So Ann Coulter apparently said we'd be better off if women couldn't vote, because women vote for social democratic policies. The left half of the blogosphere seems to think she's getting a pass because she's conservative, as rounded up by Ryan Avent:
Garance spots the loathsome Ann Coulter dreaming of a world where women can’t vote, and Ezra laments the hack gap–if we had more hackish Democratic firebreathers, this kind of thing would never, ever get a pass. Good point, Ez. Imagine, if you will, that a prominent liberal commentator, the kind who might appear at major Democratic speaking events with Democratic presidential candidates, said he longed for a day when whites or southerners couldn’t vote. You couldn’t get the volume dial low enough to tune out the Limbaughs and O’Reillys.So I’ll do my part. This is despicable. Outrageous. We shouldn’t tolerate another moment of the conservative illiberality that loves torture, war, and xenophobia, and delights in racism, sexism, and homophobia. Denounce her statement, GOP candidates, or fear the voters. You know, more than you already should.
They seem to be missing the rather obvious point: Coulter isn't getting away with this because she's a Republican; she's getting away with it because she's a woman. If a conservative male had called for taking away the vote from women, Republicans wouldn't be able to get to the microphone fast enough to denounce him. They know where their political interests lie. Just like only white male southerners are allowed to complain about crackers (well, and Al Sharpton), and Bill Cosby has a lot more leeway to criticize black cultural norms than I do, Ann Coulter gets to fantasize about taking the vote away from women because she is a member of the class that would be disadvantaged.
Garance thinks that "The idea that today’s G.O.P. leaders are craven and idiotic enough to associate themselves with someone who could say such a thing will catapult women to the polls." I think this is extremely wishful thinking. If a man had said this, it might. But when a woman says it, you don't think "tool of the patriarchy"; you just think she's kind of crazy. And the political parties are crawling with all sorts of moonbats; have you read some of the stuff that comes out of the environmental movement? I mean, some of it is even stuff I agree with, but informal survey indicates that when I voice this agreement, most Americans think I'm . . . kind of crazy.
Just to be clear, I hate Ann Coulter as much as the next person, and don't criticize her more only because I can't bear to read anything about or by her. But I don't buy the notion that her looniness is protected by the vast right-wing conspiracy--and what she said isn't exactly a far cry from the "expel Jesusland" jokes I seem to recall hearing from quite a few liberal journalists after the 2004 election.
Update: what about her other crazy statements, asks a commenter? Good question. In the end, I think she gets a general pass because she's a woman; you certainly don't hear any male conservatives publicly referring to politicians as "faggots". Or maybe there's a generalized "Ann Coulter exception" that has nothing to do with her second X chromosome. But whatever it is, I don't think it applies to white male commentators.
Your analysis is certainly plausible. . .except that Coulter has a history of NOT being criticized by conservatives, no matter how outrageous her statements are; forget the John Edwards "faggot" comment. . .I'm thinking more the "Timothy McVeigh should have blown up the NYT" comment, or the "9/11 widows are witches who are enjoying their widowhood: comment.
Of course, everyone misses the point- Coulter is not loony. She is provocative, and provocation sells very, very well. If you think what she writes and says is damaging, then you should ignore her. Attacking her gives her precisely what she is looking for.
If you think what she writes and says is damaging, then you should ignore her.
Good advice, Yancey. O'Reilly and Limbaugh should also just ignore MoveOn. Attacking them just gives them free publicity.
I don't think that Ann Coulter has a lot of influence with Republican politicians. She certainly has nowhere near the influence that MoveOn.org has with Democratic politicians. MoveOn.org is explicity trying to influence policy and has a lot of members and money to throw around. Coulter is just an individual blowhard.
For the record, while I'm generally conservative, I think Coulter is nuts, too.
EI
Ann Coulter is all about Ann Coulter. She's got the shtick down pretty well: say something outrageous once a month and the liberals will get their noses out of joint and she will stay in the news. It seems to me even posting about her is something she covets.
As far as giving the women the right to vote, one has to look at the outcome of that vote since they have had it. Have they been instrumental in electing good presidents and members of Congress or not? There are so many "pretty boys" elected that I'm afraid I lean to the Ann Coulter school in saying the women's vote is not necessarily a good thing but obviously it is a necessary thing since women are people too.
