And they're easy enough to discredit.
"But the min-maxer, in the end, will probably win."
What I don't understand is why the Democrats seem to give the Republicans' tactics a free pass, instead of exposing them tit-for-tat, very agressively, for the cheap tricks they are. That's the only way to take the teeth out of them... unless gaming theory has another suggestion?
Sorry to post twice and at length, but... I think it behooves us to try to understand the opposition's point of view, otherwise all they hear is the same noise that we hear when someone like Coulter speaks. Which is why she is so ineffectual at convincing us, but so compelling for non-discriminating dittoheads who just want their opinions reflected back at them. Let's not make the same mistake.
E.G.:‘We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?", as intemperate and offensive as that quote is, reflects conservatives' belief that entitlements are unnecessary, counter to American values like self-sufficiency, and ultimately hurt the economy.
Counter THAT argument effectively, and you may just make a conservative think twice about the healthcare issue.
Flame them with language couched in liberal terms like "You don't care about the welfare of children" and they won't even hear you, because they will rightly preceive that you are not disputing their argument on the terms they have presented it.
OK, I'm done lecturing.
Nick D. #80
I think the Republicans are rapidly losing their teeth:
Iraq
Blackwater
Gonzales
Larry Craig
SCHIP
Katrina
Sub-prime mortgage meltdown
Rumsfeld
We do need to keep their feet to the fire - the fires they started.
Ms Coulter may have a point in suggesting that women are not competent to vote -- Republican women, that is.
Consider: One of the responsibilites that tradtionally falls upon women is teaching small children how to behave towards their relatives and other people, and how to distinguish between Right and Wrong.
A considerable numer of Republican women fail to indoctrinate their children properly in Republican doctrine and their kids grow up to become Democrats or even (*ghasp*) Liberals.
Others succeed (by Republican standards) and their kids grow up to be Republicans and Conservatives -- like those we read about in the more scandal-oriented tabloids, or those who are bringing about radical and destructive changes in our national polity.
Mind you, I may be a trifle confused, here -- I'm still struggling with the fact that I'm now a Liberal because I support state's rights (more than Conservatives do, anyhow), favor a reasonably-balanced budget, and oppose extreme foreign enganglement and massive growth of the Federal Government bureaucracy.
<rimshot>
going for the cheap shot
sidebar entry real hot
content though is so not
It's not like Coulter's original or anything. She seems to have borrowed her playbook from Sinclair Lewis's Adelaide Tarr Gimmitch:
She was full of friendliness toward all the men present: she wriggled at them, she cuddled at them, as in a voice full of flute sounds and chocolate sauce she poured out on them her oration on "How You Boys Can Help Us Girls."Granted, Coulter's younger than the Gimmitch, and a trendier dresser. But otherwise: same line, same playbook. Tired now.
Women, she pointed out, had done nothing with the vote. If the United States had only listened to her back in 1919 she could have saved them all this trouble. No. Certainly not. No votes. In fact, Woman must resume her place in the Home and, "as that great author and scientist Mr. Arthur Brisbane has pointed out, what every woman ought to do is have six children."
Excellent points about the subtext of Coulter's message and the "condemnations" of R candidates, etc.
But on the mundane level of fact, men are voting Democratic. The only subgroup of men in which D's don't outpoll R's is among white, Christian, non-union men. And there it's a rout, 70-30 Republican. The demographic is shrinking (and would shrink even more quickly if the Employee Free Choice Act were to become law, and a Democratic administration made new appointments to the NLRB).
This info via a post full of other interesting data points at OpenLeft.
Question: What do Ann Coulter and Ozzy Osborne have in common?
Answer: They both do outrageous things to get publicity and thus make money.
Does anybody really think that Ozzy Osborne likes the taste of bats? So why do we think that Ann Coulter really wants to take away her right to vote? All she wants to do is sell books and get TV / radio ratings.
Chris Gerrib @87: Exactly. When I first heard this latest quote, my first thought was, "Her book sales must be down."
As for the rest of her comments--well. She's living proof that blonde bimbos *can* spell. Whodathunkit?
every new outrage
buys me fifteen minutes' more
time on TV screens
Elizabeth @ 47:
Ding! You've got it exactly. As an old role-playing hand, I 've dealt with that type on a number of occasions. The difference here is that in the gaming envronment, you can tweak the context to send them minning and maxing in some direction that's interesting for the other players. I don't know how one would accomplish that in the real world. (Space Race II, maybe?)
#73: Zeta Psi.
Jon (Risley '81)
An argument against ignore-Coulter policies.
