Coulter’s triumphalism: she’s ok, so we’re ok

(Several readers’ comments have been posted at the bottom of this entry.)

Based on the liberal media’s unsuccessful attempt to damage her and her book over her comments about the 9/11 widows, Ann Coulter concludes that the liberal establishment has lost its once-vaunted ability to smear and marginalize conservatives. But is that really true? Coulter’s observation shows a superficial grasp of contemporary politics. In a manner typical of mainstream conservatives, she woefully underestimates the extent and power of liberalism in modern society.

And why is this? It is because mainstream conservatives are, in key respects, liberals themselves. They have separated out the more left-wing part of liberalism, which they call “liberalism,” and adopted as their own the more right-wing part of liberalism, which they call “conservatism.” If the part of liberalism that they call “liberalism” seems to be losing at the moment (for example, if the Democratic party is out of power, or if some overwrought media attacks on Ann Coulter are not gaining traction), the conservatives assume that liberalism itself is losing. They cannot see the extent of liberalism because they are immersed in it as fish in the sea.

- end of initial entry -

Jeremy writes:

I disagree with you on Ann Coulter’s success with her latest book. I think this is very important. She attacks/mocks white liberals publicly and gets away with it. She is very careful not to insult blacks or Hispanics, but to focus her insults upon white liberals almost exclusively. White liberals are, in fact, our most dangerous adversary, but they very effectively hide behind black rage. For example, if Coulter had questioned the loyalty of blacks to America she would have been skewered. But she doesn’t; she goes after the white liberals at the source and blacks don’t give a hoot about white liberals, so these liberals (who can only provide protection to minorities and cannot really defend themselves) are effectively disarmed. This is a great divide and conquer strategy on her part, demonstrates a serious weakness among white liberals, and marks the beginning of an important conservative effort to disgrace the white liberals in the eyes of the white masses…

LA replies:

I haven’t read her book, and was not criticizing her book. I was only going after the point she made in her article at FrontPage Magazine that liberals are on the run, that PC is on the run. Ridiculous. In various ways PC is more powerful than ever. Why doesn’t she see this? Why is she triumphalist? That’s the question I tried to answer.

Jeremy replies:

Here is what I think is the major accomplishment of Ann Coulter: a conservative can publicly ridicule liberals and liberalism and doesn’t get fired from her job, dragged through the mud, and end up apologizing to the entire world in the most debasing manner possible. Obviously, PC is still embedded in our culture. But prior to Ann Coulter, criticism of liberalism, liberals, and PC were either made privately (probably widespread) or made publicly but carefully toned down. The only way liberalism can be effectively combated is by publicly attacking it. This is now becoming possible. Ann is free to criticize, insult, ridicule, degrade, and enrage liberals to her heart’s content and millions of whites are laughing along with her. Making liberals the object of open ridicule is an important step in the long war against liberalism.

David B. writes:

Your latest post about Ann Coulter is accurate, but I would add one more point. Coulter is always savaging the “liberals,” but she rarely admits that most GOP leaders are liberals themselves. This fact is the trouble with Coulter and mainstream people of her type. Limbaugh and Hannitty for the last week have gone back into their rahrah Bush routine. Have they forgotten that if Congress doesn’t hold firm, their “conservative” President is going to sign a bill doing away with the American nation?

Limbaugh has been declaring the “liberal drive-by media,” to be defeated. As you say, they are getting stronger every year. A big reason for their added strength is Bush’s dismantling of any serioys conservatism in the GOP.

Lindsay writes:

On your comments about Coulter, I agree. The “Conservative” movement is not really “conservative” but adopts the “right wing” part of liberalism. Someone reported on Vox Day what Michelle Malkin said, “The conservatives dry hump the Left.” Conservatives are just a shade of Liberalism.

Maureen writes:

Coulter is probably jubilant, because the popularity of her books and the conservative Internet blogs proves that the despicable, Vietnam-era hold of the liberal media’s lies on American public opinion has been shattered. That’s a lot to be jubilant about. You’re just ahead of the pack, as usual, in your “take no prisoners” style of taking your points to their logical conclusion.

Re your paragraphs titled “Sailer on Jewish judgment” and “Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad / Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah,” it is so cathartic to read your blog. Fantastic, the way you call it as you see it—the way you link to other truth-tellers like Paul Sperry.

In “Durka, Durka” you are so right—the Arabs” cultural obscenities “deserve” to be pilloried in verse. But, the “blame America first,” high-priests of PC Pentagon lawyers go after the one they have in their power—the easy “kill”—the grunt. All Pentagon lawyers should be put on the front lines in Iraq for six months.

Mark P. writes:

While I generally agree with you that conservatives are essentially liberals, the real question to ask is why the “left-wing” of liberalism hates the “right-wing” of liberalism so much? Don’t liberals recognize the apparent kinship that they have between themselves and these so-called “conservative” liberals? If not, then why not? Why the animosity?

