The Candidates
Troll bait! Troll bait!
By now, pretty much everyone who peruses the conservative blogosphere has heard about Ann Coulter’s faux pas at CPAC. For those who’ve been living under a rock for the past 24 hours, Coulter let loose the f-bomb at CPAC. Yes, on stage. Yes, with the cameras rolling. No, not that f-bomb. This f-bomb:
“I’d say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word ‘faggot’, you have to go to rehab.”
Check the link I provided above for Cap’n Ed’s rightful indignation. Also, you should probably head over and check out the RedState boys’ reax. Kudos to my fellow conservatives on the blogosphere for calling Coulter out on this farce. And allow me to add my two cents on the subject.
I’m tired of having to pretend that I like Ann Coulter, lest my conservatism be questioned. I don’t like Ann Coulter. I have no use for Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter is not a conservative commentator. She’s an actress portraying a conservative commentator, because it allows her to make lots of money by being outrageous, instead of by doing something productive. Ann Coulter is the political version of “Borat.”
What Ann said was unacceptable for lots and lots of reasons, not the least of which being the implication that a component of conservatism is a belief that it’s okay to deride a specific sexual orientation. And implicit in that implication is that you’re not a good conservative, or a good Republican, unless you harbor certain beliefs or opinions pertaining to homosexuality and homosexuals.
This is nonsense. This is not the intellectual, restrained, regal conservatism developed throughout the decades by Burke, Oakeshott, Buckley, Kristol, and Will. That conservatism — and political conservatism in general — is distinctly secular in nature. It does not require that one subscribe to specific, theologically-based beliefs about nature or the world around us. Political conservatism instead focuses on politics: about the role of the state in the lives of all of its citizens. Whether or not one is a political conservative, then, has lots to do with one’s beliefs about the purpose of government, regardless of how they got to those beliefs (theology, philosophy, empirical study, etc.). And it is a classification that is most certainly NOT restricted by the typology or details of one’s religious faith, nor by whether one even HAS a religious faith. Atheists and agnostics can easily fit within the parameters of political conservatism, just as religious folks can make the most destructive liberals (see Carter, James Earl).
But in Ann Coulter’s world, the only good conservative is apparently one who feels that there is something objectively wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. Now, there are likely millions of Americans who believe, based on theology, observation, or otherwise, that homosexuality is an objective disorder. Similarly, there are also millions of Americans, like myself, who believe that homosexuality is just another product of nature, and that whatever deity may or may not exist likely does not disapprove of it. One belief does not make one a conservative, and the other does not make one a liberal. It just doesn’t.
Further, even IF most Republicans and conservatives fall within a certain point of view with regard to homosexuality or homosexuals, that does not somehow close off either conservatism or the GOP to those who do not share that viewpoint. To suggest that an individual who doesn’t subscribe to a certain viewpoint w/r/t a specific issue doesn’t belong in the conservative tent simply because he’s not in line with the majority opinion within that tent is just as ludicrous as saying those who don’t favor Social Security reform or the Iraq war aren’t “real” conservatives or Republicans. I favor both, but I don’t kick out of the tent those who favor neither.
Again, Coulter’s loud, cartoonish caricature of conservatism must not drag the movement or the party any farther towards the precipice. There once was a conservatism that was refined, high-minded, and supremely dignified. Coulter is helping to destroy it. She should be ashamed of herself. And anyone at CPAC who applauded her at that telling moment should be doubly ashamed for enabling the destruction of their party.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Thank you so much! I agree with your sentiment exactly.
This rhetoric from Coulter is why I am truly and honestly embarrassed to call myself a conservative. I honestly find it really hard to consider her a conservative; she is a radical who is in favor of big government “conservatism,” a direct contradiction of terms. This has nothing to do with “kicking her out of the tent” or whatnot; I just don’t think she’s intellectually thought through an iota of her ideology.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
By the way…I had a conversation with my history teacher the other day, and I asked him if he would consider me a conservative. I am basically a small-l libertarian…would you guys consider me a “conservative”?
What is a conservative, after all? I consider myself a conservative, but have nothing to do with social conservatives.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Nusrat,
I think conservatism is very much in flux these days, as political movements are generally formed around issues, and once those issues are gone, the movement becomes obsolete.
Folks who became “conservatives” in the late 20th Century did so because of high taxes, the federal leviathan (which included spending and judicial activism), and the belief that Communism should be destroyed. I became a conservative in 1993-94 when I realized that the Democratic Party didn’t stand for the things I believed in at all, and the Contract with America did. But the CwA was very much a Thatcherite document, chalked full of fi-con goodness with a definite contempt for federal power in any and every area. As such, I’ve always been more of a George Will conservative than anything. An American Tory of sorts. I think you’re probably similar.
But with the issues that created the conservative movement in the late 20th Century basically behind us, and with new issues on the horizon, it becomes very difficult to unify the motley crew of conservatives around even basic positions on today’s issues. The danger in this is that we go the way of California, where a “moderate” and “conservative” wing fight for power, and no matter who wins the nomination, the other side stays home or votes Democrat, allowing the Dems to have a perpetual majority that they don’t deserve. Perhaps some sort of reorganization of the parties would make more sense as we move forward.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:55 pm
I consider myself a “Reagan-Goldwater” conservative, which means that I don’t believe that government can do anything particularly well and therefore should be limited at the federal level to doing only those things that are essential.
The states then, being the organ of government most closely situated to the people, can be the laboratories of democracy where the people of each state can settle social issues via the democratic process.
Does this make me a Conservative? A Libertarian? A Federalist? You tell me…
My final thought is this… It seems to me that there are many people who identify themselves as conservatives or Republicans for whom only the issues of abortion and gay marriage matter. For them, if Chuck Schumer was Pro-Life and anti-gay marriage, he would be considered a conservative; a conclusion which makes my head hurt…
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Kavon…
Huckabee comes to mind re: your last paragraph. Just look at his statement that he “wouldn’t mind raising taxes if it went to good government programs.”
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Huckabee is a good example perhaps, based on his views re: taxes, gov’t spending, and immigration.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
DaveG,
You seem to be a pretty decent guy, which is why this liberal dem can enjoy coming here and reading what is going on on the other side of the aisle.
But I think you are very wrong about Coulter’s relationship to modern American conservatism.
You may not like it, but what is anyone to think when the general reaction to her is mass adoration? Sure, you can dredge up some conservative bloggers this morning who denounce her - some may be sincere, others are, no doubt, political process people who understand the damage she has done, and so denounce her for that reason.
But lets remember, she was invited to the conference in the first place - and what she said was in no way out of character with what she has made her career saying. She used this same term agaisnt Al Gore recently - and of course there are countless other examples.
And yet, after everyone in the political world knows exactly who she is, she is repeated invited to speak at this premiere event.
And a mjor presidential candidate of your party, Mitt Romney, introduces her - proudly.
And after he speech, there are endless lines of fans lined up to meet her, and get her autograph.
Sorry, but it is not your sensibility, but hers which lies at the heart of modern American conservatism.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Conservatism doesn’t directly enter this discussion (Ann Coulter).
Proudly condemning people in a vulgar way for their behavior is unacceptable in public discourse. Whether you think the behavior is criminal, sinful or not, that is no reason to become vulgar.
I think most people who disagree with homosexuality wish Coulter would go away because she makes them look like clowns.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Tano,
The main flaw in your argument in that the ACU is not representative of every Republican nor the Conservative movement as a whole. Just as PFAW is representative of everyone on the left.