Nick D. @81:
Thanks for the lecture. I would suggest, however, that American liberals (and by present American standards, the term "liberal" seems to be applied to anyone to the left of Dwight Eisenhower) can best show their respect for the principle of self-sufficiency by responding to the arguments that the right wingers actually make, not the arguments they wish they could make. How can the pundits of the far right learn to make their thuggish worldview more appealing if their opponents are always doing their propagandizing for them?
In adddition, the argument you've set forth would hold more water if the Democratic Party actually came out against self-sufficiency. Personally, I'm not aware of any Democratic politician who's come out in favor of low-interest student loans on the basis that they make students dependent on government handouts. From the liberal standpoint, what those loans do is allow lower-income students to compete (for grades, for internships, for jobs) on a more equal footing with their wealthier classmates. Similar arguments can be made regarding health care and child care.
Consequently, it's not obvious at all to me that Coulter's opposition to such programs is based on a desire to inspire others to become self-sufficient; rather it strikes me as a straightforward defence of entrenched privilege.
With that in mind, let's look at Coulter's statement again:
"I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and ‘We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?’"
If I were to summarize that statement by saying "Ann Coulter doesn't says that other women should receive the same level of health care or financial security she enjoys," I'd rightly be accused of distorting her statement into a strawman argument. But saying "Ann Coulter says that other women would benefit by becoming more self-sufficient" is no less a distortion of what she said; it's just that in this case, the statement is mischaracterized to make it more palatable. I don't know if there's a term for this particular rhetorical trick, but for now I'll refer to it as a "brickman argument," in reference to the third little pig's choice of building material.
In short, I'd rather that liberals engage the statements that hatemongers like Coulter make, rather than engaging the lofty principles that you imagine underlie Coulter's statement. In part, this is due to what I said about not wanting to do my opponents' heavy lifting for them.
Another reason for this is because by focusing on the issue of self-sufficiency, you've managed to overlook the operative phrase in the Coulter statement in question, which is that the Democratic party is "the party of women." That's her thesis, argument, and conclusion right there; that's the red meat being thrown to the base. Everything else in that quote is nothing more than a honeytrap to lure Democrats and liberals into a discussion of the finer points of federal health insurance and tuition payments, which will just prove Coulter's point: Look at those Democrats yakking and nitpicking about the tiresome details of single-payer health insurance! What a bunch of women!
So I suppose the big question here is: why should the Democrats keep walking into that particular rhetorical trap? Why can't they point out that Coulter's statements, when taken at face value, cover a range from "vapid" to "repugnant," and use that to marginalize Coulter and her ilk? Arguing policy with Coulter, Limbaugh, Malkin, etc. is of especially dubious use since their function in the reactionary political machine is to villainize Democrats and liberals, not to advocate any coherent set of principles or ideals.
Finally, I feel that I should point out that Coulter has a law degree, appears on television frequently, and has written at least 5 books; she's had more than enough opportunity to articulate her beliefs and arguments. If others find her beliefs repugnant and her arguments unconvincing, it's hardly because Coulter has had insufficient opportunity to articulate them. If her arguments fail to stand on their own, that's evidence of Coulter's own failings as a pundit and thinker, not evidence that her opponents are unwilling to engage serious arguments in favor of conservative policies.
Well, certainly her comments, while ostensibly about women, most definitely are about men. What she's clearly saying is that any men who vote Democratic are not real men, just wannabe women. And that dovetails perfectly with all the other sexually-oriented rhetoric she and other Republicans use.
Also -- I think it's quite relevant to examine how she plays the sex card directly. She's playing a role -- she looks like a rich bitch, perhaps even a liberal, but she's on "our side". Also, she's an uppity woman, which gives the conservative man a little frisson when she talks about political submission. It's a control issue. Taking the vote from women is power over women is, effectively, rape. It tittilates. Having a blonde and provocatively dressed woman advocate it is like heroin to a junkie.
A lot of Republican politics is all about addictive behavior. I say it again: trust me, I'm from Indiana, I know this at a gut level. The Republican party is a disease.
@#93: you misinterpret me. I was not recommending debating with Coulter and her ilk that way. Clearly, she is not open to that kind of reasoned argument. I was referring to debate with rational conservatives who are actually capable of of it.
If you go back and read my post, you'll see that what I actually was saying is that the orthodox conservative view on the subject was such and such, and that's what we should dispute, instead of getting into mudslinging matches with nuts like Coulter. I never said we should not call her out as being a demogogue.
"In short, I'd rather that liberals engage the statements that hatemongers like Coulter make, rather than engaging the lofty principles that you imagine underlie Coulter's statement."
Once again, misrepresenting what I said.
"Another reason for this is because by focusing on the issue of self-sufficiency, you've managed to overlook the operative phrase in the Coulter statement in question, which is that the Democratic party is 'the party of women.'"
