Ann Coulter: Party of Adultery and Abortion Takes A Hit

It was a stunning, record-breaking night. George Bush is the first President in 68 years to gain seats in his first midterm election. Historically, the party in the White House loses seats in the midterm election. This is true even in wartime: Franklin D. Roosevelt lost 50 House seats and eight Senate seats 10 months after Pearl Harbor.

Though Democrats gleefully cite the midterm election of 1998 when the Democrats picked up six House seats—and no Senate seats—that was Clinton’s second midterm election. Republicans had already realized all their midterm gains in Clinton’s first midterm election. In the very first election after people got a look at Clinton in 1994, Republicans picked up 52 seats in the House, eight seats in the Senate, 11 governorships and 12 state legislative chambers. Not a single Republican incumbent lost.

Thanks to Clinton, the ’94 Republican sweep marked the first time in half a century that Republicans had a majority in the House. (It was one of many historic moments in the Clinton Administration—another being "First President accused of rape within weeks of being impeached.") That sweep meant voters in about 50 congressional districts had done something they had never done before in their entire lives: Vote Republican in a congressional election. There was no reason to expect lifelong Democrats in those districts to keep voting Republican in every successive election.

To the contrary, Democrats should have won back a lot of the seats they lost in 1994. By the standard of historical averages, in the 1998 midterm election, the Democrats should have won back 22 House seats. Instead they won only six seats. The average midterm loss this past century is 30 seats in the House. Clinton’s average was 46.

The media billed the Democrats’ paltry gain in 1998 as a victory for Clinton and revulsion with impeachment for the same reason they say Bush "stole" the presidential election. Liberals love to lie. (Someone should write a book about that.)

By contrast, in Bush’s first midterm election last week, Republicans made spectacular gains all over the country. It was such a blowout that over on CBS, Dan Rather had to keep retelling viewers about Sen. Lautenberg’s victory in New Jersey. (Good thing Election Day finally came without another Democrat realizing the voters were on to him, or the Democrats might have had to unwrap Tutankhamen.)

All night, victories rolled in for Republicans, even shocking victories no one had expected. They picked up seats in the House and Senate. Republicans won a double whammy with Democrat-target Jeb Bush winning in Florida and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend losing in Maryland. Democratic bête noire Katherine Harris won her congressional election. In stunning upsets, Republicans won the governorships in Hawaii and Georgia. The Republican juggernaut could not be stopped.

Democrats may be forced to shut down operations as a party and re-enter politics under a different name. The party formerly known as "the Democratic Party" will henceforth be doing business under the name "the Abortion Party."

That would have the virtue of honesty. Love of abortion is the one irreducible minimum of the Democratic Party. Liberals don’t want to go to war with Saddam Hussein, but they do want to go to war to protect Roe v. Wade.

Inasmuch as George Bush rather than Barbra Streisand will be picking our federal judges, even now liberals are sharpening their character assassination techniques. People for the American Way—representing Americans up and down the Malibu beachfront—are already lining up lying Anita Hills to accuse Bush’s judicial nominees of lynching blacks and burning crosses.

This is precisely the sort of Clintonian viciousness that Americans indicated they were sick of on election night. The Democrats’ motorcycle rally-cum-funeral in Minnesota for Paul Wellstone exposed the party’s character in a pellucid, dramatic way. It was so revolting, people couldn’t avert their eyes from the spectacle. The only moral compass liberals have is their own will to power. Even the deaths of three members of a family could not slow them down.

If the party formerly known as "the Democrats" doesn’t like the factually correct "Abortion Party," how about "the Adultery Party"? Noticeably, the only incumbent Republican senator to lose was Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas, who left his wife for a staffer a few years ago. I’m proud to be a member of a party that still frowns on that sort of thing.

The end result of a Democratic President’s being caught in an adulterous affair with an intern was: Two Republicans resigned from Congress. Meanwhile, the felon in the White House was revered as a latter-day George Washington by the Adultery Party. And consider that Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston were mere congressmen. Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, Jesse Jackson and Gary Hart are deemed presidential material by the Adultery Party.

