Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Rand, I think there's some HTML trouble in this post. The first sentence cuts off, and the whole rest of it is a link.

Posted by Kevin McGehee at August 17, 2002 11:43 AM

Yeah, I posted it, and then didn't verify that it went up OK before I went out to run some errands. It's fixed now.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 17, 2002 12:04 PM

You realize that under the criteria you set for various Presidents, not even Reagan could be considered a conservative. He raised taxes in 1982, imposed "voluntary" import quotas on foreign cars, and acceeded to all sorts of wild domestic spending by Democrats.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at August 17, 2002 08:51 PM

Coulter may be, in your view, caustic and funny, but she writes lies, big flaming whoppers of lies, and for that she should be ignored.

Posted by John Casey at August 17, 2002 09:24 PM

John Casey,
So she was the one that said, "I did not have sex with that woman - Ms Lewinsky" Next thing you know she'll be claiming she wants to crawl in a ditch and die alongside her Jewish brethren.
You're absolutely right. She should be ignored for travesties such as that.

Posted by tom scott at August 17, 2002 10:06 PM

Yes, can you provide an example or two of such a "lie"? Opinions with which you disagree are not "lies."

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 17, 2002 10:22 PM

What is it with Eva Braun? She was remarkably apolitical and is only remembered today for her appalling choice of being Adolph Hitler's arm candy. It?s not as though Coulter hasn?t also exercised questionable taste in that regard, i.e. with Bob Guccione, Jr.

Posted by Bruce Rheinstein at August 18, 2002 06:31 AM

John Casey, following in the footsteps of others who have failed to deliver, writes:

>> Coulter may be, in your view, caustic and funny, but she writes lies, big flaming whoppers of lies, and for that she should be ignored.

As the proprietor of the Coulter-Krugman Fact Checking Derby, I'd like to see your examples.

Posted by Patrick R. Sullivan at August 18, 2002 10:32 AM

Aw, jeez:

"What is it with Eva Braun? She was remarkably apolitical and is only remembered today for her appalling choice of being Adolph Hitler's arm candy. It?s not as though Coulter hasn?t also exercised questionable taste in that regard, i.e. with Bob Guccione, Jr."

There's "questionable," and then there's morally blind as a bat. I don't think publishing magazines of "questionable" moral value is anywhere near the same league as, you know, slaughtering six million Jews and millions more others, starting a world war, trying to develop atomic weapons for offensive use, popularizing a cult of racial purity, etc.

All that said, I'll concede that Eva Braun may not have known much about what Hitler's minions were doing, but she had to have been aware of his ideology and rhetoric.

Posted by Kevin McGehee at August 18, 2002 11:25 AM

Coulter is often funny, but just as often abusive and frequently says things that are completely disconnected from reality. Her assertion in the book that the religious right doesn't exist, for example, is inane. Richard Cohen ought to know better than to resort to her tactics, which is pretty much what he does. Coulter consistently engages in infantile debate tactics. Her incisive wit is very entertaining at times, but she does much better on TV or radio than in print. Her strength is in the kind of back-and forth where a quick zinger can be fired off without anybody going back to see if what she actually said is true. Her counterpart on the left is James Carville, who shares her quick mind and sharp wit, as well as her indifference to facts when they are inconvenient.

Posted by Andrew Case at August 18, 2002 12:55 PM

I sent to Rand, via email, something I had posted on my site at on "Tom's Rant page.
I sent that via email to Rand because it contained some over the top comments from Salon online about Ann Coulter. Rand probably is about a hundred or so emails behind so I will just ref my site 'cuz soon the topic will no be "topical."
Do you suppose Richard Cohen will comment on this? The left has been doing this for years and years (demonizing the right as sexist, racist, homophobic Nazi KKK'ers) and just once it happens to them and they are up in arms. Well sorry.

Posted by Tom Scott at August 18, 2002 01:45 PM

I can't believe nobody picked up on one of the lamest ideas in Cohen's piece: the notion that he and his media colleagues are so powerful that their political bent -- liberal or otherwise -- should automatically be reflected in the presidential roster.

How presumptuous! (And myopic...)

I'm not saying the media's liberal bias isn't a problem; it certainly is. But it's more of a micro problem -- a problem within the context of journalism itself -- than a macro problem.

Posted by The Mad Commenter at August 18, 2002 01:51 PM

>> Her assertion in the book that the religious right doesn't exist, for example, is inane.

Did she actually write that, or is it that you believe that she'd say it and that's enough for a righteous person?

The reason that I ask is that I used to fact-check such attacks. I soon realized that I was wasting my time. I found that people who used this attack were almost always lying and/or stupid. (Life is too short to worry about the difference.)