Thanks for relieving me of my crushing ignorance, but, again, you are totally misrepresenting what I said. That was one example. Please save the fine tooth comb and the invective for the opposition.
This isn't exactly the first time that a Republican has expressed these opinions.
"I can't see any good reason to discuss her looks at all. They're irrelevant to the discussion"
Physical appearance is important with media figures; we blind ourselves if we ignore it in analysis. Now, Coulter is a very smart person (graduated with honors from Cornell) as well. As far as I can tell her experience of life is one of privilege, and this includes beauty--she has most likely had boys and men competing for her company since she was a teenager, and one of her problems with feminism is likely that it calls this into question. She appears to believe--and she may be correct in this belief--that she would be a powerful figure in any but the most sexist of societies, vote or no. So women's rights don't matter to her (in fact, may actually be a problem for her), nor does the vote. Privilege, now, matters a great deal. Calling her a bimbo underestimates her--in fact it's quite sexist as well. She's very smart, and very destructive.
Mr. Chris @ 93 -- if you think Ann Coulter is presenting an argument or presenting policy suggestions, you have already lost. Her positions cannot be addressed -- that's the whole point. You cannot logically address this. You can only paint pictures for the cavemen.
Ah, that's needlessly pejorative, of course. What I should be saying, inclusively, is that there is a caveman in every one of us. And that caveman does his arguing in pictures painted on the wall, inarticulate screams, imprecations to thunder gods, and thrown excrement. If you want to engage American politics, you have to talk to that caveman, because everybody else already understands this. Everybody with a voice, anyway.
If there's any actual failing I see in progressives, it is a failure to understand this. Politics is not a rational game. Ever so often, it manages to wobble towards a rational goal anyway. That's great. In times like that, we should be ready with rational goals. But people don't make these decisions on a rational basis. People make the important decisions on decidedly irrational bases -- questions like, am I afraid of terrorists even if I live in Indiana and do I want strong, violent daddy figures in charge to tell me they're fighting for my right to free speech over there so they won't have to over here? It all dribbles together into a vaguely comforting, vaguely terrifying mush.
Cutting into that with logical arguments about how best to finance public goals is so twentieth. It literally takes the conservative aback -- it is as plain as the nose on his face that you, the now-disenfranchised Democrat, would rather go back to the days of your power, the technocratic people in Washington who wanted to tax and spend and support welfare queens and so on and so forth.
Sure, it makes sense to talk about policy. But maybe you haven't noticed this -- in the public sphere, nobody does. This is because it reeks of history.
I've babbled on long enough. Suffice it to say that listening to this is just like listening to my (European theoretical physicist) wife trying to explain to me yet again that it's not logical to believe in the fundamentalist Christian God. Oh, really? Maybe they've never thought of that!! Or, hey, maybe their belief system has already inoculated them against that form of attack. The same applies to Republicans.
#97: Randolph, for the record I thought your observation about sexist men being mainpulated by their sexism was spot on accurate.
Michael Roberts,
Pardon a little more blogwhoring, but you might enjoy "Why you can't reason with a Republican."
#98: Michael, I'm not sure what you're advocating here. Abandoning logic for screaming and cave painting?
"Sure, it makes sense to talk about policy. But maybe you haven't noticed this -- in the public sphere, nobody does."
Rational debate may be in the ICU, but it ain't dead yet. Absolutes like "nobody" can rarely be shown to be true, and this is an example.
I'm also disappointed and discouraged by the current state of American politics, but I would consider myself a coward if I abandoned my principles in favor of some Realpolitik version of cave painting.
But OK, I agree that much of politics is irrational. Of course people are only rational part of the time. They are also rational part of the time. And anyway, rational debate is only one political tool, I recognize that. But it's one of the best that I know of.
Your dismissal of anyone's approach that isn't your "speaking to the caveman" reminds me of when conservatives patronizingly call me naive, and say I don't know how the world works, when I probably have much wider experience of the world than they do.
And your assertion that all Republicans are irrational is equally patronizing to them. Have you never known a Republican that could think logically?
But wait, I guess I'm giving comfort to the enemy and helping them accomplish their goals. Hmmm...where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, that's how conservatives characterize those who disagree with their foreign policy. I must be a naive, wooly headed traitor to the progressive cause. Yikes!
Nick D.,
As the GOP has spun completely off its axis, it has become necessary for their loyalists to eschew logical thought.
How can anyone look at the last seven years and support their failed, corrupt, and draconian policies without giving up a goodly part of their capacity for rationality (and morality)?