This is like the observation Conservatives frequently make that fascism and communism are quite similar to each, so that any apparent conflict between the two ideologies is puzzling at best. Liberals usually make the claim that this conflict proves communism and fascism are not at all alike, but this conflict could still emerge since both are authoritarian ideologies that won’t share power. Or, it could be that familiarity breeds contempt. So is it reasonable to suggest that “right-liberalism” and “left-liberalism” share either a conflict over authority or too much familiarity?

Furthermore, is a mere difference of degree really not a good reason to fight the Democrats and their ilk and to regard their apoplectic hatred toward Ann Coulter as a sign of winning at least a battle? Consider what liberalism is: it is basically anti-white socialism. Ann Coulter’s books are basically a backlash against this anti-white socialism. It is a triumph of sorts, even though it does not go far enough.

LA replies:

I don’t mean to be dismissing Coulter and or attacks on liberalism. But what about liberalism exactly is she attacking? And what does she stand FOR?

Mark P. replies:

As I mentioned earlier, Ann Coulter is attacking the anti-white socialism practiced by the Democratic Party. Yes, she is not attacking liberals the way you would, but she is not Hirsi Ali either. In her case, the enemy of our enemy is really our friend and it’s wrong to allow ideological purity to get in the way.

As for her image, well, her image adorns every book she writes, even her first one, High Crimes and Misdemeanors. It’s probably more of a trademark than anything else. I doubt there is any message in there at all.

LA replies:

I respectfully disagree. First, I don’t think I have spoken of Coulter as a Hirsi Ali-type enemy of conservatism. Second, there are clearly objectionable things about Coulter for which she can be legitimately criticized, and, further, such criticism of mainstream conservatives such as Coulter is essential to the growth of a more sound conservatism. But by Mark’s reasoning, we must not criticize Coulter at all, for fear of being charged with letting ideological purity divide the conservative ranks. As I’m sure Mark is aware, that argument carries no water with me. Key to the growth of traditionalist conservative understandings is the criticism of mainstream conservatism.

Mark goes so far as to deny that there is anything inappropriate or objectionable about the jacket cover of Godless. He even says that “no message” is conveyed by such a photo. This shows that he does not understand one of the main problems of modern conservatism, namely the way that, even as conservatives oppose liberalism on some political issues, they emulate the cultural norms, styles, and assumptions of the surrounding liberal culture and thus lose any ability to oppose either the culture or the political and moral values insensibly carried by that culture.

Finally, it is not true that Coulter always poses in revealing clothing. The cover photo of her last book showed her dressed primly like a teacher, standing before a blackboard.

Mark P. replies:

Lawrence -

1) You wrote:

“I respectfully disagree. First, I don’t think I have spoken of Coulter as a Hirsi Ali-type enemy of conservatism.”

No, you haven’t. Not explicitly. But the mold of your critique against Conservatives seems to be the Bush/Spencer/Ali/Steele model, where you expose their principled stance as so liberal that there is no way they can effectively fight, in the long run, against the forces that seek to destroy Western civilization.

Coulter is different. She attacks the end result of this liberalism, exposes its absurdities, and, in a humorous way, gradually inoculates the reader against liberal bs. It also helps that she is right most of the time. Certainly, it’s not as good as what you do but it’s far closer than most.

2) You wrote:

“Second, there are clearly objectionable things about Coulter for which she can be legitimately criticized, and, further, such criticism of mainstream conservatives such as Coulter is essential to the growth of a more sound conservatism. But by Mark’s reasoning, we must not criticize Coulter at all, for fear of being charged with letting ideological purity divide the conservative ranks.”

But what you seem to find objectionable about Coulter is what? her appearance on the cover of her latest book and her pep-talk article? Far from the question of whether this critique is even appropriate, it is below the standard you set elsewhere on your site. Your critiques of Spencer, Bush, Ali and Steele were based on things that they wrote or said, sayings and writings that went to the heart of what those people believe. You exposed their seedy, liberal underbelly. You should do the same for Ann Coulter and not criticize her on something less substantive, like appearance. We’re all going to look like s**t a few decades anyway.

And, no, I have no problem criticizing Conservatives, though I do admire the left’s fanatical loyalty. They certainly rise and fall together.

3) You wrote:

“Mark goes so far as to deny that there is anything inappropriate or objectionable about the jacket cover of Godless. He even says that “no message” is conveyed by such a photo. This shows that he does not understand one of the main problems of modern conservatism, namely the way that, even as conservatives oppose liberalism on some political issues, they emulate the cultural norms, styles, and assumptions of the surrounding liberal culture and thus lose any ability to oppose either the culture or the political and moral values insensibly carried by that culture.”