If you think that you're one of the honest ones, you better start going after the dishonest ones. Your credibility is at stake.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 18, 2002 08:25 PM

What is it about making it to the top of the NYT non-fiction bestseller list that makes a person a raving ideological lunatic? Ann Coulter and Mike Moore have more in common then they would care to think.

Posted by Sean Kirby at August 18, 2002 08:56 PM

"There's 'questionable,' and then there's morally blind as a bat. I don't think publishing magazines of 'questionable' moral value is anywhere near the same league as, you know, slaughtering six million Jews and millions more others, starting a world war, trying to develop atomic weapons for offensive use, popularizing a cult of racial purity, etc."

My point being that if you're going to criticize people for whom they associate with, you should at least make a point of being careful about your own associates. Eva Braun is, admittedly, a far more extreme example than Guccione, but the point still holds.

Personally I think Coulter is in danger of becoming an Archie Bunker. Her extreme rhetoric allows liberals to appear reasonable in comparison, and while it gets her noticed it also has the effect of turning her into something of a parody. That's probably why she was a regular on Geraldo. (What was that about guilt by association again?)

Posted by Bruce Rheinstein at August 19, 2002 10:13 AM

How can some yahoo that graduated from J-School comment on the intellect of a graduate from one of the top law schools in the country? I mean, come on. J-School is the academic equivalent of Denny's. No one plans on going there, you just end up there terribly confused about the sequence of events that left you in such piss-poor shape with so few options.

Posted by Joe at August 19, 2002 12:44 PM

Well, lessee, you're comparing Ann to Michael Moore? The guy whose lardass *has* been fact checked six ways from Sunday and found wanting, the guy who clearly (and even occasionally admittedly) is incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction?

I'm still waiting for an example of one of Ms. Coulter's "lies," let along a "flaming whopper" of one. If there are as many as some posters claim, surely they can come up with one?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 19, 2002 12:56 PM

Regarding the Mad Commenter's questioning of whether or not Ann Coulter denies the existence of the religious right: I'm going on a statement she made on CSPAN's Book Notes, Sunday, August 11th, while discussing chapter 9 of her book, titled "Shadowboxing the Apocryphal "Religious Right""
Quoting from the interview:
"I mean, it really is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall to figure out what the left even means by "religious right." It's this apocryphal enemy, and half of America believes -- not only believes it exists but actually is afraid of it!"

Once you stop to take a close look at the things she presents as reasoned arguments, you'll lose all respect for her, at least if you value logic and reason. I confess I used to be a fan, before her forcible conversion rant lead me to start looking more closely. I'm sympathetic to some of the things she espouses, but she's an entertainer, not a deep thinker. Conservatives and libertarians have much better voices and clearer thinkers than Coulter. It's sad that she's being elevated at the expense of people who can (and do) construct tight, focused, fact-driven arguments and present them in ways that actually change minds.

Posted by Andrew Case at August 19, 2002 04:04 PM

Let's review.

>> Her assertion in the book that the religious right doesn't exist, for example, is inane.

I asked whether that Coulter did actually assert that. The response is a quote.

>> "I mean, it really is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall to figure out what the left even means by "religious right." It's this apocryphal enemy, and half of America believes -- not only believes it exists but actually is afraid of it!"

It's pretty clear that Coulter is pointing out that the left's "religous right" may well be something that doesn't exist. In other words, the quote doesn't support the accusation.

No, Virginia, the existence of a "religious right" doesn't imply the existence of the "religious right" that the left whines about.

Example: If I start ranting about a car in front of my house that eats small children, you'd be correct to point out that said car doesn't exist, even if there actually is a car in front of my house. If I start ranting about an evil car with undefined properties, same thing.

I'm not a fan of Ms. Coulter's brains or beauty. However, I am opposed to this mindless trashing that claims to be serious political thought.

The left is correct in pointing out that there is no vast TP conspiracy, even if the TPers do talk to each other, cooperate occasionally, and share some core beliefs. The same appears to be true of the religious right.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 20, 2002 08:56 AM

If you want an example of a "flaming whopper", here's one from "Slander" --

"The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nation?s fastest-growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd... It took the New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt?s name sufficiently important to mention it on the first page."

Turns out the New York Times did in fact run a lengthy obit of Mr. Earnhardt on the front page the day after he died. Coulter's publishers have said they will change that paragraph in the next edition of the book.

For further examples of AC "whoppers", consult the Daily Howler.