It seems so uncivil to talk about our fellow citizens this way, but when they rally around torture, shredding of Constitutional protections, rolling back science, completely irrational and counterproductive militarism, and ever-more corrupt reverse Robin Hoodism, perhaps it's time we learned to be a little gauche.
Vastleft @ 102... How can anyone look at the last seven years and support their failed, corrupt, and draconian policies without giving up a goodly part of their capacity for rationality (and morality)?
I don't know how they do it either. Believe it or not, they still bring up how to explain to the kids what a blowjob is. Mind you, since the whole sordid affair happened in 1998, I'm sure the kids are now old enough that they figured out what that act is all about.
Vastleft: I am also sick at heart about all those things. I'm not against getting a little gauche, or making waves, or even shocking people. But there are limits, and in the end you just wind up fueling the fire of fanaticism (pardon the alliteration) when you start playing on too low a level. You help make the lunatic fringe the mainstream when you do that, and then they really have won.
serge #103:
Yeah, so can I complain just a little bit that it's thanks to the Republicans that I have to turn off my car radio in the morning, while driving my son to school, because I don't want him hearing detailed discussions of what torture techniques we're using? I mean, I agree, I don't want to explain blowjobs to him either. But it's not even in the same *league* with torture.
Nick D.,
I disagree. The story of the failed Democratic Congress and the pliant press is one where people are afraid to call things what they are, because it would be too shrill and to ungenteel to call people murderers, crooks, and incompetent over such peccadilloes as killing people, oozing corruption, and fucking up everything that made America great.
Oh, and Nick...
They are the ones who have made the lunatic fringe into the mainstream, putting Rush Limbaugh on Armed Forces Radio and Ann Coulter on the bestseller list.
Our job is to drag the Overton Window back where it belongs, and being shy about calling those who have defiled our country "country-defilers" is precisely the opposite of helping making them the mainstream. It is reminding people of what freaks these characters are.
Remember how liberating it was when Franken came out with his "Lying Liars" book? It gave voice to the idea that, no, Fox and Rush and Ann aren't journalism, and their moralizing is pretty fucking far from morality. So, let's shrill it up, bro!
Excuse me, that should be "not being shy"...
If you're implying that I meant anything like "it would be too shrill and to ungenteel to call people murderers, crooks, and incompetent" then you have completely mischaracterized my argument and I suggest you reread my post. Ditto your other gross exagerations and misrepresentations of my position.
But OK, I'll shrill it up for you:
If you want to whine and complain about how the right doesn't fight fair (boo hoo hoo), while at the same time surrendering the playing field, the agenda, the rulebook, and your own oh-so-easily vacated so-called principles to them at the first utterance of a hurtful (sob!) word, or the first loss of a policy battle, then you need to grow up and learn how to play with the big boys and stop crying like a little girl who's been pushed down in the mud by a (sniffle) big (sob) mean ol' fascist meanie.
And then realize that you are not fit to govern, either.
How's that?
Coulter's function is to push the Overton Window as far as possible by saying outrageous things. So when self-styled moderates try to split the difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" they end up still farther to the reactionary right.
That and to rally the base by getting their attention with sexual titillation and engaging them with the same outrageous statements.
'Flame them with language couched in liberal terms like "You don't care about the welfare of children" and they won't even hear you, because they will rightly preceive that you are not disputing their argument on the terms they have presented it.'
It's pointless to try to get Coulter to hear you; she's not listening. Counter her, yes, so people can't so easily claim she's right because nobody denied what she said. But spending a lot of time on that just reinforces her points by bringing them up again.
If you must counter them, continue each counter with what you are *for*. Coulter is for taking the vote away from women. Democrats are for everyone voting, and more real men do vote for the Democratic party than for any other, probably because they're for fiscal responsibility, educating people so they can decide how to vote, health care so they'll live long enough to, protecting the environment so they'll have a place worth living, and a rational defense so we only fight when we need to instead of pissing away the money we need for education, health care, and the environment.
That way we engage our own base and push the Overton Window in a healthy direction.
Nick D.,
I'm taking issue with two arguments in your recent comments.
1. "And your assertion that all Republicans are irrational is equally patronizing to them."
The track record of the Bush era is such that only someone drunk on tribal loyalty (or tragically uninformed, or just plain rotten) could defend his administration and the rubberstamp Republican Congress (and increasingly, the accommodationist Democratic Congress) that has enabled him. Today's GOP has long-since qualified for no-quarter rhetorical treatment. In its present form, it is a completely valueless organization. The notion that it can be spoken of in any respectful way is IMHO a dangerous mirage.
2. "But there are limits, and in the end you just wind up fueling the fire of fanaticism (pardon the alliteration) when you start playing on too low a level. You help make the lunatic fringe the mainstream when you do that, and then they really
Comments on Dicks: