Coulter’s message v. Coulter’s method Posted by: McQ
on Thursday, June 15, 2006
I've been told any number of times by my wife that my problem isn't necessarily what I have to say, but how I say it. And unfortunately the subject becomes how I said it and what I said gets lost in the noise.
That is Ann Coulter's problem. Coulter says that's the way she's always been, always written and always spoken out.
OK.
The question is, is she interested in starting a discussion or joining an argument and making substantive points which might advance the debate? Or is she simply a bomb thrower who's only interest is agitation?
Maybe I'm wrong, but after fairly careful reading, it seems Coulter's point about the NJ widows wasn't that they were celebrating their husband's deaths, but that they were reveling in the celebrity their deaths had brought.
Frankly that's a legitimate point. But you are immediately put off the point by Coulter's style.
Look at the similar point made here by a writer, Mark Sommer, about anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan:
Sheehan's critics say she has become swept up by her own fame. And they charge she has diluted her message to embrace a host of views outside the mainstream.
They point to comments like this one: "The Bush administration is a terrorist organization. It's based on George Bush's own definition of what a terrorist is - somebody who kills innocent men, women and children."
Point made and in a style which doesn't see the message lost because of the messanger's style. In fact, it is intriguing, and the reader is willing to consider the point and look at his evidence.
Obviously, one would think, the intent of anything written is to convey a message or make a point and start a conversation on the issue without the writer becoming the topic.
Defend her methods as she might, she's lost this conversation and her point to a fire storm over her style. For the life of me, and despite her continued bravado and in-your-face denials, I can't believe that was her original intent.
Or is she simply a bomb thrower who’s only interest is agitation?
Yes, she is. Her entire career is based on bomb throwing. She is not interested in making substantive points or having any substantive debate. She is interested in making money and it’s working.
For something she doesn’t care about making points on she certainly gets agitated sometimes. That generally isn’t the behavior of someone who really doesn’t care.
I’d say you’re all wrong. Face it, all of you know a lot more about the points that Ann Coulter has made as opposed to those that Mark Somers has made (personally, I’ve never heard of him).
Coulter has made a career out playing a character: the evil, cold-hearted republican b!tch. She’s willing to step into topics that have been deemed verboten by liberals (e.g. McCarthyism, racial-profiling, victim-activists) and point out the weaknesses in the arguments. Typically, because there is so much shame associated with certain topics (think about bringing ANYTHING about race that doesn’t comport with the liberal view) that anyone who suggests the prevailing wisdom is wrong is immediately branded (i.e. racists, bigot, war-monger, etc.) without any attention being paid to what was actually said.
Coulter’s schtick is that she is that she assumes the caricature of the typical Republican and then dares liberals to tell her why she’s wrong in a substantive manner. She does use ad hominem too often for my philosophical taste, but she doesn’t interest me because of her philosophy. I think she’s hilarious and I like that she points out how silly liberals (or anyone, for that matter) can be when they take themselves so seriously.
And I’ll bet she looks a helluva lot better in a cocktail dress than Mark Somers ... even if it is the only article of clothing she owns.
If she were a comedian, she would be in the same class as Sam Kinnison or Don Rickles. Many find them obnoxious rather than funny. Perhaps a matter of taste or form rather than substance. I wonder how many of the people who condemn her as vile and tasteless think the same of those such as Don Imus or other not so outspokenly conservative who also say unpleasant things about people. I have never heard his act, but I have read that a comedic icon of the left, Lenny Bruce, could also be vile and obnoxious, except I think it is called "telling truth to power" when the left does it.
There’s a small place for bomb throwers- as noted above, nobody is talking about this topic because of what Mark Somers (the guy from DoubleDare?) said. But now that the topic is out there, more reasonable voices may get heard. And the issue is now in the open
BUT
If you’re going to do it, you better be careful about how big and explosive a bomb you throw. Coulter messes up there.
Introduce me to the woman who you had the good sense to marry, Bruce, and your problem will quickly be solved by comparison.
At the same time, I, for one, will never apologize for my preference for substance over style.