Posted by R. Mutt at August 20, 2002 03:28 PM

Does the religious right exist? - yes
Does it have all the characteristics ascribed by some on the left? - no
Different questions, which Coulter folds together without distinction. The existence of inane assertions about the nature and goals of the religious right does not mean it doesn't exist.
Muddying the distinction is poor logic at best. It fails to acknowledge that there are as many leftist versions of the religious right as there are leftists, and some of the versions are pretty accurate. Much more convenient to muddy the waters and pretend that the monolithic left has a single vision of a monolithic religious right. Coulter is guilty of most of the things she accuses liberals of doing as far as mischaracterization and distortion. Cohen chose a shabby way of pointing this out, but it is true.

Posted by Andrew Case at August 20, 2002 07:20 PM

>> Does the religious right exist? - yes
>> Does it have all the characteristics ascribed by some on the left? - no
>> Different questions, which Coulter folds together without distinction.

Not at all. Let's reread the quote that Case provided:

She's clearly SAYS that she's writing about what the left refers to as "religious right". She says that their bugaboo, the object of their reference, is both non-existent and ill-defined. (It's like the evil car in front of my house. If I push that message well, I'll get some believers, even if I don't bother to define the car's characteristics, let alone relate it to an actual car.)

We could discuss whether her both parts of her claim are correct, but it's pretty clear that this quote contradicts the initial accusation.

And, I'll bet that the book includes a discussion of actual religious people with "right" views, a "religious right" if you like. She probably even discussed how they differed from the bugaboo discussed above. In other words, that discussion plus the above are discussion of a distinction that supposedly she doesn't make.

Of course, if I gave a damn about the revised "maybe this will stick" accusation, I'd have to read the book. Frankly, I'm not interested.

I've made my point. For many people, Coulter is an inkblot in which people see what they're looking for.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 20, 2002 09:55 PM

Regarding the above comments by Mr. Case and Mr. Freeman:

When most people (not just lefties) talk about the "Religious Right" it is generally understood that they are referring to Evangelical Christians such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Gary Bauer and others, and to their various organizations (the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, and so on). These are all politically active groups that work together to advance a common agenda (outlawing abortion, promoting school prayer, supressing gay rights, and so on). To suggest that this is not the case (as Coulter is clearly attempting to do) is flat out dishonest.

Posted by R. Mutt at August 21, 2002 10:22 AM

>> When most people (not just lefties) talk about the "Religious Right" it is generally understood that they are referring to Evangelical Christians such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Gary Bauer and others, and to their various organizations (the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, and so on).

As Case might put it - you're confusing the religious right that exists with the liberal myth. Coulter points out that they're different and that the latter doesn't correspond to anything in reality. (Those organizations didn't/don't have the properties ascribed to them by the myth.)

>> These are all politically active groups that work together to advance a common agenda

Except that they don't work hand in hand. They don't always cooperate and they occasionally fight each other.

You also "forgot" to explain how this these "right" groups behave any differently than "left" groups. That's an important point if you're going to argue that the RR is special.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 21, 2002 11:03 AM

>> To suggest that this is not the case (as Coulter is clearly attempting to do) is flat out dishonest.

"clearly"? The only evidence presented so far contradicts that assertion.

Perhaps you have some?

Like I said, Coulter is an inkblot for some people - she's an excuse for them to see what they're looking for.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 21, 2002 11:06 AM

Re: Mr. Freeman's comments:

>>They don't always cooperate and they occasionally fight each other.

They work together more often than they fight -- certainly more often than most left wing groups. Are you familiar with Grover Norquist's Wednesday Group? That's a group of leaders from various conservative organizations -- including conservative Christian organizations -- that meets once a week in Washington DC to plan strategy and make sure that everyone is reading from the same script. That sounds to me like they're cooperating pretty closely. Close enough to warrant the "Religious Right" appellation, anyway.

>>As Case might put it - you're confusing the religious right that exists with the liberal myth.

What exactly is the "liberal myth" of the Religious Right, anyway, and how does it differ from my above description?

Posted by R. Mutt at August 21, 2002 02:40 PM

>> They work together more often than they fight -- certainly more often than most left wing groups.

Yeah right.

>> Are you familiar with Grover Norquist's Wednesday Group?

They picked Wednesday because the Trilaterial commission meets on Tuesday and the Bilderburgers meet on Friday.

Do you recycle the tinfoil from your hat?

Of course people talk to people they might work with. That's the whole coalition thing. Do you really want to argue that people on the left don't?

If you want to argue that the actual "religous right" is special, as the liberal myth requires, you've got to show that it's different (apart from being "right" instead of "left").

You'll never do that by citing things they do or don't do. To do that, you'll have to show that there are no comparable coalitions on the left.

And, yes, there are left groups that mostly don't fight one another, just as there are right groups that are constantly at each other's throats.