I despise Ann Coulter. I feel she has greatly harmed the movement in which I identify and has been doing so for quite some time.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Tano. . .Ann Coulter serving as representative of the conservative movements is as true as Al Sharpton serving as representative of the liberal movement. Both are somewhat obnoxious opinionated political hacks who make money from attacking the other side, both have large followings among the die-hard segments of their respective movements, and both have said some outrageous, derogatory statements about specific ethnic or minority groups. Does that mean that all conservatives feel as Coulter does, or all liberals feel as Sharpton does? Of course not.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Tano, Mitt introduced her politely, then made a joke about her. He didn’t know she was going to use the f-word in her speech. You have your Michael Moore’s and we have Ann Coulter. We think she is an embarassment and a loose cannon. I wish she had not been invited to the event, or appear on Fox News, because you never know what she will say. I hope you will not judge conservatives or the republican party for having an “Ann Coulter” in their midst. That my friend would be “the pot calling the kettle black.”
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
As seems to be the consensus here, I have no love lost for Ann Coulter.
But to Tano and for any others who seem to be taking her seriously, don’t. I live in a fairly conservative area, have many conservative friends and acquaintances, and have never once met one that took her seriously as a pundit. Those who have a favorable opinion of her are those that think some good comes of stirring the pot and promoting heated discussion, but none think of her as a serious, intellectual conservative.
I think of her as a clownish attention monger. I wish she hadn’t endorsed Mitt, frankly, because I think he is a better “uniter” than people might think with Coulter’s endorsement. To his credit, though, Mitt didn’t seem to fawn over the endorsement (as he did with that of DeMint, and others), but responded with a simple and appropriate, “we like all endorsements” or something to that effect.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:55 pm
I agree she should not be invited to anything. Not even birthdays.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:55 pm
(parties)
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Mitt actually did release a statement that distanced himself from Anne’s comments.
I have always thought most of what she says was funny bomb throwing, not part of an intellectual discussion. Yesterday was pretty dumb, but then if you haven’t read John Edwards reaction so was his. His plan to all his supporters is to raise $100,000 today in “Anne Cash” just to show her.
Yes, Johnny, you do it. And I am sure it will really hurt Anne.
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Janson
Do you have the official site with Mitt’s statement?
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
sorry bout the spelling Jason.
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
It is a little hard to believe that AC isnt representative of conservatives. Just look at her book sales.
I think the comparison to Micheal Moore is inapporpriate. He has said some truly outrageous things, that have conincided with him dropping off the political radar. His celebrity status did not come from those statements, but rather from his movies, which were certainly hard-hitting one sided propaganda, but in no way on a Coulter level.
And the comparison to Sharpton is pretty outrageous. Personally, I despise Sharpton for his lack of honesty, esp. in the Brawley case. But basicqally he is a flawed figure with noble intent. His career has been spent trying his best to stand up for black people whenever and wherever he feels them being dissed or otherwise subject to the remnant racism in this country. He has had some good success in that, and a lot of failures, and, as I said, he has some character flaws. But to compare him to a vile obnoxious entertainer, who has never done, or tried to do anything to make the world a better place for anyone, is pretty outrageous.
There seems to me to be three core threads running through the GOP and the conservative movement, all of which I find to be deeply problematical. There is the greed faction - the successful people who glory in their own success and who dont give a damn about anyone else. The theocons who want to use the power of government to regulate the way people live thier private lives. And then the obnoxious priveleged frat-boy culture that glories in their entitlement and cultivates their prejudices and narrow mindedness. Coulter is a prime example of the first group, she does a lot of heavy lifting for the second, and is absolutely adored by the third.
I dont mean all this as a simple exercise in insulting you guys. Just letting you know how some of us on the outside see your movement. These are real issues that stand in the way of the more decent and responsible ones amongst you from having much impact on our political discourse.
And dont bother coming back at me with your characterizations of the left. As you can imagaine from my presence here, I have listened attentivly to what the right thinks of the left for a long time. And even learned a few things from it.
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
So you can characterize us as being greedy, etc, and we’re not supposed to defend ourselves Tano?
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:58 pm
M.T.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/fallout-over-coulters-anti-gay-remark/
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Thanks Jason
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Can it be finally said that Ann Coulter has officially “jumped the shark”?