What a miserable party. I’m glad to see their power end, and I’m sure they’ll all be perfectly comfortable in their cells in Guantanamo. As Jesse Helms said on Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980: God has given America one more chance.

Are you for the death penalty for murder?

No, I'm not. Not out of some misguided sympathy for criminals, but simply because before government is granted a power such as this, it has to be conclusively proven that it will serve some purpose to do so. I don't think the death penalty deters crime, it's definitely not cost effective, and I don't think retribution is much of a moral argument. Do you really want to argue about this as well?

I'm not free to force drug users out of my own house?

Of course you are; within reason, your property rights would be paramount in this.

What if me and 10,000 other people who agree with me bought a bunch of land roughly the size of California and deemed it a commonwealth. Do we not have the right to keep drug users off that land then?

Well, given the success of the south in seceding in 1861, I would advise against this course of action. But if you could pull it off, whatever you called it, it would still just be your property and it is perfectly reasonable to keep drug users off your property.

Can't a vice be criminal?

No. That is the difference between a vice and a crime. The primary distinction between the two is that a crime has the perpetrator and victim of the act as separate agents (ie, someone forcing someone else to smoke crack) vs the perpetrator and material victim being a single entity (ie someone smoking crack of their own volition. The reason for the importance of that distinction is that when vice becomes the focus of law enforcement, it inevitably does so selectively (alcohol vs marijuana), and it inevitably becomes just one more tool of government repression. Hence, the proper role of social pressure in controlling vice, rather than governmental coercion.

If everyone in a city hates porn and wants to keep it out of city limits, why can't they?

Well, here you enter murky territory, because our government does allow for many local ordinances to restrict freedom of speech, expression, etc. Hence Utah can ban certain musicians from its land. I think this is, by and large, stupid and wrong, with the occasional exception of somewhat reasonable rules (restrictions on display of pornography in public places, fr' instance). For one thing, porn is not an independent entity that sprouts up on its own, maliciously forcing itself down peoples eyesockets. It is a business that exists because there is a demand. Legislation will not remove this demand, but rather force it underground, and give the people convinced that pornography is a problem a false sense of security that the problem has been dealt with. Meanwhile, illicit porn distributors become wealthy as the profit margins on pornography widen with the risk associated in distributing it, etc. Really, a no-win situation. If you have a problem with OTHER people suing pornography, then you should make your case and convince them why it is wrong. Resorting to coercion merely reveals the weakness of your case.

Government is of the people and for the people. Why should 2 or 3 people ruin it for everyone?

I don't know about your vision of the American republic, but for me it has always been about toleration of minorities within reason. You need to make a pretty compelling case about how private use of drugs or pornography "ruins" it for everyone materially before it can become a valid target for government coercion. What you are apparently hoping for is a tyranny of the majority, and I would urge you to recall the distinction between being in the majority and being right; they are not synonymous. What if you have a village of 100 people, and 99 of them decide that the 100th guy is "ruining" it for them by having fun, not giving them his property, or worshipping God in his own manner privately? Would it be good or moral for them to imprison him?

Yes, coerced virtue is slavery, but what is slavery? Self-control and the adaptation to rules of any kind is voluntary servitude. In the case of self-control, you are a slave to your ideals, in the case of Law you have chosen to serve under the agreements of other men in order to benefit yourself in some way. Law is slavery. The best answer to this is Federalism.

That is simply not true. Adherence to an ideology or code of your own choosing is absolutely, one hundred percent different from being material coerced into doing someone else's bidding. You are using a distinctly awful brand of moral relativism here, and I am surprised that I have to explain the difference between obvious material slavery and some amorphous, purely theoretical "slavery" to ideas or concepts. By your logic, existence is slavery, and therefore only your brand of slavery is corrrect.

In the case of self-control, you choose to behave a certain manner, whether according to ideals, self-interest, or faith. In the case of Law, you choose to be a part of a social contract that you think is beneficial (ie, because you get material peace and order) in return for certain behavioural restrictions (ie not killing those that disagree with you about religion). The issue of Law is at what point do you draw the line between individual liberty and government coercion. For me, the latter must always have the burden of a strong, utilitarian (ie that it serves an overwhelming social good) and moral argument (ie that it is worth giving up your liberty for) for it to exist.