I remember as a kid my mother used to say about someone running for office, "he's a good looking guy," and she would vote for him, usually. (Women didn't run for office much in those days.) That's not to say you can't be good looking and a better candidate than your opponent. But all the hairdos in Congress make me wonder if a guy like Lincoln could have gotten 39% of the vote if women voted.
Chalk up another one here. I tend to vote Republican, and the only time I pay any attention to Ann Coulter is when I read a cite of some angry liberal's cite of something she said.
Reminds me of the saw that's getting pretty old for me now: most people who listen to Rush Limbaugh are liberals, because hey, who do you notice talking about him the most?
Liberalrob,
To the extent that Limbaugh's and O'Reilly's attacks cause liberals to donate to Moveon, I would agree with you that their attacks are counterproductive to their causes, but Moveon would be successful without the attacks- it builds it's own publicity through the work it does on behalf of Democrats and their causes. So much of Coulter's publicity comes because of the attention liberals give her- it gets her on television far more than would be otherwise warranted, and through this she builds readership for her books and essays amongst conservatives.
except that Coulter has a history of NOT being criticized by conservatives, no matter how outrageous her statements are
Um... no. I've heard conservatives criticize her more than any other conservative commentator. And far more than Democrats criticize Michael Moore.
From the first result in a search "conservatives criticize coulter"
link
There's more.
Also, there's the simple fact that she's a political satirist. And, the fact that Florence King said it first, and she said it better.
Didn't Coulter get fired from NRO for saying something provocative?
And I'm betting that Garance doesn't read Conservative sights, so (s)he would never know if Conservatives criticized her.
In any event, you won't see Ann in the Republicans VIP box anytime soon, unlike Michael "Evil Empire" Moore.
I don't think that Ann Coulter has a lot of influence with Republican politicians.
And yet she keeps getting invited to be a keynote speaker at important Republican conventions...
Also, there's the simple fact that she's a political satirist.
Like Al Franken.
No but leftist male politicians like Pete Stark do get away with referring to their Representatives as “c***sucker” which is about the same thing.
Liberalrob: You may be surprised by this, but I agree with you. Because Al Franken is a humorist, he is allowed, in my book, to say more outrageous things than non-humorists.
Still, I might as well point out that Ann Coulter's not running for Senate.
Good for you, although on the scale of offensiveness I’m not sure she’s as bad as Christopher Hitchens who says far nastier things (and means it) than what Coulter does as shtick. I guess it depends on whether the offensive personality is closer to your worldview.
The real issue here is the law of diminishing returns. I mean, if you criticize Ann Coulter every time she goes and says something outrageous, soon you won't have much time left to do anything else.
Which, come to think of it, is what Garance wants: conservatives so busy denouncing their own that they have no time for anything else.
Is Coulter's gibberish du jour anything but a minor variation on Sally Field's gibberish du jour a week or two ago?
As Julian Elson pointed out over at Yglesias's blog, Yglesias posted a couple of months ago that taking the vote away from males makes sense. I am not a regular reader of the likes of Ryan Avent, but it appears Megan is. So maybe Megan can help out here: did Avent go out of his way to criticize Yglesias? Can we say that Yglesias got a pass because he's a liberal?
Good point, so I guess it would be fair to say that Ann Coulter is about as offensive as the average lefty blogger on Megan’s blogroll ;)
as with most extremes: Classify under Loopy as a fruitbat.
also? the signal/noise ratio for coulter just tends towards microphone feedback... put in the earplugs
I just think of her as a performance artist, and then it's all understandable.
Al, if you think Matt's comment here is on a par with what Coulter said, I don't know what to tell you.
Megan, I don't agree that she's getting a pass because she's a women (if Alan Keyes says blacks shouldn't have the franchise, is everyone silent?), but I think Brian Beutler is right that she may as well have said "black" instead of "woman." The implication is pretty clear.
Few things are as entertaining as watching a left fringe get worked up about something a right fringer said, merely because the broad center of the right isn't piping up about it fast enough and furiously enough to satisfy the left fringe's tastes.
