Andrew Sullivan: It’s all getting a little hysterical (Ann Coulter = Michael Moore)

The Sunday Times (U.K.) ^ | 07/06/03 | Andrew Sullivan

[ml/nj]

And I haven't read anything that this guy Sullivan has written.

Should have been:

And I haven't read anything that this guy Sullivan quotes has written.

ML/NJ

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I don't disagree that there were a lot of traitors. But slinging the word "traitor" so liberally tars mostly good people. Most Democrats/Liberals/even leftists are not "traitors." Calling them that is insulting, it's like calling NRA members "Klansmen." It's the same level of discourse. It undercuts our ability to point out real cases of treason when people like Ann are constantly crying wolf. Ann undercuts her own argument that there was a lot of left-wing treason in this country by making those stupid overgeneralizations about everyone on the left.

The worst thing you can say about Coulter is that she moves the discourse to the right by unabashedly putting a positive face on everyone the left hates. And that is faint praise; what she actually does is honestly but vigorously argue the Reaganite worldview. To paraphrase Goldwater,

Extremism is defense of the truth is no vice,

and moderation in deconstructing historical smears is no virtue.

[PhilipFreneau]

It may be a very ugly truth, but this is what works. Coulter and Savage are doing exactly what needs to be done.

Amen! It is time to take off the gloves!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

It isn't true that you have to "get people to listen first." For a rather small number of people that is true; for the vast majority of people it isn't a very effective way to communicate with them. The mere fact that ideas are presented and are repeated changes the way people look at things. Like it or not, most people respond to emotionally-charged language, rather than subdued language with all of the corners knocked off.

And this is exactly what the Left does. They've managed to use the language so effectively that they control nearly all of the governments of the entire Western world. . .[and] they did it by using emotional appeals that we've all heard literally thousands of times.

IOW, liberals live and die by PR, and use the "Big Lie" technique. They are able to do so because journalists are liberals.

That sounds like tinfoil to a lot of people who aren't paying attention. But the best way to understand it is simply that journalists are people who can make money by being bigmouthed, and claiming preternatural knowledge and objectivity is just part of being bigmouthed. Actually being knowledgable and dispassionate are not job requirements, and indeed are qualities seldom found in journalists.

And political "liberalism" is best understood as the consequence of the nature of journalism. The unprincipled approach to getting along in politics is to go along with journalists. That is what Joe McCarthy did not do--and consequently they found it necessary to pull out all stops to destroy his reputation and effectiveness.

[Jimmy Valentine]

This is a pretty shallow analysis by Sullivan.

For openers, Coulter does her investigative homework and meticulously footnotes. Moore is a blowhard and factually challenged, just like his intellectual twin brother Al Franken.

By the way, what theory says that Teddy Kennedy is not an "adiulterous drunk"?

Regards,

[Jimmy Valentine]

We will just bump this back to the top. Very well put!

[sweetliberty]

"ratchet up the rhetoric against the left until it has the subtlety and nuance of a car alarm."

It's high time somebody on the right did, instead of just rolling over or modifying their own positions to placate the insatiable leftists. Seems that Ann is the only one on our side with the guts to really inflict wounds on the enemy.

[sweetliberty]

"“Liberals are fanatical liars.” Liberals are “devoted to class warfare, ethnic hatred and intolerance”. Liberals “hate democracy because democracy requires persuasion and compromise rather than brute political force”.

Which of these statements is untrue?

"If you condemn good and bad liberals alike, how can you be trusted to make any moral distinctions of any kind?"

The problem is that, "good" liberals, if indeed there is such a thing, much like "peaceful" Muslims, are conspicuously silent.

[jwalburg]

I'll have to look at it. Unfortunately, my liberal friends probably wouldn't be convinced from a source like this. They would only believe it if it came from the impeccably pristine source of Jayson's NYTimes.

[Endeavor]

Look, you little pissant, grow UP. I've read more books than you count on your fingers and toes 10 times over and I know what is and isn't well written. I can thank my grammar teaches for that skill.

I've put up with your insane diatribe up to this point, but enough. You are not only neuronally challenged, you blindly follow, lockstep in your beliefs. If anyone dares to challenge your icons, you disassemble.

Now, scurry along back to your anthill -- or better yet, go play in the freeway.

[Endeavor]

"teaches" s/b teachers - they'd have gotten me for that.

[sweetliberty]

"while some liberals are genuinely well intentioned, they all do harm to our nation"

Point well made. In my experience, the majority of them really ARE ignorant of the policies they support and vote democrat because they really believe that the democrats are the party of the people or that they support the working man or that they work to help the poor. The end result, though, is exactly the same as if their intentions were purely evil and they voted democrat to promote that evil. I think that was the point that Ann was making.

[sweetliberty]

.

Oh, that's good. That might make a good sign for our Hillary FReep. Here's another good one, created by PeaceBeWithYou. Says it all.

.

[alloysteel]

Ah, the triumphant return of the courageous moderates. A pox be upon BOTH your houses.

And the envelope never gets any bigger. Safe, structured and sure opinions may be discussed in low tones, by somnambulant worshipers at the altar of conformity.

The very definition of sheeple.

[MeekOneGOP]

hehe ! Might catch a few 'RATS in that trap !

[sweetliberty]

"cheering when people like Coulter go and do the same with words like treason, liar, moron."

One big difference is in accuracy of the charges. If a person is known to deliberately make untrue statements he is a liar. If one takes a stand that aids the enemies of this country, he is by definition, treasonous. These are not slanderous terms or terms tossed about for the purpose of being inflammatory. They are accurate depictions of those who promote the liberal/socialist agenda. The term moron, might be a little over the top, but only for the simple reason that the technical definition of moron doesn't apply, but to say that many are ignorant is absolutely truthful.

[sweetliberty]

"where WAS this Clinton Christmas tree story reported? Be nice to have a copy for reference."

Gary Aldrich in his book, Unlimited Access. Here is the whole story:

Defiling the White House Christmas Tree

[sargon]

How about socialism is wrong. Affirmative action is wrong. Even if I have smoked a joint, cheated, swore or did anything else improper, it does not change the fact that socialism is wrong. If you have lived as pure as the driven snow, but still advocate bad policy, you are still wrong.

Well said.

[Tamzee]

Bump for later reading pleasure :-)

[squidly]

You seem to be stuck on the early 19th century definition of liberalism. It's safe to say that the definitions of liberal and conservative have flip flopped since that time.