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.

[JusPasenThru]

"Those who would do violence to language will, more often than not, do violence to people if given the power to do so".--quoted by Ann Coulter in "Traitors".

[Batrachian]

"Extremism in defence of liberty is no vice; moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater

[Dog Anchor]

Bush-is-a-Nazi rhetoric...

A simple observation:

Who sport close cropped hair in greater numbers?
Republicans or Socialist Democrats?

Who sport black leather jackets in greater numbers?
Republicans or Socialist Democrats?

Who sports more tatoos?
Republicans or Socialist Democrats?

Who spouts more invective and hatred?
Repuplicans or Socialist Democrats?

Who is marching in media and political lock-step?
Republicans or Socialist Democrats?

Who are rabid Jew haters?
Republicans or Socialist Democrats?

Now, once again, who are the Fascists?

[Hannity4prez]

I agree with his overall premise. The big difference is that the conservative rhetoric is based in facts. Whats really over the top is rhetoric based on lies, or to be politically correct, untruths. Therein is where the real damage lies. Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

[metesky]

Two of the things I find interesting:

1.)The Republicans, having formerly been the "go along to get along" party, are having an awful time exercising the power they've been accumulating since 1994.

2.)The DemonRats, having been the power party for most of 70 odd years, are having an awful time coming to grips with their loss of power.

Guys like Moyers remind me of my ex-congress critter from Cape Cod, Gerry (the avowed homo) Studds, who refused to run for reelection in '96 because with the Pubbie victory governing was "no fun" anymore.

[Ajnin]

I understand your point Lando, but I think Ann should keep it up. I think we need people that are vicious in the way they attack the liberals. If we want to pull people to our side then we have people like you that can do it. When idiots like Clark say they will beat the sh*t out of anybody that questions their integrity or patriotism, I would like to see a conservative in the national spotlight step forward and publicly smack them across the face.

[dvwjr]

Never. He has always been a Democratic hack who found a way to milk the public teat at PBS...


dvwjr

[Lando Lincoln]

Agreed FRiend, absolutely, thanks.

Lando

[Qwinn]

"She is smart and funny, but calling opponents traitors is way over the line."

No, it really isn't. Read my profile for my view on this subject.

While I can understand criticism of Ann's style, the claim that she "has taken partisan commentary about as far as it can go" is proved patently false by the next two or three dozen quotes that he cites. And he's missed a million of them. I mean, does even the NY Times quote, if you took it in the worst possible light, come close to Molly Ivins approvingly quoting someone who said "The only thing wrong with Texas Baptists is that they aren't held under the water long enough"?

Ann plays rough according to the standard REPUBLICANS have held themselves to, sure, but she's a complete softie compared to the people she's arguing with.

Qwinn

[Lando Lincoln]

Thanks for your gracious response. I might not be making my point very well. Let me try again. She has such knowledge and is so well researched that she can smack them easily without the extreme insults. She's great - make no mistake. But, her message would reach more, be more effective, if she toned it down a bit. Her written message is perfect. But, her spoken personna on television can force some to dismiss her as an attractive James Carville-like person from the right.

Lando

[First_Salute]

Five decades have gone by, of leftists' monopolizing every adjective in the Thesarus, with which they have painted for the public eye, the misconception that Republicans are "Pigs!" and "meanspirited" monsterous NAZI's in pin-striped suits.

Now comes an article which tries to argue for "toning down the rhetoric" as if in all this time, it has equally come from both left and right sides of the isle.

It has not.

All political expression is not "equal" on the basis of the number of categories of political views.

Political expression is instead measured on the basis of the number of the people in each category of such political views.

Fifty people may equally be citizens, but one may be a tyrant.

The tyrant's view, because it is different than the 49 other rule of law-minded citizenry, has no "right" to being, nor do we have any duty to make it, "equally presentable" in the public eye for consideration, on the basis of it's being one view and the other peoples' is the second view, and therefore there are two views, and therefore both should be presented equally.

That argument is typically a tool used by leftist tyrants-in-waiting, to miscast and EXCLUDE from free speech, the people who are against such tyrants.

Speech and public expression against tyranny are to be championed.