News flash: Most republicans/conservatives/whatever aren't commenting on Coulter because, for them, she pretty much doesn't exist. She's an extremist for the sake of extremism, and only registers on the radar of opposed extremists. To the extent she gets any public stage in right-wing circles, she (or Hannity, or Limbaugh, et al) is more than counterbalanced by a comparable cadre of obnoxious voices from the left. Which, so far as I can tell, the center-left also mostly ignores.
phosphorious wrote: or the "9/11 widows are witches who are enjoying their widowhood: comment
Ever heard of a guy from the far left named Ted Rall, who published a cartoon portraying 9/11 widows as greedy grubbers of insurance money?
Out for 2 days. Number 5 on Amazon. Hate her if you must but she knows how to sell books and we are all just little nodes in her world wide web.
After all, if you've got the guts to speak what tens of millions of Americans think, you WILL be rewarded.
Exactly Vanderleun. What distinguishes Ann most is not her wit, which is considerable, but her bravery. Having the ability to make your own living helps, but still most live in fear of getting the Don Imus or Lawrence Summers treatment. Or the Kim DeToit treatment. Or the Rush treatment (who would probably be in jail for oxy if he did not have such media power himself).
this comment has been deleted for profanity
Or maybe there's a generalized "Ann Coulter exception" that has nothing to do with her second X chromosome.
Bingo. She's said so many ludicrous and provocative things that anything she says next, even if it was something as outrageous as "all black babies should be aborted," sounds like white noise.
Steve's right, I think. She was initially given something of a pass because she's a woman, but these days it is pretty much a "eh, there she goes again" thing. Really, denying women the vote isn't much of a demand next to forcibly converting the entire Middle East to Christianity.
anony-mouse: There is no liberal Ann Coulter. A comparison of the statements which provoke outrage on the right and on the left is instructive. Liberals find it unacceptable that Coulter calls people "faggots", advocates the assassination of members of the media, and thinks women should be denied the vote because their political preferences are different from hers. Conservatives get outraged that Harry Reid acknowledges we've lost the war in Iraq, or that MoveOn impugns the integrity of a general. These are not comparable extremes.
Try it this way for comparison: "anony-mouse, you are betraying America; we've lost the war."
Now try this: "anony-mouse, you faggot, you shouldn't be allowed to vote."
(I obviously don't intend these as ad hominem insults, I'm trying to get across the character of the statements.)
Meanwhile, I've never seen Michael Moore do or say anything he would need to apologize for. America's high rate of gun violence is related to the prominence of the military-industrial complex? Military recruiters abuse the credulousness of high-school seniors? The US health insurance system sucks? The Bush family has enormous business ties to Saudi Arabia, which influenced the response to 9/11?
Nevertheless, pseudo-liberal op-ed columnists are constantly attacking him in order to establish their worthless "non-extremist" credentials. Fortunately, like Ann Coulter, Moore keeps on making money. In Moore's case this is because a huge number of Americans find him convincing; in Ann Coulter's I hope there is some other explanation.
as with most extremes: Classify under Loopy as a fruitbat.
also? the signal/noise ratio for coulter just tends towards microphone feedback... put in the earplugs
I disagree. Coulter is Rude and extremist and deliberately provocative. Sometimes she's even inaccurate. She's unrepresentative of conservative commentators as a whole. But she has the draw that she has in part because a few of her arguments hit home. If she were just some lunatic on a street corner, noone would care. She's right often enough to be dangerous to those who politically disagree with her, and if that weren't the case tuning her out wouldn't be required as a response. It would be enough to simply discredit her.
brooksfoe: There is no liberal Ann Coulter. ...Conservatives get outraged that Harry Reid acknowledges we've lost the war in Iraq, or that MoveOn impugns the integrity of a general. These are not comparable extremes.
Conservatives tend to get more upset about organizations which have garnered the explicit approval of the Democratic party. Coulter has been keynote speaker for some conservative events, (and gotten static from them as well) but that's not the same thing. There are plenty of left wingers who talk about Bushitler and claim that he's a nazi, that America is an evil racist empire etc. etc. Someone has already mentioned Ted Rall and Sharpton.
