2006 has been billed as the end of the conservative movement. This is due largely to the mistaken idea that conservatism is the same as Republicanism. What the voters rejected was corruption and good ol' boy politics. The election clearly showed the divide between conservatives and Republicans. However, there is one additional distinction that needs to be made.
The voters were also turned off by the campaigning style of the Republicans. Namely, the only GOP platform that was heard was why we shouldn't vote Democratic. Sure, some nuggets were tossed in like tax cuts. By and large, the GOP used scare tactics to convince conservatives to vote for them. We didn't buy it. Not because we've become liberals, but because we realize if we don't "throw the bums out", the GOP will be less and less honest.
The biggest problem remains that many of the prominent voices of the conservative movement aren't conservative. Take Ann Coulter for instance. Sure, she's pro-life and if asked would support conservative causes. But she doesn't earn a living by advancing conservatism. She earns her living by being an anti-liberal.
In her latest column, she advocates for no position. She is arguing against them. No, scratch that. She's basically doing a comedy routine against Democrats. Much of opinion journalism has become more about pejorative than persuasion. That's what sells columns and books. People turn on Ann Coulter on FOX News to see the fur fly, not to be informed. She does entertain. She does not advocate.
Good thinkers need to both point out the flaws in opposing positions and advocate for their own. The aloof don't engage other ideas and their thought atrophies. The unthinking mindlessly attack ideas they disagree with. The childish simply carp on political opponents.
Even when Ann Coulter isn't selling columns, she still does her comedy routine. Recently she was asked several questions by students. She responded with her usual battery of jokes. Ted Kennedy jokes are no longer funny because of her tired repetition of "inflatable dirigible" cracks. At least Rush Limbaugh intersperses advocacy between his jokes and changes them up every now and then.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
I'm not sure that knowing what you're against is such a bad thing. It at least gives you a starting point. From there you can investigate the positions which oppose the things you're against and see if you like them.
Ann Coulter's real problem is that she's shrill and annoying, more than anything else.
Dave
2 - John Bambenek
That's why I tried to make the point that knowing what your against is only part of it... you need to be "for" something...
3 - alessandro nicolo
Dante hated fence sitters and opportunists. Hence a special place in the Inferno for the latter. I agree with the tenets of your article. There is a total lack of understanding of what conservatism constitutes. Too often it is an ideology or philosophical base that is pigeon-holed. For its part, liberalism is a mess because it took things for granted. It never evolved. It stagnated into bad pseudo-films that apparently have the truth. I would add Maureen Dowd on that list. Together, these are impostors who hijacked liberalism and conservatism. Moore, Franken, Coulter, Dowd - all cut from the same cloth. What are they offering exactly? As political or writing entertainers they are fine but in a profound way people should not be quoting them at a dinner table debate.
4 - Franco
#2 â€"John Bambenek
That's why I tried to make the point that knowing what your against is only part of it... you need to be "for" something...
John,
Everything she is against, the exact opposite she is for. I’m not buying that you don’t already know that.
Are you looking for at stile in delivering clarity and advocacy in what she is for?
Ann Coulter skillfully and with some humor, points out the flaws in opposing liberal positions. Her advocacy (which you say she does not offer)automatically comes into clear view by the very nature in the way she makes the flaws of the actions (or the lack of action) of the opposing position look.
This stile leaves the viewer thinking who in their right mind would what to be part of it if what she says is true. In my opion, that is exteemly cogent advocey.
The only real question is, is what she says ture?
That is were viewers need to look. So far the record for truth rests on the fact that she is not nursing any hot set burns on her attractive ass for libel.
Now for the sake of argument I will agree with you that if she did choose to curb half of her entertainment antics (not all because you have to admit some of can be pretty funny) and become more of a true political dissuasion/debater on issues, she could be even more effective on her positions. But in dong so, would you still welcome her up front or would you still be advocating she be moved to the background?
5 - Dave Nalle
Are you aware that a 'stile' is a place to keep domesticated animals, especially pigs? I believe the word you're looking for is 'style'.
Dave
6 - Franco
thanks Dave.
7 - Franco
A stile is a pair of steps or ladders that is accessible to pedestrians but generally incessible to animals.
Stile
8 - SonnyD
Dave: Pigs are kept in a sty that some people will spell stye, which is an eye condition.
9 - Zedd
Franco sez: Everything she is against, the exact opposite she is for. I'm not buying that you don't already know that.
Based on your great logic and her nuggets of wisdom (?), this is what I gather she is stands for.... Some of it was really vague but this is the best that I could gather.
Against cutting and running
Pro attending Fords funeral
Pro America during Vietnam War
Pro not killing American soldiers
Pro South Vietnam
Against American enemies
Franco, Franco, Dude, she said NOTHING!! I know she sounds passionate and all juicey but Man, have some pride. She is a swindler, she has nothing to say just double speak. She makes a great living at playing with peoples minds. She has a formula and what she does is using shocking and emotional imagry to make you think that she has expressed a lot but she hasn't.