"I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject I do not wish to think, or speak, or write with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — and I will be heard. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.
It is pretended that I am retarding the cause of emancipation by the coarseness of my invective and the precipitancy of my measures. The charge is not true. On this question my influence — humble as it is — is felt at this moment to a considerable extent, and shall be felt in coming years — not perniciously, but beneficially — not as a curse, but as a blessing; and posterity will bear testimony that I was right."
(William Lloyd Garrison - editorial in "The Liberator" - January 1, 1831, all emphases original)
At the same time, I, for one, will never apologize for my preference for substance over style.
Heh ... well yeah, Billy, and as I’ve said for what, 15 years now, that’s mostly why no one really listens to what you have to say (even though when cool, calm and collected, you make a hell of a case).
Yeah, I know, it’s a matter of style and you enjoy your style. Cool. Hang in there.
As you say "Full speed, St. Ann" and enjoy the fraction who might listen as opposed to the whole who would if the rhetoric were toned down even a little bit.
But notice that no one here is talking about any of her points...only her style. She’s a political comedian in same genre as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. People like Stewart and Colbert not so much for the substance of their comedy, as for their delivery and their ability to skewer conservatives. Same goes for She Who Shall Not Be Named.
"She’s a political comedian in same genre as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert."
Neither of those two ever alerted me to Phyllis Schlafly’s book shredding Kissinger’s foreign policy, and I’d go 20-1 that they don’t even know it exists.
I could do this all day long.
You’re not paying attention to the thing that you’re condemning. Can you come up with a word to describe behavior like that, or should I help out?
Of course, those that wanted to could discuss what she is talking about. But I think some would rather talk about style, then about what substance she may have. Otherwise, they would have to get into a real conversation. And that doesn’t make for good stump speeches or sound bites.
Ann explained that before the book came out she gave it to her friends, including liberals, and not one of them complained about her remarks about the so-called Jersey Girls.
"Not my friends, not my editors, not the lawyers and not the liberals, pulled out the chapter on the Jersey Girls,” she said. Coulter has drawn fire from some – including Hillary Clinton – for attacking the four New Jersey widows who pushed for an independent commission to investigate the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks that killed their husbands. Coulter accused the women of "reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis.”
Commenting on Leno’s complaint that political discourse nowadays is so nasty, Coulter said: "We hear this all the time, about how civil things were back when there were only three TV stations” and nobody could talk back to the liberals.
Now, she said, there has suddenly been an alleged "disruption of civility” only because conservatives can talk back thanks to talk radio, the Internet and Fox News.
Asked if she is hurt by liberal attacks on her, Coulter said she wears them "as a badge of honor.” She added that she was surprised that liberals have failed to object to being called "Godless,” and have concentrated their fire on one small part of one chapter, when she criticized the Jersey Girls.
I’d say Ann Coulter gets her point across very clearly. "Joe McCarthy was right - the State Department was riddled with spies," "Liberals suck." You may not like her style, but you can’t say no one gets her point. However, if you want to see substance overwhelmed by b*llsh*t...
Scroll down the page for 30,000 words arguing the difference between "broad agreement" and "consensus" and whether or not Dale misquoted Dr. Pielke, misrepresented his statements, misquoted his representation of the statements, or merely stated that he resented the misquotation and in any case, was misrepresented. Starring:
Jon Henke as: "Pot" McQ as: "Kettle" and Dale Franks as: "Himself"
The only difference I see between Ann Coulter and anyone who posts here, at times, is that you substitute pedantic haughtiness (read: "eggheadery") in the place of sarcastic humor and personal attacks (however true they may be).
You dismiss Ann Coulter’s style of delivery, but I guarantee you she’s reaching a larger audience, and getting her point across than you ever will by playing the Poindexter role, complete with snazzy Latin catchphrases.
There’s a certain stubbornness in all of you and it really shows in the comments of many posts. You insist on trying to use reason to persuade the unreasonable. Scoring intellectual points off schmoes like mkultra or even myself adds up to exactly zero in the long run. What are you doing to ADVANCE your ideas?
