Posted on 11/08/2002 7:45:30 PM PST by parsifal
In July 2002, freeper tlbshow picked up on a thread on a certain rat underground website. It seems one of the dems had actually bothered to read Ann Coulter's book, "Slander" and thought her analysis of democratic and leftish problems was correct. The brave rat posted his/her thoughts on the dem website and drew a firestorm. The Dem article is reproduced here in full:
I just went to one of the "bad places." Is this the article you were referring to:
Ann Coulter is Right - And I Am Reeling" Posted by khangaskhan on Jul-03-02 at 11:46 PM
I just finished reading Ann Coulter's new book, Slander. As much as it pains me to admit, she is right. Not about our underlying philosophy, but about the way we politick. We Democrats, and particularly we Liberal Democrats, are far too busy name-calling and acting like elite self-righteous snobs, to dirty our hands with the problems of the working class. I do not say this lightly and am reluctant to say it at all for fear that it will end up on some right-wing moron website.
But the charges that Ann Coulter so devastatingly levels at us are true. If the only victims of our attacks were Republicans and the right wingers, then it would not matter. They deserve it. But I believe that we have almost fatally wounded ourselves as a party in the process. We do not debate fairly because we do not understand what we are all about. We substitute canards and slogans for thought.
Let me give you an example. I remember reading about a study of the Head Start program. The study noted that by the fourth grade, there were no significant differences between those students who attended Head Start and those who didn't. The Neanderthals, of course, wanted to discontinue funding for Head Start. And our side. . .the good guys. What was our response? Well, we called them neanderthals. How could they be right? They're neanderthals. They're greedy. They don't like poor children. They're racists.
Do you see our methodology? They rely on a study. They make a logical, cogent point. We simply call them names and rely upon our own reputation for self-righteousness. Then....we wonder why these guys are murdering us on talk radio. They understand just enough of the situation to be dangerous (and wrong). But do we "tell the rest of the story?" No. Do we respond with reason? Do we respond with logic? No. We are far too good for that. What would a liberal talk show host do, call Republicans names for two hours?
We are the "right kind of people", you see, and they aren't. And if you don't believe this, then read Slander. I expected to find a book of right-wing blonde-bimbo-babble. And through the first few pages I was not disappointed. But somewhere around page 10, I began to get an uncomfortable feeling. Coulter wasn't just calling us bad names—she was challenging us to debate. And debate on logical grounds. Read this, from page 10 and 11:
"But ad hominem attack is the liberal's idea of political debate. They self consciously hold themselves outside the argument and make snippy personal comments about anyone who is actually talking about something. The Republican's motives are analyzed, his intelligence critiqued, his personal life unearthed. If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn't their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why can't the argument itself be dismembered rather that the speaker's personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?"
And for the next 230 pages of text and voluminous detailed footnotes, Coulter fires salvo after salvo after salvo of truth and reality broadsides squarely amidships into us. By the end of the book, I was physically nauseated. I am not ashamed to admit that I spent the next few days in a kind of psychic shock. I even began to question whether I still believed in income redistribution, affirmative action, and gun control. The only thing that saved me was when I realized that the answer to Ann Coulter and all the other right wingers wasn't to agree with them or become them, but to simply learn how to HONESTLY DEBATE THEM. And the reason that we haven't been HONESTLY DEBATING THEM, is that we have lost touch with our Democratic roots. Ann Coulter isn't our problem, WE are our problem.
We really, on a personal level, do not know the problems of young black children and because we don't, we rely on a PROGRAM to save them. LET THEM EAT CAKE, we say. And when Marie Antoinette first said that, it wasn't a mean thing—she just didn't understand the problems of the poor. And neither do we Democrats. The point of Head Start, for example, isn't to perpetuate the Head Start program. The purpose is to provide an educational boost to underprivileged children. If the program doesn't work, then we need to change the program. If the other side points out that the program isn't working, then we should thank them. What vested interest do we Democrats have in a program that doesn't work? None.
I have long thought that our Democratic leaders have lost touch with the grass roots. How else do you explain Democratic support for NAFTA, the Bankruptcy Reform Bill, the welfare program reductions, the increased use of the death penalty, tax reductions for the wealthy, and the Democratic failure to pass meaningful living wage legislation and the failure to provide for national health care.
In our impotent rage, we simply, well, rage. But that rage can be better utilized to accomplish some good. I believe that all of us need to read the Coulter book. I think it is almost a rite of passage for us. We need to come to grips with our failures before we can take back the Congress and White House. DON'T BUY THE BOOK, just check it out at the library, or borrow it from somebody. Pick up a copy on the $1.00 shelf at Books-a-Million in few months when the new has worn off. Do not support her, but do please read her. And after you finish, let's you and I roll up our sleeves and go to work. We need to return to our roots.
. The point of Head Start, for example, isn't to perpetuate the Head Start program. The purpose is to provide an educational boost to underprivileged children. If the program doesn't work, then we need to change the program. If the other side points out that the program isn't working, then we should thank them. What vested interest do we Democrats have in a program that doesn't work? None.
90% of rangers airborne are liberals?
Yeah, I noticed that as well. It isn't a debate site, really, it's more like an extended therapy session. They're out of touch with the mainstream, dontcha know, proud individualists, noncomformists, and God help any one of them who deviates from the party line. Weird.
Kangaskhan would be more comfortable here at FR, frankly. He/she'd take some heat but would also be defended by conservatives not afraid of ideas. (Also, it's a great place to keep tabs on the ones we're gonna rub out when the Revolution comes, like parsy the toast over there...)
No learning took place here, just a reassessment of tactics.
..Actually, it has been longer than that if you want to find the turning point. Try the 40s!
I still remember the day that I decided to leave them forever. I was sitting with my newborn son watching CNN, and there was one of those typically bitter feminists talking about abortion in such a casual way that it made me physically ill. I could not reconcile my feelings as a father with what the party stood for, and it was at that moment that I understood how unfeeling and inhuman they really were. I could not go back.
Most eventually escape at some point or another, to one degree or another, and it looks like this writer is on the verge of his own getaway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.