John Leo: Rhetoric is over the top

New York Daily News ^ | 28 December 2003 | John Leo

[Lando Lincoln]

Bush-is-a-Nazi rhetoric, the subject of a recent column here, brought a lot of mail on a common theme: Isn't today's over-the-top, non-Nazi-related rhetoric often just as bad? Oh, yes. Nobody is simply criticized or opposed. He is "lynched." Orrin Hatch, Zell Miller and several other politicians recently claimed that they or their allies have been victims of lynching. (Miller apologized.) Veteran PBS star Bill Moyers, once a judicious man, recently said that Republicans are planning "the deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States of America."

A week or so ago, Sen. Hillary Clinton came down with a similar case of rhetorical fever. She said the Bush administration is out to undo the accomplishments of seven Presidents - Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman and both Roosevelts. What? Nothing in there about undoing Lincoln?

Ann Coulter has taken partisan commentary about as far as it can go. She is smart and funny, but calling opponents traitors is way over the line. So is suggesting that Timothy McVeigh's mistake was not blowing up The New York Times. This is the rhetorical equivalent of throwing chairs on the Jerry Springer show. It increases the odds that our political combat will get worse.

NAACP chairman Julian Bond, perhaps the rhetorical offender of the year, said the Republican Party's idea of equal rights "is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side."

Some rhetoric is simply intended to create the impression that an opponent is the equivalent of a world-class villain. Calling for "regime change" in the White House (John Kerry) is a not-so-subliminal way of saying that President Bush and Saddam Hussein are equal problems. Saying that Republican court nominees will "turn back the clock" (a Democratic mantra, used almost daily by People for the American Way) blinks to blacks the message that conservative judges will bring back segregation, Jim Crow and Bull Connor.

It's obvious that rhetorical excess reflects our political polarization. But the democratization of the media is playing a large role, too. There are no longer many gatekeepers who work to maintain a civil tone in publications and broadcasting. On the Internet and talk radio, and increasingly in the old media, people can say whatever they like, no matter how crude. Alas, many people now speaking out believe they contribute to the political discussion simply by announcing their feelings, usually feelings of irritation and anger.

Inarticulate people, many of them new to the political stage, are finding it hard to make their case without lapsing into invective. Comedian Janeane Garofalo, for instance, appeared in Manhattan on a recent panel discussion about Iraq. Unable to cope with defenders of the war, she suddenly exclaimed, "Oh, I give up!" and sat down. The inability to argue helps explain why she tends to rely on insults to make her points. Recently, she referred to the Bush administration as "the 43rd Reich." This is a terrible style that the country's remaining grownups ought to confront.

During 2004, I promise not to call anyone a klan member, a Nazi, a traitor, a Saddam Hussein clone or a closet cannibal out to subvert America.

Okay, that's not much. But it's a start.

[Lando Lincoln]

I, for one, think that Ann Coulter should tone it down. She is too bright to rely on invective and rhetoric.

Lando

[Peach]

Ditto about Ann Coulter. She loses the moderates who would benefit from her often brilliany alliteration.

[Peach]

brilliany=brilliant

[facedown]

...Bill Moyers, once a judicious man,...

When was that?

[AngrySpud]

Ann is kinda like Rush: 99% of the time I agree with both. But occasionally they both say something that makes me wince. It's calculated to draw attention, I'm sure, but sometimes I think they diminish their own arguments.

Now, a little closer to home ... what about my tagline? Is it perhaps a little "over the top"?

[Batrachian]

What if she's right? Doesn't it seem odd to you that Democrats always take the position most beneficial to our enemies? How about those Democrats that went to Baghdad and stated that they trusted Saddam Hussein more than our own President? Or those Democrats that built nuclear reactors in North Korea, and they took the Uranium and are building nuclear bombs with it to point at us?

What you have to remember is that we're the good guys and our enemies, including Democrats, are the bad guys and it's the simple truth to say so.