Civil discourse is not more important than being right. Bring your thesaurus to the next MoveOn.org rally and calmly state your positions on the issues of the day. Bask in the righteousness of not "stooping to their level." You’ll still need a towel to wipe the enraged hippy spittle from your face and body.
Ivory towers are not just found on campus, Professor. Sometimes you need to outshout the shouters. Ann Coulter understands that and uses her talents to great effect. Raise your hand if you’ve ever wondered just what the hell Jon Henke is trying to say sometimes. Oh well, doesn’t matter, because he sure talks purty.
Civil discourse is not more important than being right.
Depends on the purpose of the discourse doesn’t it?
If it is to announce you’re right, then yeah, go for it. Tediousness is fine if you don’t care if anyone listens.
If it is an attempt to persuade, then probably not.
Why can’t you be both civil and right? Is there some law against it (and yes, I know I’ve been both uncivil and wrong, but that’s not the point of the comment ;) ).
Maybe I’m wrong, but after fairly careful reading, it seems Coulter’s point about the NJ widows wasn’t that they were celebrating their husband’s deaths, but that they were reveling in the celebrity their deaths had brought.
Frankly that’s a legitimate point.
Surely you mean that her’s is a legitimate opinion (which you appear to agree with). Here we go again, arguing about words, but I’m afraid you are, by phrasing your own point this way, raising her claim about the NJ widows to a point of fact rather than a matter of opinion.
I do not agree that the NJ widows are "reveling in the celebrity their [husband’s] deaths brought." So, I think she has a legitimate opinion, meaning she may be able to interpret events in subjective support of her claim. I think other interpretations are also legitimate, and to me, more plausible.
So, while it may seem as if I am also discussing style, I am truly intending to address the substance of what you (and by extension) she had to say.
While YOU may not care for her methods, you cannot deny that she has an effective delivery and reaches an enormous audience. And you don’t have any trouble ferreting out her message:
Maybe I’m wrong, but after fairly careful reading, it seems Coulter’s point about the NJ widows wasn’t that they were celebrating their husband’s deaths, but that they were reveling in the celebrity their deaths had brought.
And then follow immediately with:
Frankly that’s a legitimate point. But you are immediately put off the point by Coulter’s style.
WTF?!! How are you "put off the point?" You go from understanding what she has to say to NOT understanding what she has to say because of her style?
As far as Mark Sommer’s quote and your reaction to it - here’s my subjective opinion:
Coulter and Sommer (and QandO) are all selling the same product (the point about Jersey Girls/Sheehan reveling in celebrity).
Coulter’s packaging is racy, shiny, intriguing, puts words like "WOW!" inside firecracker "bang" graphics and generates a desire to look inside and see more of what’s inside.
The other packaging is brown, dull, proudly proclaims it is made with 100% recycled paper, and has physics trivia questions on the side panel. I don’t care to investigate it’s contents because the exterior packaging bores the t*ts off me.
Now, which method do you think overwhelms substance with (lack of) style? The first step is getting your audience’s attention. The second step is delivering your message so that it is understood. Obviously she accomplished both these things with you, and yet you say:
Defend her methods as she might, she’s lost this conversation and her point to a fire storm over her style. For the life of me, and despite her continued bravado and in-your-face denials, I can’t believe that was her original intent.
So you’ve decided for the rest of us (and for her) that she’s lost her point. Are you assuming everyone else is not sophisticated enough to get her point, like you did?
Why can’t you be both civil and right? Is there some law against it...
I never said they were mutually exclusive, just that civil discourse is not always the most effective way to market your message. As far there being a law against it - no, but Congress does not go into recess until July 30th. ;)
it could just be different strokes and we prefer different styles. Just remember that I am at least 20 years younger than you, and so will likely have ample time to erase your influences after you are gone. :)
While YOU may not care for her methods, you cannot deny that she has an effective delivery and reaches an enormous audience.
Never tried to deny anything about it Jeff. I just ask a question and wondered if that "enormous" audience wouldn’t be "gianormous" (as my grandson says when he wants me to understand it can’t get any bigger) if she did it a little differently.