The above author, as much as I may agree with him on the point that it would be nice to not engage in "the politics of personal destruction," has incorrectly observed and incorrectly measured and incorrectly argued for imbalance.

The national news media, academia, and the rhetoric for socialist overthrow of our foundations of liberty in the United States, has been overwhelmingly leftists and anti-American, to be blunt, for all this time; and lately, that bias has gotten worse.

For the author to so erringly miscast the stage by presenting the very few instances --- when observed in contrast to the history and context of the last 50 or more years --- is not only illogical, but unfortunately pro-typically socialist in how it furthers the cause of, to put it mildly, "the liberal media."

[AlbionGirl]

"The only thing wrong with Texas Baptists is that they aren't held under the water long enough"?

What a horrible quote.

[Qwinn]

"But, her message would reach more, be more effective, if she toned it down a bit."

I would argue that if she kept it "toned down" and simply buckled under the intense liberal abuse and refused to call a spade a spade, most of us would have never heard of Ann Coulter.

Being blunt has it's advantages. Her shock-value is A) nowhere near as extreme as that of those from the Left, and B) causes many to read her just to see how she can defend such a blunt statement. That's when her research and knowledge can actually have some impact.

Being extremely knowledgable and researched isn't going to do you a lot of good if you're so boring that no one reads what you write, and boring is what you're going to be if you've been cowed by liberal slander into keeping your correct conclusions so bland and politically correct as to not offend -anyone-, even the guilty.

To not sink to their level is one thing, and she rarely does. But if we simply give them a free pass and not call them on how outrageous their behavior is, they win. Period.

Qwinn

[stevem]

Ann Coulter is the first conservative, to the best of my knowledge, that gives back "in kind" what liberals have been doing for at least 40 years. Plus, she supports most of what she says with facts. When liberals do it, it just "stands to reason."

I've noticed when conservatives argue using any liberal tool things are suddenly "uncivil." Why hasn't it been uncivil when liberals have done it for the last 40 years. I think conservatives [using these liberal methods of] arguing is long overdue. It will be nice when we can someday get back to purely issue oriented discussions. That won't happen though, until liberals (that want to destroy every western institution)get their necks so severly stomped that they retreat to their holes and only venture forth with hats in hands asking for permission to speak. Then they only speak in whispers.

Maybe I don't know just what a traitor is, but a working definition seems to me to be a person that wants to destroy his own in favor of an enemy when such person works actively in that direction. Sounds like modern day liberalism to me.

[Kevin Curry]

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

If you don't like hot pepper, don't include it in your diet.

We have long had a glut of tepid, insipid, colorless commentators who appeal to so-called moderate voters. John Leo is one. That diet will kill you with boredom after awhile.

Coulter is a dash of sharp, hot spice on an otherise broad smorgasboard of drab and blah. Most of us who appreciate her contributions do not take the hypebole at face value but discern the troubling truth that would otherwise remain undervalued at its core.

[Peach]

I agree with what you said about Coulter. Without going back to look at my comments, I believe all I said was that she turns off the moderates among us.

[sinkspur]

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

If Ann Coulter was fat and ugly, nobody would pay a bit of attention to one word she said.

Coulter now has a reputation as a right-wing-bomb-thrower, which causes serious people to discount much of what she says.

[feedback doctor]

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

The problem I have with Ann is what she doesn't say. She doesn't say she wants my phone number!

[Qwinn]

"Coulter now has a reputation as a right-wing-bomb-thrower, which causes serious people to discount much of what she says."

Anyone who made the points she has would be dismissed for the exact same thing. If you can tell me a "moderate" way to point out the true fact that the popular liberal positions of the last 50 years have been consistently anti-American, please, do tell. If you can't, then aren't you basically saying that such truths are simply not allowed to see the light of day?

"If Ann Coulter was fat and ugly, nobody would pay a bit of attention to one word she said."

I'm sorry, but what a load. All her looks have done for her is that the liberals attack her more viciously, instead of the way they just utterly ignore, for example, Mona Charen and Phyllis Schafly.

Qwinn

[xp38]

My former (given to a conservative friend at Christmas) Ann Coulter doll said "At least when right-wingers rant there's a point"