You will have to define which brand of Federalism you adhere to, as the word has been perverted as much as Liberalism has. I really won't know what your argument is until you do, as I do not wish to put words in your mouth.

Yes, but what guarantees the government won't use addiction as an excuse to tax?

There isn't any. The government does this now, and no one seems to do a damn thing about it. However, I am hard pressed to see how that is an argument against legalization; if I were a drug user, you can bet I'd rather be taxed than imprisoned. At any rate, there is no way the tax could drive up drug prices more than the defacto tax that the drug war represents, on everything from the means of production to distribution. Except most of that tax is paid in blood rather than money, and hardly ever the blood of those that really profit. Mostly the blood of the poor, the reckless, and the unfortunate law enforcement officials in the front lines. Not to mention the stability of Latin America.

If you're going to legalize it, you don't want to force anyone to go to rehab do you?

That's right. I'm just saying if my choice were ONLY imprisonment or rehab, rehab would surely be the lesser of the two evils. But involuntary rehab, by definition, cannot work (short of some really great brainwashing).

From a capitalistic perspective, privatized rehabilitation would be a good business to get into.

And from a moral perspective (because your job is about doing good for mankind, much like a private school teacher). And from a utilitarian perspective (because with the profit incentive, private rehab would HAVE to show results to stay in business, and that means more satisfied ex-junkies in society). So, yeah, a great business.

I agree with the industry aspect of legalization and legalization would take revenue away from criminals, but I'd want to have my state away from all the junkies.

Fine, but what if a person decides he wants "his" state free of all the Jews? Unless it was his actual property he was referring to as "state", he would be wrong to expel them from a polity in which those Jews were citizens, and doubly wrong if he imprisons them. In either case, he would not do anything to destroy Judaism(as centuries of oppression have demonstrated), and only force it underground as well as stain his hand with the blood of those who only wished to different and left alone.

And who is to say all the junkies don't come over in my state and do there illegally?

Truly, who is to say? How is this an argument against legalization?

Unless you live on an island, whatever you do does affect your family and friends. Doing too much dope messes you up.

More than going to prison? Or being killed? Let's put this in proportion. The fact that I am joining the military affects my family and friends, causing them endless sleepless nights and suffering as they worry about me. Would they be right in having me imprisoned for seeking a profession that is to my liking rather than theirs? Are the comfort and emotions of my family and friends to be prioritized over my RIGHT to pursuit of happiness? What if your family decided that Christianity was "messing" you up? Would that be a grounds for coercing you not to have your faith?

Maybe I'm wrong here, but it seems that even if you're not prone to abuse dope, the convenience is always there.

True. As is the possibility of going to jail for a long time simply for seeking pleasure in a manner that is not socially acceptable to those in power. How is this statement an argument against legalization?

You put it out on the mass market and you have got a million more reasons to get into the junk. I'm talking about the advertisment that's going to be thrown at you.

Cigarrettes are out there. You can buy them anywhere you like. Yet people choose not to use them, in ever increasing numbers, simply because they have become convinced it is not for them, out of health, taste, whatever. I don't think we'd have an upsurge in junkies, because as you noted drugs *are* available everywhere now, and yet many choose not to use them, and it is not the distant possibility of getting caught that deters the majority. In fact, I would say for many users the illegality is an incentive!

Advertising only encourages you to do what you already had an impulse to do before. No one is going to see a compelling, quirky ad campaign for Crack-Cocaine and be like, hey honey, all those years we didn't smoke crack, we were missing out on a hot trend. Fire up the pipe right now! If they are, well, natural selection must be allowed for, and such morons would no doubt have found a million different ways to self destruct anyway.

Oh, and ravinson, I agree that Ann Coulter often undercuts her arguments by using the exact same tactics (ie ad hominem attacks) that she excoriates liberals for, and that she often claims a moral high ground where there is little evidence for it. However, I still get a kick out of her snappy prose, and I don't see her as a pernicious influence on the advance of conservatism. Like, say, David Horowitz, she is right often enough to for me to like her, and even when she is wrong she is wrong with style. Both are sort of like rock stars for the conservative movement.

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.