WTF?!! How are you "put off the point?" You go from understanding what she has to say to NOT understanding what she has to say because of her style?
I was speaking generally with the "you" being any reader. Admittedly not well written.
I don’t know, it’s a bit like a comic who has to use the f-bomb every other word and who’s entire schtick is bathroom humor. After a while it just becomes tedious and boring. If there’s any humor in it, it’s lost. And since the point is the humor, it seems such behavior is at cross purposes with the that point.
Coulter can be very challenging if she puts her mind to it, but her metaphorical verbal "f-bombs and bathroom humor" have become tedious and boring. You just quit reading. Sort of like skipping known trolls in the comment section.
Now, which method do you think overwhelms substance with (lack of) style?
Guess which one I read all the way through. Hint, his last name doesn’t begin with a "C".
Obviously she accomplished both these things with you ...
I read a single excerpt Jeff ... for a reason, but other than being the subject of so much controversy recently I wouldn’t have sought her out.
So you’ve decided for the rest of us (and for her) that she’s lost her point. Are you assuming everyone else is not sophisticated enough to get her point, like you did?
I haven’t decided anything for anyone. I gave my opinion and ask a question. You never answered the question.
I never said they were mutually exclusive, just that civil discourse is not always the most effective way to market your message.
Well we’re back to another question I asked an you just answered ... it does depend on the purpose of the discourse, doesn’t it?
...it could just be different strokes and we prefer different styles. Just remember that I am at least 20 years younger than you, and so will likely have ample time to erase your influences after you are gone.
"As you say "Full speed, St. Ann" and enjoy the fraction who might listen as opposed to the whole who would if the rhetoric were toned down even a little bit."
I don’t think we have any shortage of mild, reasonable voices from any viewpoint you care to name, and that fraction who listens to St. Ann seems to be a fairly large segment. Large enough, anyway, to keep her in late model Mercedes-Benzes(?)(or whatever), which seems to be enough for her.
" The only difference I see between Ann Coulter and anyone who posts here, at times, is that you substitute pedantic haughtiness (read: "eggheadery") in the place of sarcastic humor and personal attacks (however true they may be)."
Hey! I resent that!. I try to contribute my share of sarcasm, if not humour, but I do plead guilty to trying to avoid personal attacks. In my case, it’s pure self-interest, as I sometimes offer so much attackable material. Sort of a Mutual Assured Embarassment doctrine.
National Enquirer has a flashy package It sells to lots of people The people it appeals to have a vote which counts just as much as the vote that a reader of the NYT has.
Go figure.
You can find plenty of examples of things that grab your attetion, sometimes make you think, and sometimes they makes you turn away shaking your head. If Coulter doesn’t mind being a sort of National Enquirer of political commentary, I guess that’s okay. She’s making enough money at it, she doesn’t need my blessing, but I’ll tune her out the same way I do Al Franken, most of the time (except for those rare moments when sick fascination forces me to watch. Sorta like catching Bob Tilton working on a Sunday morning sermon)
The question is, is she interested in starting a discussion or joining an argument and making substantive points which might advance the debate?
Neither - she’s not presenting points for debate, just discussion: "I despise liberals because XYZ". The typical hatemonger response (like mine) is "yeah, huh-huh, that’s right." The typical liberal response is not to debate or discuss XYZ, but to point out that she’s a nasty b*tch.
My opinion is that she’s not trying to ignite debate, but to get her views on the record, in what she sees as an entertaining and informative way.
Your second question was:
Or is she simply a bomb thrower who’s only interest is agitation?
If she were only interested in agitation, she could turn out a lot more books than she does, and they wouldn’t be so extensively researched and footnoted. In my opinion, the agitation is simply a byproduct of her uncompromising and unapologetic stance against all things liberal and unmanly, but I repeat myself. I don’t think it’s the point of her writing, but then again, I’m part of her audience and you’re not. So I understand your point of view.
Yes, looker, readers of the National Enquirer are just as stupid as Ann Coulter’s readers. It is a shame that we are allowed into voting booths, and surprising that we can figure out the machinery once we’re inside.