Lets face it. My friends protesting the WTO were arrested under Clinton. There were 'free speech zones' then. But you didn't hear about these things. If I can think of one good reason to vote Republican, it's that the mainstream media refuses to effectively investigate political scandals otherwise.
When Ted Rall/Ward Churchill/whoever goes on Good Morning America (or becomes a regular on a liberal version of Hannity & Colmes, if there ever is one), then we can have a conversation. Otherwise, it's pretty clear: the left marginalizes its extremes, while the right embraces its own and mainsteams them. Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin get nationally synidicated columns, while Rall can't even keep his cartoon running in the Village Voice.
I just saw Ted Rall on CNBC again!
"her second X chromosome"
I wouldn't bet on that.
Al, if you think Matt's comment here is on a par with what Coulter said, I don't know what to tell you.
Yeah, I don't see the relevant difference. Coulter said that the vote should be taken away from women and Yglesias said that it "makes sense" that the vote should be taken away from men. Seems the same to me. Then again, I'm conservative, so therefore must be slow. Maybe you can explain the relevant difference to me?
You don't see Republican politicians saying that we should take the vote away from women on the floor of the Senate. You DO see Democratic politicians saying that we've lost the war in Iraq and should pull out on the Senate floor. Many Democrats, even the leadership.
Given that we objectively have not lost the war, this is nonsense. The war may be unwinnable (I don't believe so) but it has hardly been lost. In fact, we're making headway.
You also have Democratic Senators with a history of lying about their own military service accusing Rush Limbaugh of doing drugs and denouncing soldiers when the transcripts are available showing that he did no such thing.
The Democratic party does embrace the extremists at MoveOn.org. The leading Presidential candidates and current Congressional leadership are on close contact with them.
I disagree with both the Republican and Democratic parties on a number of issues. But the Democratic party appears to be more extreme than the Republican party at this point in time.
Look at the Presidential candidates. Both Clinton and Obama are relatively far left while Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson are all more center-right.
Coulter is an outlier who is not embraced by many Republicans. Michael Moore, who is also an outlier and a plain old liar, is embraced by many Democrats. The numberous lies and misrepresentations in his "documentaries" have been well documented.
EI
Brooksfoe,
What did Moore say after 9/11? That whoever did this to get back at Bush killed the wrong people. By implication, he'd be fine with muslims killing red-state republicans.
Moore flat-out lied with his representation of Charlton Heston in "Bowling for Columbine". He referred to the U.S. as an evil empire. By any stretch, the man is worse than Coulter.
And for the record, Coulter did not call Edwards a faggot. She said that she'd get in trouble (or thereabouts) for calling him a faggot, while it's okay for Mahrer to wish for Cheney's death.
And, ftr, I view Coulter as political junkfood. Superficially appealing, but absent of anything nourishing.
Coulter's role, which is supported by the conservative and republican establishment, is to move the discourse. It's to make comments that are extreme and (barely) insane to get them out there, to make them seem acceptable. Then, when the topic comes up again, it's viewed as a little less extreme, a little less insane. It gets talked about *seriously*, instead of being dismissed as the extreme and insane rhetoric that it is. So the discourse gets pulled to the right, and moderate becomes liberal, and far too many people are okay with that.
I, for one, am not. Coulter is the issue, not the latest toxins she's spewing.
I do think Coulter is repellent. I don't think that she is objectively worse than numerous leftist provocateurs. I do think she's given a higher profile in the mainstream media than the equivalents on the left.
I sometimes wonder about my final assertion. Most of the time I think that the mainstream media recognizes batshit crazy leftists as what they are so they don't give them a platform. But being unfamiliar with sane rightists, they think that Coulter is a fair representative of a rightist POV. Plus, the controversy she generates makes for good ratings.
But in my more conspiratorially minded moments, I entertain the notion that the mainstream media is intentionally hiding offensive leftists while wanting to showcase offensive rightists.
I think Ann Coulter is a conspiracy theorist's wet dream.
phosphorious - Re: "except that Coulter has a history of NOT being criticized by conservatives, no matter how outrageous her statements are"
Not true. She even got fired from National Review Online for some of her comments, and they didn't do it quietly they condemned the comments.
re: "or the "9/11 widows are witches who are enjoying their widowhood"
She did get criticism from conservatives for that one, from a number of sources.