While you're getting reved up to find differences, perhaps you'll explain why the left wouldn't use tactics/strategies that were effective for the right, or why the right wouldn't do likewise? (There are things that the right can't do without enlisting a union and that the left can't do without enlisting herds of small biz folk, but given the opportunity....)

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 21, 2002 05:43 PM

Having established that a) religious conservative groups do exist and b) that they have been known to work together, I think we have pretty well disproven Ann Coulter's claim that the religious right is a "liberal myth".

Nobody on the left has said that there is any difference, tactically speaking, between (for example) the Christian Coaltion and Operation PUSH. I certainly haven't made that argument. If this is in fact the "liberal myth", you would have a hard time finding a liberal who actually believes it. Coulter is setting up a straw man.

Posted by R. Mutt at August 22, 2002 11:49 AM

>> Having established that a) religious conservative groups do exist and b) that they have been known to work together, I think we have pretty well disproven Ann Coulter's claim that the religious right is a "liberal myth".

Except for the fact that she didn't claim that. Let's read the quote yet again.

>> Nobody on the left has said that there is any difference

Actually, they have.

The left's "religous right" myth is special, that is, different. All that we've established is that there are religious groups on the right that behave exactly like groups (some religous) on the left.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that the religion of the folks on the right is an important distinction....

Come on - you know that you want to.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 22, 2002 02:31 PM

Mutt seems to think that the existence of something that can be called a "religious right" implies that the "religious right" in the liberal myth therefore exists.

Let's talk some more about the evil, child-eating car that I previously mentioned. It's the white one in front of my house.

What? You think that the evil car doesn't exist?

Of course it does. Cars exist and there are even some cars, one white, in front of my house.

Surely you're not going to argue that the distinguishing characteristics of the evil car are relevant....

The "religous right" of the liberal myth has various properties. Whether or not it exists and corresponds to the religious right that actually exists depends on whether the actual religious right has those properties.

One of the key properties of the myth is that the "rr" is different, which the actual one isn't (unless it's the religion). I suspect that Coulter listed others.

FWIW - this "rant about an imagined evil using the name of something that does exist" tactic isn't especially new.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 23, 2002 06:35 AM

Mr. Freeman --

You left out an important part of one of my quotes: I said "nobody on the left is saying that there is any difference TACTICALLY SPEAKING". Meaning that there is no difference in how they behave politically.

To quote Case, "there are as many leftist versions of the religious right as there are leftists, and some of the versions are pretty accurate". There is no universally accepted "liberal myth" of the religious right, as much you and Ann Coulter would like to pretend otherwise.

It seems to me that if this discussion is going to go any further, somebody is going to have to come up with some actual examples of "liberal myths" from Coulter's book -- in other words things that most liberals believe about the religious right that are demonstrably not true. That somebody will have to be you, Mr. Freeman, as I would rather withdraw from this argument than spoil my evening with AC's damned book.

Posted by R. Mutt at August 23, 2002 03:12 PM

>> You left out an important part of one of my quotes: I said "nobody on the left is saying that there is any difference TACTICALLY SPEAKING".

Unless Mutt is going to argue that Coulter claimed that the liberal myth says that religious right is different tactically, my generalization made the argument relevant. If Mutt intended a non sequitor, my apologies.

It is interesting that Mutt is absolutely certain that Coulter didn't make the case that the left's "religious right" is different than the one that actually exists, but hasn't actually bothered to read her.

In other words, Mutt has been pontificating on a matter of which is is ignorant.

Me? I haven't read her either - which is why I only pontificate upon what people have said here.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 23, 2002 03:35 PM

Okay, let's go back and look at Coulter's quote, once again:

"...it really is like trying to nail Jello to a wall to figure out what the left even means by 'religious right'..."

First of all, Coulter uses a generalization, "the left", implying that everyone in this group has an accepted definition of the term "religious right". Then she says she doesn't know what this definition is. Finally she says that "the religious right", however "the left" may define it, does not exist ("It's this apocryphal enemy..."). Therefore ANY definition "the left" might advance, including my above definition, is a false one. You can't prove or disprove a "myth" without first defining what it is. That's what Case means when he says Coulter is folding together without distinction the questions of the religious right's existence and the left's definition of it.

Now, if Coulter had said "the left exaggerates the numbers and influence of the religious right" or "the left believes all religious conservatives handle snakes and speak in tongues" then she would have a actual example of a "liberal myth". For all I know, she says exactly that in her book. More likely she makes up some ridiculous "liberal agenda" (like "the liberals want to rape all your daughters and turn all your sons into homosexuals") and then claims that anyone who doesn't support this agenda is being demonized as part of some ill-defined but strangely malevolent "religious right".

Posted by R. Mutt at August 24, 2002 11:58 AM

Post a comment