Yet, your elite snobbery dismissing her audience is in no way similar to what you perceive as her crass bomb-throwing, generalizing, and name-calling.
If she were only interested in agitation, she could turn out a lot more books than she does, and they wouldn’t be so extensively researched and footnoted.
Then if she is only interested in getting her views "on record" and she "extensively" researches and footnotes everything, why not put it on a website? She’s already said any number of times she doesn’t need the money.
She publishes where innumerable ankle-biting twits can’t even make the pretense of competition, like the Web. I don’t blame her. If I could do that, I wouldn’t give a damn in the world what anybody thought of it.
With her book "Slander", Ann Coulter deliberately set out to use the same tactics as Democrats/liberals like Al Sharpton, Howard Dean, James Carville, Jesse Jackson, Al Franken, Paul Krugman, etc. That book, and the outraged response by Democrats/liberals (including many of the same people she imitated) really launched her as a house-hold name. The point of the book was that conservatives/Republicans don’t fight back against liberal/Democrat slander, and they probably wouldn’t like getting a taste of their own medicine. They haven’t. As such, everyone who criticizes Ann for her style of delivery pretty much proves her point. In fact, the left/liberal/Democrat responses to her statements tend to be far more vile than what they are reacting to, using names that I wouldn’t repeat here.
I would classify her as a willing lightning rod: someone who can take the left’s venom, and so encourages them to unleash it on her to expose their hate. Think of her like the psychic in "The Dead Zone". The problem being, the bar of acceptable behavior is set so low for Democrats that they can be as hateful, stupid, racist, and despicable as they like and still get a free pass.
I don’t read her stuff anymore, but I do kind of admire her willingness skewer her opponents in their self-righteous arrogance.
Then if she is only interested in getting her views "on record" and she "extensively" researches and footnotes everything, why not put it on a website? She’s already said any number of times she doesn’t need the money.
I mean, if that’s really what it is all about.
My, my, my! You must really hate this woman to:
A) use sneer quotes when by your own admission you don’t read her and would have no knowledge of whether she "extensively" researches her material, and
B) take a thinly veiled swipe at her exercise of capitalism, making money off her intellectual product. Just like that pig Mark Steyn, no?
There was no need to urinate on Ayn Rand’s grave while you were at it.
BTW - I clearly stated that it was my opinion of her motivation. But, boy did you take the ball and run without a blocker!
Also - you may want (you don’t) to peruse http://www.anncoulter.com
Why would I hate her, for heaven sake? I don’t even know the woman. You’re into some heavy duty conclusion jumping there. I was actually reacting to your words, not hers.
You were making particular claims and I was simply extrapolating them to a conclusion, nothing more.
Why all the defensiveness?
I clearly stated that it was my opinion of her motivation.
And I clearly cited your words.
She does put it on a website.
Let’s be clear. She puts a little of it on a website.
"She’s a political comedian in same genre as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert."
Neither of those two ever alerted me to Phyllis Schlafly’s book shredding Kissinger’s foreign policy,
I would imagine that there are many, many books that Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart haven’t brought to your attention. So what is that supposed to mean?
and I’d go 20-1 that they don’t even know it exists.
I would take you up on that. In the many interviews that I’ve witnessed over the years, Colbert and Stewart seem to be quite well read. And I would bet the house that they don’t know you exist.
Maybe I’m wrong, but after fairly careful reading, it seems Coulter’s point about the NJ widows wasn’t that they were celebrating their husband’s deaths, but that they were reveling in the celebrity their deaths had brought.
You would be wrong, Mr. Mcq. You would also be very generous. That’s not what she said, not what you wish she said.
Coulter’s invented “doctrine of infallibility” simply means that she can no longer attack the person, although she seems to have no problem with that, rather than attack the idea.
COULTER: Oh, wait, no. No, I think that is not true, actually. I mean, other people have written acerbic little remarks about Democrats sending out victims, Cindy Sheehan, Max Cleland, these four women from New Jersey, making the exact same points Howard Dean could be making, but we can attack Howard Dean. But in this case, their husbands died, their son died, we can’t respond. And I don’t think the nation’s attention has ever been riveted on this victim as spokesman as it has in the last week. I don’t think that trick’s going to work anymore.