10 - Zedd
Dave:
If you actually listen to her you know that she is not even against anything real. She starts by redefining everything then applying what’s negative to Dems or Liberals or both then moves forward like everyone is on the same page.
It’s like me saying Dave is a lot like this guy who is a child molester and is a known cannibal (phase 1 the spuriusly connected definition), I don't agree with Dave’s last comment (phase 2).
Pliable minds like Franco's are like "wow Dave's comment sucks"
Her tactic can work conversely. "You know how that Dave is... “(Phase 1 emplying a pattern of negative behavior) there is a child molester who is also a cannibal who is going around the country. (Phase 2 unrelated evil) Do you know that Dave has refused to say one negative thing about this pervert, but he did say something negative about prayer in school? (Phase 3 spurious correlation)
Again Franco the proud Ditto Head would be like "wow I cant believe that Dave!".
You see that my friend is not spinning, it’s not even a comedy act, its just being a LIAR. If you are concerned about our value system breaking down, look no further. This is the garbage that is killing our standards.
Look at Franco, worked up and ready to carry her battle flag yet she said NOTHING. The article SOUNDED like something. It had images of cutting (how exciting), communists (oooh lets hide under our desks), death (spooky), Jefferson (heros), pardons, Cambodia (starvation), running (it’s like West Side story), Al Qaeda (911), killings, funerals, Islamic lunatics (oh the kooks), pro abortion (life haters), honor (bless America!!), betrayal (juicey like a soap opera), jihadists, …… I mean really folks who got left out, Captain America and Plankton
All this article said really was that the liberals protested against the Vietnam War. But if you add all of the color, list every popular demon and add a few heart wrenching images, you’ve got them (the simpletons).
11 - handyguy
A very sensible and relatively restrained article, John. Congratulations.
Anyone who would call a single mid-term election the definitive end [or beginning] of anything is indulging in hyperbole. Since at least 1964, the deaths of conservatism, liberalism, and both the Republican and Democratic parties have been regularly announced. The electorate does swing back and forth once in a while, but not usually very far.
Political comedians like Coulter, Limbaugh, Jon Stewart, Maureen Dowd and Al Franken are supposed to be annoying. Of course it helps if they are also funny. I think the left-leaning comics [especially Stewart and Dowd] have a bit of an edge there...but I'm not exactly unbiased.
Since Democrats no longer like to be termed liberals, they have a lot of self-defining to do as well - what they are for, and what they are against [other than simply anyone with the last name Bush].
Some have said that political mud-slinging is passe, and that, for example, a McCain-Obama presidential race would be refreshingly non-nasty. Judging by the tenor of many discussions on this web site, I'll believe that when I see it.
12 - John Bambenek
For what it's worth, I think Colbert and Stewart are hysterical.
Not so much Coulter.
13 - zingzing
hysterical... funny? or crazy?
for what it's worth, i agree.
14 - cooper
I do believe there is a big difference in knowing what you are against and knowing what you are for and being able to argue for either. I've seen Coulter in debate and she can't do that.
Ann is a pundit who really doesn't care as long as she is making money, she plays to her audience and makes millions doing it. Sadly they are stupid enough to fall for it.
There are pundits on both side however,all gladly sucking the people out of their minimum wage; the public doesn't want to think about anything and this is easier.
15 - Baronius
Huh. I never thought about it. I don't think Coulter usually argues a position in her columns. She offers an alternate reading of events. She just does it in such an inflammatory way that it seems like an argument.
This last column challenges the standard telling of the Vietnam War. You know how it goes: unnecessary involvement, military failure, lost in '68. The heroes were the reporters and the hippies. Soldiers returned insane. Ann's version may skip a lot, but so does the standard narrative.
Of course, she isn't writing in a vacuum. When she writes about the real history of Vietnam, or Kwanzaa, or whatever, she's making a historical analogy. That's a valid way of making an argument - in fact, it's sometimes the best way to make a policy argument.
16 - Arch Conservative
You don' t have to be a conservative to know that today's average American liberal is bad for America.
BOOOOOOOOOO liberals...........
Yaaayyyyyyyyyy Ronald Reagan
17 - Zedd
Arch
Uhmmmm, I don't know how to tell you but Reagan is no longer with us.
18 - Zedd
Handyguy
Who said liberal Democrats don't like being called liberal. They are VERY proud of their liberal position. Actually liberal views are in vogue right now.
I find more Republicans running away from the "conservative" lable because of what the christian right has done to the image of conservatism. Real conservatives are also trying to take back the distiction.
The problem is when you call centrist Democrats liberal. Its... well.... wrong?? So yes they don't like it.
You're not an owl so you don't want everyone calling you an owl.