What a shame. She is one smart cookie, but this is just too much.
Mark
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:24 pm
You’re right Tano. After all, Sharpton is a racist political leader who stokes the flames of racial tension by lobbing false accusations and outright lies while taking advantage of the very people you claim he “tries his best” to help. Ann Coulter is a columnist who says dumb things to sell books. Clearly she is the worst person in this analogy.
The comparisons to Michael Moore and Al Sharpton were made to explain how one or two loud but wrong people in a movement do not represent the movement itself. I’m surprised that you couldn’t see that. For you to then group every conservative (including most of us here at R42008) as either greedy, religiously power-hungry or just plain obnoxious, is at best ignorant on your part and at worse outright offensive. Your exception for the few of us “decent and responsible” conservatives doesn’t cut it either.
There are good and bad examples in every political movement, every religion, every race, and every culture. Sometimes the bad ones are the loudest, and they often say stupid things. That shouldn’t discredit the entire movement.
I enjoy reading your comments, Tano, as I do comments from all sides of an issue. But your stereotypical mischaracterizations of an entire political group is not welcome, and frankly is beneath you.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:03 pm
m.t.
I didnt ask you not to defend yourself, quite the contrary. I asked you not to bother simply hurling back your charges against the left - not because you dont have the right to do that, but simply because I have heard them all. I actually would like to hear you defend yourself, or distinguish yourselves from the characterizations that many outside your movement have of you, and that people like AC just reinforce.
Jake,
Sharpton is not a racist. Racism is an ideology that preaches the superiority of one race over the other, with all the political consequences that flow from that. Hitler was a racist in relation to non-Aryans. Slavery was based on a racist ideology that viewed blacks as not worthy of being considered the equals of whites.
Racism is not the same thing as bigotry, or discrimination - although both of those things can be grounded in racism.
Sharpton has no ideology of black superiority over whites. He grew up in a time when blacks were still officially, legally segregated because of pernicious racist attitudes. He grew up in a tradition of fighting against that. He has obviously failed to rise to the level of character of a Dr. King - but that was clearly his goal. His character flaws have to do with being stuck in the confrontational mode, a failure to transcend to an inclusive humanistic vision that calls on the best in all people (as King did) and a fear of losing ground in the face of a mistake - leading to dishonesty (as in the Brawley case).
I prefer a million times over a flawed fighter for justice to a hateful self-centerd opportunist.
As to your further comments, they are way off the mark. I made it clear that I come here because I find the people here to be decent - i.e. not conforming to the stereotypes I described. And I made it a point to assure you that I had no intention of just insulting people, but rather offering you a vision of how your movement looks to those on the outside - information that could be of use to you, if you cared.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Nice try, once again, by DaveG in attempting to write social conservatives out of the conservative movement in order to buttress the argument that Rudy Giuliani is a bona fide conservative. But not only is such an attempt futile, because social conservatives make up too large a portion of the conservative movement to ignore, but it is self-destructive because without social conservatives going to the polls and working for their candidates the Republican Party does not win in November of 2008. The last thing the Republican nominee needs in 2008 is a conservative, third-party candidate on the ballot who can hand the election over to the Democrat nominee on a silver platter.
The argument that conservatism is changing strains credulity. At the end of the day you cannot ignore Ronald Reagan, who is the modern model. Certain candidates are trying to redefine conservatism for their own purposes, but it won’t work and will backfire on them.
While I think gay bashing is uncalled for and the conservative movement should be open to people of all races, creeds, sexes, and sexual orientations, there is a strain in much of this that seemingly attempts to minimize the importance of faith in the cause, which won’t wash as a matter of history or practicality. People of faith don’t hate; aligning Ann Coulter with conservatives of faith is a smear, plain and simple. Just because people of faith fail to support and condone the gay lifestyle does not mean that they want to read homosexuals out of the movement, regardless of what Ann Coulter claims.