Rather than attack the idea, she wants to attack the person making it. It would appear, Mr. Mcq, that you would want persons to address the point Dick Morris was making, and not Dick Morris. So I know you understand.
BTW, what are these horrible ideas that that these widows were making anyway? That there should be an investigation into the 9/11 attacks? That they preferred Kerry over Bush? (Well so did 48%)
Ann Coulter is just sore that it is not considered civilized and decent to attack these widows personally, even though she does anyway.
For all Coulter apologists, know this: The vast majority of Americans, when hearing this venom, turn away in disgust. So Mr. Mcq is right about one thing; her “message” is definitely lost. And I would add, “for the better”.
Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ back in April 2004 - was the first to make the point against the Jersey Girls unending financial demands, claims of expertise in all architectural, espionage, national security matters through housewife "victimhood", and status as unassailable poltical advocates immune from any criticism.
The closest Rabinowitz went to their glee in media appearances was "basking in the glow of unmerited self-entitlement".
Rabinowitz was elegant. Acidic but understated. After the 1st round of the outraged Jersey Girls "How Dare You Impugne America’s Most Important Victims", and some responding to "who are the Jersey Girls and why are they more important than the kin of the other 2800 9/11 Victims, or the kin of 2 million other "victims" who die in America every year"?? - the flap died down.
Coulter, as she did with Mad Max (who dropped his own grenade on himself after a beer party), resurrected the Jersey Gals as a convenient Sacred Cow.
Results?
#1 Best Seller on Amazon and the NYTimes.
Coulter - her methods don’t so much put people off as draw in millions of people that will buy her books and are interested in seeing her. She is now one of the top 10 most sought after interviews outside Hollywood celebrities.
C. Ford, I read that article by Ms Rabinowitz. Her points were well made and I found myself agreeing with them. I cringe when I hear the same points being said by Ann Coulter but they were the same points I agreed with so ...
There is this phenomena where people like Sheehan, Clelland, the jersey girls are given a free pass because of their sacrifice and due to that same sacrifice, they are ceased upon by very unscrupulous political operatives to advance all sorts of agendas as a sort of "don’t you dare respond shield". If you attack their points, then you are pure evil. Part of the new political landscape I guess.
Rather than attack the idea, she wants to attack the person making it.
From the piece you quoted, it’s more like she wants to attack those who try to shut down debate on the idea by trotting out ’victims’ as mouthpieces. There’s a guy over on DailyKos who has the tactic down to a regular routine.
While I’d prefer it to be done with a fileting knife rather than Coulter’s chainsaw, it’s long past time the sacred cow of ’absolute moral authority’ was slaughtered.
Coulter is hillarious a lot of the time and everyone who is tut-tutting needs to get off their pedantic high-horses. Too much time is spent taking offense these days. If you don’t like it, move on. What’s with the analysis-obsession? It’s so banal. It’s a damn good thing our forebearers weren’t such a pile of decorum-slaves, nothing would have got done.
Yes, looker, readers of the National Enquirer are just as stupid as Ann Coulter’s readers. It is a shame that we are allowed into voting booths, and surprising that we can figure out the machinery once we’re inside.
Yet, your elite snobbery dismissing her audience is in no way similar to what you perceive as her crass bomb-throwing, generalizing, and name-calling.
Get over yourself.
Hmmmmm Looks like my "bomb throwing" destroyed my message. 8^(
Which was to compare flashy packaging and glitz - as seen on the cover of a National Enquirer to draw attention, then disregarded by a lot of people because it’s perceived to be a ’trashy publication’.
With bland black and white, as presented by the NYT.
And to suggest that the people who read the bland and blah, as opposed to the flashy and glitzy, have the same ability to vote on issues, and might therefore be a broader audience for the message (though in my example, perhaps not, I have no numbers to validate that)
but then, I’m not forgiven for being a perky blonde am I. Nope, I’m an elitist. If by being an elitist it means I would rather see intelligent conversation rather than no-prisoners bomb throwing, yes, I’m an elitist.