Personally, I see a sharp division of labor in what Coulter does, like the line-and-staff division in the military. Coulter is like a Jesuit trying to convert the pagans, Protestants, and Mohammedans. Just like a Jesuit must equip himself with the language, knowledge, dress and other mannerisms of those he is trying to convert, so must Coulter equip herself to the liberal medium necessary to push her message. This, of course, is dangerous, for it can lead a Jesuit to convert to paganism or heresy, or to Coulter making liberalism more attractive, but that is a necessary risk. Bishops (like yourself) may be ill-equipped for this task.

It’s true that Coulter does not have the academic gravitas of David Horowitz, who actually looks like a professor. Given, however, that most professors look like lesbian battleaxes or Ward Churchill, I doubt that is a problem. At least, the pagans aren’t going to notice or care about a Paris Hilton knock-off.

4) You wrote:

“Finally, it is not true that Coulter always poses in revealing clothing. The cover photo of her last book showed her dressed primly like a teacher, standing before a blackboard.”

Primly in a sleeveless leather top? Okay, it’s better than a cocktail dress, but not by much. [LA notes: I guess it seemed prim compared to her usual outfit.]

My suggestion is go to Borders or B & N, pick up a copy of “Godless” and select a chapter or two to read in the store. Decide then if Coulter writes anything objectionable or anything that shouldn’t be widely disseminated.

5) You wrote:

“In a manner typical of mainstream conservatives, she woefully underestimates the extent and power of liberalism in modern society.

“And why is this? It is because mainstream conservatives are, in key respects, liberals themselves. They have separated out the more left-wing part of liberalism, which they call “liberalism,” and adopted as their own the more right-wing part of liberalism, which they call “conservatism.” If the part of liberalism that they call “liberalism” seems to be losing at the moment (for example, if the Democratic party is out of power, or if some overwrought media attacks on Ann Coulter are not gaining traction), the conservatives assume that liberalism itself is losing. They cannot see the extent of liberalism because they are immersed in it as fish in the sea.”

But keep in mind that the right-liberalism is objectionable not because it is liberalism but because it leads to the left-wing liberalism that conservatives reject. Coulter is simply working backwards. Not the best approach, but still better than the others.

Great discussion. Thank you.

LA replies:

I read one of her earlier books, and while it seemed intelligent while I was reading it, it left no impression afterward. However I will take a look at Godless.

And on the idea that she is somehow deliberately putting herself in “liberal disguise” to convert the liberals, how many liberals has she converted? Seriously, how many former liberals have said, “I used to be a die-hard liberal, but Ann Coulter persuaded me of the falseness of my liberal beliefs”? Look at it this way: I have, say, one-millionth the exposure of Ann Coulter, yet many formerly mainstream and pro-immigration conservatives have been influenced by my writings and have changed their political and cultural orientation, sometimes in very significant ways. People write to me regularly telling me this. How many liberals have changed their political views and become genuinely conservative because of Coulter’s writings? If many have, I’ll admit I was too critical of her. But if it is a matter of their saying, “I used to be a liberal. But now because of Coulter’s influence I am anti-PC, fiscally conservative, and socially liberal,” then I do not count that as a conversion to conservatism.

By the way, this same argument, that a conservative must disguise himself as a liberal to reach out to liberals, was often used in the defense of the ecumenical career of the late pope, John Paul II. But did JPII really succeed in winning the liberal modern world over to the Church, or did he, in his desire to communicate with the modern liberal world in its terms, simply water down the Church? I think it was the latter.

Ben writes:

I agree with Mr. Auster’s observation of Coulter’s article. She gives an A+ to the conservative movement when it deserves an F-. As long as the true conservatives such as Mr. Auster are belittled and called every name under the sun then liberalism is succeeding splendidly despite Coulter’s optimistic report on the state of liberalism and conservatism. The day Mr. Auster and men like him are appearing on every show and platform instead of Coulter, Limbaugh, and the guys at the Weekly Standard , then I will recognize the failing of Liberalism.

Keep up the good work LA, your articles just keep nailing it over and over while the rest of the conservative movement knee jerks every issue failing to see the bigger picture. I find Coulter to be totally wrapped in arrogance and this clouds her vision of our future and where we are going.

Brandon writes:

While I agree with you on your criticisms of Coulter, I’d like to offer some positives.

Unfortunately, everyday people do not respond to philosophy alone. Most people are trapped not by their idealism but by their cultural associations. Coulter could be a step forward for many women trapped in their particular social conditions. If they make an association in their minds that they can be “glamorous” or contemporary but shed their attachments to the leftist ethos that so permeates the “in” crowds, her example could be a step in the right direction.

A really brilliant nun could write an appropriate critique of modernity but most Western women wouldn’t give it the time day. Of course Coulter does not critique modernity as a whole but she could lead many young women to begin to think.

LA replies:

That’s fine, but it’s theoretical. The question is, have young women been changed by Coulter in the manner you describe?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 15, 2006 03:09 PM | Send