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Tano. . .thanks for enlightening us conservatives on what the outside world thinks of us. We had no idea. (j/k)
As for your defense of Sharpton, maybe it’s just a matter of which side of the aisle we’re on, but I’d prefer a million times over an idiot columnist who doesn’t know when to keep her mouth shut, but leads a movement of one - herself - over an opportunistic racist - I’m sorry, bigoted - political leader with a following in the millions who can only survive politically by constantly reminding his supporters that they are and always will be victims of the evil white man. A columnist is just a columnist - she said something idiotic and everyone from one end of the spectrum to the other came down hard against her for it. (That’s more than I can say for many politicians and columnists on the other side of the aisle who always seem to get a free pass when making derogatory comments, but I suppose that’s a topic for another discussion). But I suppose all those conservatives who condemned her statement did so purely for political opportunism, not out of genuine outrage.
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Republius,
I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you say I’m trying to write either social conservatives or people of faith out of the conservative movement.
The argument in my post is an inclusive one, not an exclusive one. It points out that the parameters of political conservatism are not based on one’s religious beliefs, or whether one even HAS a religion. Conservatism instead is a political movement that can include both gays and straights, both religious folks and non-religious folks. I don’t see how that pushes anyone out. It seems to me that I’m arguing for a bigger tent than the Coulterites.
If you’re inferring that I’m arguing that as a consequence that conservatism can’t generally include, say, the preservation of traditional marriage, I do not intend to imply any such thing. Heather MacDonald is the perfect example of a secular conservative: an atheist, yet someone who believes in socially conservative goals due to the impact they have on society. Heather is pro-family because she’s seen the impact of broken homes, and how homes without fathers yield societies that are crime-wridden and impoverished. Should Heather be pushed out of the movement because she doesn’t worship a deity? Isn’t this a political movement, and not a sectarian one?
If in fact you are referring to what I said in comment #3, I was simply trying to explain what I think *might* happen to the political spectrum in this country due to the fact that the GOP currently seems to stand for so many contradictory things and the Democrats seem to stand for only that they aren’t the GOP. It seems that this sort of dichotomy screams realignment. I could very well be wrong. But I was arguing a descriptive POV, not a prescriptive one.
Admittedly, if I could form my own country, the Republic of DaveG, I would probably ask George Will to write my political party’s platform instead of, say, Terry Jeffery. But I can’t. So I will continue to work with the party that is closest to me on the issues. My writings on Giuliani and how I feel he can be a functional pro-lifer, for example, seem to suggest that I am coming to the table to compromise with the GOP as it currently exists, not that I’m brandishing my quasi-libertarian sword and trying to remake the party.
March 4th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Republius:
People of faith don’t hate
You sure about that?
March 4th, 2007 at 1:25 am
“People of faith don’t hate”
Again, I couldn’t have imagined anyone would infer this message from my post. 90 percent of Americans or more are “people of faith.” I certainly wasn’t implying that they “hate” and I apologize to anyone who misinterpreted my commentary.
What I’m saying is that conservatism and the GOP can’t be defined as a movement nor as a party by faith, either the substance of it or the very presence of it at all. Barry Goldwater warned us about this ages ago.
The reason Barry was correct, as he often was, is that defining the GOP or conservatism in terms of religion or theology will by its nature limit those who can support it. The blue states of 2006 will comprise the new Democratic majority of the nation in a political world where religion and politics are conflated. The west, including the mountain west, has always been the most irreligious region of the country and the numbers out there who identify with no religion are growing. The northeast has a long tradition of treating religion as a private and not public matter, as does much of the industrial north/midwest, and such a GOP would solidify Minnesota to Maine in the Democratic column. Voters such as religious Christians in general and evangelicals in particular are very important to the GOP. But the GOP does not begin and end with only those voters, and if it ever does, that will signal the end of the GOP as a viable national party.
“The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others,” { he said,} “unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. . . We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now” { he insisted}. “To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.”
-Barry Goldwater, the man who was once considered a “radical conservative,” and who Ann Coulter would now call a liberal.