19 - Arch Conservative
Zedd I know he's dead but he's the most recent example of a national figure who embodied true American conservatism.
I don't consider W. to be a conservative in any sense of the word and the only reason I voted for him again in 2004 was because the only other choice was John Kerry and there aint no way in hell I was voting for that guy.
When I look at the prospective 2008 GOP presidential contenders the only one who even comes close to being a true social and fiscal conservative is Mitt Romney. I will vote for him and tell the Guiliani and Mccain people where they can stick it.
It is true that both sides have extremists in their midsts but I'd rather side throw in with extremists on the right, the christian right if you will, than the extremists on the left, the commies, secularist commandos, race baiters and illegal alien enablers.
What makes you think liberal values are in vogue?
Maybe centrist Democrats need to speak up and be heard so that their party will not be controlled by the far far far left any longer. To someone like myself centrist democrats, although i may disagree with them, are tolerable but the far far far left moonbats are not and I believe they are doing great harm to this nation.
20 - Mohjho
Wrong again Archie, George W. Bush is THE conservatives conservative. The conservatives in the house, senate, the judicial and media made him and backed him 100%. What conservatives say and due are two completely different things as we have just witnessed these last ten years or so.
He is all yours, you live with it.
21 - Clavos
George W. Bush is THE conservatives conservative
Not even close, Mohjo. Nobody who spends like he does can even remotely be considered to be conservative.
One reason the Repubs lost in this election is because the real conservatives (not the "religious right" -- they're single issue voters who wouldn't know a conservative if one bit them in the ass) refrained from voting Republican because they were turned off by the antics of the Bush administration.
22 - Zedd
Arch
What qualities did you think George Bush posessed that were superior to Kerry's?
To answer your question on what makes being liberal "in":
1. They are not conservatives. The conservatives have screwed up in every way imagineable. Is embarrassing how bad they have managed things. They've been found out to be druggies, perverts, hypocrits, theives, dummies, etc.
2. The war. They were right so they get to be cool right now.
3. They won so they are not LOOSERS
4. There is a backlash against staunch republicanism because of #1
23 - Arch Conservative
What qualities did you think George Bush possessed that were superior to Kerry's?
Well to begin with Bush didn't stand up in front of the nation and say "hey lookkee me I'm a war hero and that's all you need to know about me. Don't pay any attention to my 20 plus years in the Senate, lookee me the great big war hero."
Kerry used a 30 year old war as the centerpiece of his campaign and it was both insulting and laughable. Bob Dole and Bush sr. were both in WW2 but I don't recall either one of them trying to make their service the focal point of their campaigns while trying to hide everything else in their past.
The second reason is that Kerry is a liberal with liberal values despite the fact that he tried to pretend not to be during his campaign. I don't share the liberal view of the world nor their values so why would I vote for him?
ALso Kerry seems like the type of guy who would consult with the UN first before making decisions regarding US soveriegnty and national defense. At least Bush, in his bumbling way, thought that the only people to decide what was best for America was Americans.
Another reason is because Kerry is a male gigalo. He married into his money and I just get the vibe from him that he thinks he is so much better than everyone else. There are countless examples of people in the bay state calling into talk shows or writing letters to newspapers about how they were standing in line somewhere like the DMV or a restaurant and John Kerry would come and cut in front of everybody saying "do you know who I am?"
I may not have been in love with W. as a candidate for my party in 2004 but in my eyes John Kerry is nothing but a northeast, elitsist, smug, uber liberal, in other words a real douchebag, and people like that never get my vote.
You also asked what makes a liberal Zedd.
To me these are some of the thinsg that I am opposed to that liberals favor
1. Abortion without any restrictions at all.
2. Higher taxes and wealth redistribution and more social welfare programs.
3. Gay marriage
4. Subjecting this nations sovereignty to the approval of european and other nations
5. The complete eradication of all expressions of christianity in the public sector by PRIVATE citizens
6. The destruction of all social norms and standards and the equating of just about all different behaviors by individuals in society as equally acceptable
7. The race baiting whereby liberals call anyone who opposes someone on thier side who happens to be a minority a racist but then the same liberals feel it is ok to call colin powell, condaleeze rice and other blacks who don't tow the liberal leftists line uncle tom, house nigger or other racial epithets
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the recent election was about rejecting conservative values and embracing liberal values Zedd. It was about throwing out the GOP congressmen, who have not behaved like true conservatives by the way, because they have done a horrible job.
Conservative and republican may sometime be the same thing but not always and lately the GOP we have had have not been real conservatives.
24 - Franco
#15 â€" Baronius
Those were the words I was looking for. Well said.
25 - Zedd
Handyguy,
Do Coulter and Limbaugh consideer themselves as comedians. Does their audience look at them as comedians. Yes what they espouse is often laughable, but is that what they intend?