Her statement as a whole had a good point. That someone's status as a widow, or a veteran, or an orphan, or any type of victim or hero or the relative of a victim or hero, shouldn't give them some sort of privileged status in the political debate. When they say something that you or I think is wrong, either one of us should free to criticize the point. Going even further if they are going to heavily insert themselves in the rough and tumble of politics they should be open to get back as good as they give.
Unfortunately in choosing to make this point in an offensive way, and to go beyond making the point to claim that they enjoyed being widows, her point mostly got lost in the controversy.
If her plan is to get publicity than she succeeded. If her plan was to argue her point (either the "no special status point", or more directly some point to counter the woman's claims), than she mostly failed, because everyone focused on the offensiveness.
I suspect she cares more about the controversy than making the point.
Coulter is an outlier who is not embraced by many Republicans.
Except for the many attendees to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), "the nation’s largest annual gathering of conservatives," whom she has addressed as an invited keynote speaker many times.
Michael Moore, who is also an outlier and a plain old liar, is embraced by many Democrats.
The definition of "outlier" has apparently undergone some revision. Unless you are saying that many Democrats are outliers, by implication a majority of them since I suspect a majority agree with Moore, or at least disagree with your characterization of him as a liar.
The numberous lies and misrepresentations in his "documentaries" have been well documented.
And proven to in fact be accurate.
Fahrenheit 911:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16
Bowling for Columbine:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/
Sicko:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/
Coulter pretty much just realized after she was canned from NR she could make a career out of riding the publicity from saying really crazy stuff. Serious conservatives generally ignore her because here shtick is obviously transparent and to the extent she is taken seriously, she makes them look bad. Liberals who see through the shtick still pick up on her because her comments present opporunties to take a swing at conservatives, which of course give her the publicity she needs and reenforces her appeal to her actual fan base is interested in her not so much because of her ideas, but because she annoys their political foes. Coulter's business model depends on a symbiotic relationship with outraged liberals. The wiser response is dismissiveness rather than outrage - it's not like she gives a damn about what she says beyond the extent that it pisses them off, why do they?
Michael Moore has quite a list there. I don't have time to go through and research each and every one, but I did spot several distortions, omissions, and misleading statements just skimming through them. He's a very good propagandist and twists facts and distortions together to make plausible sounding stories.
EI
Al Gore called me a brownshirt and more liberals than I can count have called me a Nazi. That's much worse than calling John Edwards a "faggot", so far as I'm concerned. So let's have none of this "there's no liberal Ann Coulter" nonsense.
Hell, I had at least three college professors who'd qualify as a left-wing Ann Coulter.
Hell, I had at least three college professors who'd qualify as a left-wing Ann Coulter.
What network do they appear on ? I'd be curious to see this.
When people say "no liberal Coulter" they mean two things: No eliminationist rhetoric from prominent leftists. And no national platform to spout nonsense.
And of course, contra McArdle, it isn't just Coulter, or just women: Limbaugh is another among many, many examples of lionized commentators whose schtick is reprehensible.
The best the left can do is milquetoast Michael Moore, whose schtick is exaggerated politeness.
Her statement as a whole had a good point.
I think, Tim, that you have a precise grasp of Coulter's conservative "critics."
Yes, yes, she goes a bit over the top by pointing out how her opponents should be killed, or how they enjoy the deaths of their loved ones, or hwo they are traitors to America and whatnot, but her fundamental "point" is correct.
Political Football - She's more than a little over the top. But even over the top people can be smart and make good points. Of course if your as offensive as she sometimes is, you'll cause everyone who doesn't already agree with you to ignore your points.
Do you disagree with the idea she raised and I mentioned in my last comment? -
"That someone's status as a widow, or a veteran, or an orphan, or any type of victim or hero or the relative of a victim or hero, shouldn't give them some sort of privileged status in the political debate. When they say something that you or I think is wrong, either one of us should free to criticize the point. Going even further if they are going to heavily insert themselves in the rough and tumble of politics they should be open to get back as good as they give."
If so why do you disagree with it?