Ann Coulter tells the truth. Democrat's retoric is a pack of lies. There's no moral equivalency there.

[metesky]

When was that?

When things were going his way.

[meyer]

I, for one, think that Ann Coulter should tone it down. She is too bright to rely on invective and rhetoric.

The problem is, Ann Coulter is correct and has the data to back up her statements. Most of democrat core are traitors.

[Senator_Blutarski]

Ditto about Ann Coulter. She loses the moderates who would benefit from her often brilliany alliteration.

Most of Ann's "over-the-top" comments are tongue-in-cheek and intended as humor. Her columns are a running parody of the liberal left. I don't find her comments offensive at all. (But then I'm not a moderate...)

[Lando Lincoln]

... suggesting that Timothy McVeigh's mistake was not blowing up The New York Times.

I agree with her positions. But rhetoric such as the captioned can be over the top. She is bright, quick and has encyclopedic knowledge. It diminishes her message when she spouts something like the above reference. Simple.

Lando

[whereasandsoforth]

Ann Coulter knows what she is doing. Her remarks are calibrated with the absurdities that spew from the mouths of idiots and losers and people like democrats. Her remarks are actually parody. It's usually the best kind of parody because it smacks them in the face with the ugly truth.

Ann should be a little more shrill in the coming months. Be prepared, because the material she will be handed on a platter will be priceless!

[Lando Lincoln]

Again, I agree with her positions. She could be far more effective during interviews if she would tone it down a notch. She is so well researched that she can offer rebuttal to anything the left says. She does not need some of the inflammatory rhetoric that she sometimes uses. When she does, it diminishes her message and effectiveness with many.

Lando

[Lando Lincoln]

No doubt!! ... She will have a trove of material!

Lando

[facedown]

When things were going his way.

Oh, in the '60's. OK.

[mrtysmm]

I do tend to agree with you. No matter what the issue, it always amazes me that the dems are on the wrong side of that issue. Even as far as the OJ verdict...I hear many defend OJ as NOT the killer. I know that's a stretch for my argument...but it's just an example. Whether it's the economy, the war, bills in congress...it just seems to me that they are never thinking it through. It appears that their only motivation is Hate GWB....and get themselves back into power.

[Libloather]

Veteran PBS star Bill Moyers, once a judicious man, recently said that Republicans are planning "the deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States of America."

He's almost right - destruction of the Perjury Party is the goal.

It's time for PBS to go...

[Batrachian]

You wouldn't want to see an agency that has given aid and comfort to our enemies for decades be blown up? I would. That wasn't hyperbole on Ann's part. She meant it, and so do I. Why are you defending the New York Times? You should be defending our people.

To quote Ann Coulter: "Our insults are true".

Got it? Simple.

[Lando Lincoln]

I don't recall defending the NYT. I loathe that publication. But an act of terrorism is an act of terorrism. Are you telling us that if Batrachian had the means and opportunity, he would blow up the place, killing many innocents? Are you saying that since some of those innocents would not be "our people" that it would be okay? If so, I dare say you are over the top.

Look, I like AC and her message. She loses some who are interested in her message when she goes off on extreme rhetoric. That's my view. Now, inhale....count to ten....exhale slowly...

Lando

[#3Fan]

Yeah, Democrats believe that the US should not be as powerful as other nations and should bow to the UN, an entity made up of monarchs and dictators, and propagandize to achieve those ends. If that's not treason, I don't know what is.

[Batrachian]

"Are you telling us that if Batrachian had the means and opportunity, he would blow up the place, killing many innocents?"

To quote Ann again: "RE: McVeigh quote. Of course I regret it. I should have added, "after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."

Ditto.

Dude, don't be so worried about what our side says. You've got these traitors working night and day to destroy our country and all you can think to do is get bent out of shape about some little thing Ann Coulter says? Come on. Go to her web site. Look at her. Think pleasant thoughts. You'll feel lots better.