Culture Clash: American Right meets British Left

May 16, 2003 9:41 PM

The UK Guardian Meets Ann Coulter.Many people outside the US have yet to come to terms with the reality of the recent shift towards the right in the domestic American political landscape. Here, Johnathan Freedland of the genteel, centre-left Guardian interviews right-wing babe Ann Coulter. This article draws out some fairly representative American Right and British opinions on politics, war, sex and race -- and shows some stark differences, even outright hostility, between the two predominant political positions from these closely allied nations. Worth reading just to picture Freedland looking horrified when Coulter calls him a commie.
posted by Bletch (111 comments total)

Why do people continue to take this twit seriously? Why give her the time of day? Though she is a good barometer of how worthlessly partisan a 'conservative' is by whether or not they refer to her as anything other than a political equivalent to the Misanthropic Bitch.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:46 PM on May 16, 2003

What a great journalist Jonathan Freedland is. Every single nuance is observed. In the end, you know all about Coulter you ever need to know. And she's fairly portrayed and represented, without hiding his understandable disgust. Great piece. Thanks, Bletch.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:59 PM on May 16, 2003

Coulter is a treasure, naturally.
posted by hama7 at 10:21 PM on May 16, 2003

"Coulter is a treasure, naturally."

Because her tits aren't fake?
posted by zerofoks at 10:28 PM on May 16, 2003

Coulter is a treasure, naturally.

My he's well trained, isn't he?
posted by Space Coyote at 10:45 PM on May 16, 2003

I think the heart of the coulter appeal is that she makes it feel OK to think bad thoughts. She offers comfort for those with niggling little demons in their minds, offering a voice that is saying the same things as they want to say, and actually winning arguments (by force if nothing else) doing it.

American republicans realize they have to put on a more civilized face, but as the writer said, she sais what you know they're all thinking.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:56 PM on May 16, 2003

Coulter is a treasure, naturally.

Like many treasures, she was dug up out of a tomb and she's quite possibly cursed.
posted by Hildago at 11:47 PM on May 16, 2003

Coulter has said some extremely offensive things, but I have to admit she's appealing to me in a perverse way. I am not saying I'm attracted to her physically, or even that I agree with what she says; just that I want to have sex with her. It is probably a neurotic impulse, but I love women that I can not understand.

I once had an unbelievable string of bad luck with dating lesbians; the same could be said for dating religious screwballs and drug addicts. It's a problem many people have, and I have recognized it in myself, but I still am attracted to Ann Coulter.

I think it's great that she says such fucked up and insane things. Even though it would end horribly, and I would wonder why I ever spoke to her, I could not stop myself from pursuing her. My pick-up line would be something like, "Will you come back to my place if I go to work for the Devil with you?"
posted by son_of_minya at 11:54 PM on May 16, 2003

did coulter ever stopped for a second to ponder the notion of karma?
posted by specialk420 at 12:00 AM on May 17, 2003

She's defintely the bitch you love to hate.

Really, she has zero redeeming qualities — you don't feel guilty about appreciating someone so pure in the essence of evil.
posted by Down10 at 12:05 AM on May 17, 2003

Coulter might be genuinely offensive if she ever bothered to say anything. From what I have read of her, including all the columns I could stomach and bits of her tabloid-like Slander, all she does is mock and slag other people.

She hasn't really offered any position or argument to take offense to, at least not that I have seen.

But oh yeah, I'd hit that.
posted by xmutex at 12:13 AM on May 17, 2003

There is an old Scots children's rhyme and early marketing ditty, Coulter's Candy, in which, broadly speaking, thin, impoverished children eat a certain brand of candy and miraculously become double-chinned, happy children.

My morning coffee compels me to draw a comparison with Ms. Coulter's product - in this case, a sort of salty, nutrient-free McDonald's hamburger for the undiscerning mind - and Mr Coltart's candy.

Here is Coulter comin' roon,
A big lum hat upon (her) croon,
(She's) been roon' aboot the toon
Singin' and sellin' candy.

Quite.

My question to the MeFi luminaries is this: when Freedland says if we are going to understand where the mightiest power on earth is heading, we may have to start listening - is he right? Do I really have to start reading this stuff in order to improve my sense of what the American nation might do next?

(Thanks, Bletch)
posted by RichLyon at 12:19 AM on May 17, 2003

son o' minya and xmute....

Really?

Even if I were a mysogonistic pervert, I really don't think I'd even take the joy in hate-humping her. She's a media-slut, plain and simple. She'll say and act how she feels will get her on the O'Reilly Factor even more and have more people writing into The Nation talking shit about her.

Ufez no fuck the trollies.
posted by Ufez Jones at 12:26 AM on May 17, 2003

Ufez Jones:

First you accuse myself and xmutex of being misogynistic perverts, then you call Ann Coulter a slut.

I don't see how either of our comments had anything to do with misogamy or her being a "slut," but I do see your comment in a "misogynistic" light.

"Ufez no fuck the trollies?" Jesus Christ, man.
posted by son_of_minya at 1:46 AM on May 17, 2003

I saw her the other day on hannity and cooms (don't axe me why I was watching faux news) and she actualy seemed pretty good looking and intelegent. I'm amazed that she's in her 40s already, I would have figured her for 25-28 or so.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying she isn't evil, just that she's the kind of evil that makes you want to have sex with her.
posted by delmoi at 2:02 AM on May 17, 2003

All I know about Ann Coulter is that Bill Maher, on his HBO show Real Time, usually manages to shut her up quite well with a well-timed sarcastic remark when she goes off on one of her, often nonsensical, tirades. Maybe he's the only one with the courage to face her on the TV? (I have no idea since I'm in Australia - I actually download Real Time). And he respects her as well claiming she is a good friend. But I do enjoy her contributions, she's a breath of fresh air I guess.
posted by Onanist at 2:14 AM on May 17, 2003

The thing about Freedland is that he wrote a great book which changed my leftie Guardian-reading British mind about the U.S. - "Bring Home the Revolution: How Britain Can Live the American Dream " (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1841150215/). The book basically argues that the UK would benefit enormously if we adopted the US bill of rights and consititution (apart from the bit that lets you all walk round with guns, of course), because the U.S. is genuinely the 'land of the free'.

The book changed my mind about the U.S. - but now Bush and Rumsfeld et al are in charge it terrifies me how mainstream the right-wing are becoming; the christian big-business right aren't considered a lunatic, sinister fringe any more in the US (it seems to me) - they are firmly the establishment now.

Terrifying.
posted by Pericles at 2:50 AM on May 17, 2003

Ann Coulter is as representative of mainstream right-wing opinion as Amiri Barak is of mainstream left-wing opinion, that is, not at all. I mean, we're talking about a woman who was fired from National Review, pretty much the flagship publication of the American right, for being too extreme.

Coulter's popularity, like Bush's, is predicated entirely on espousing a sort of populist tribalism with a thin veneer of ideology as a way of conveniently labeling the tribes. Frankly, if to be right-wing in America means to be either a Burkean conservative, a social conservative, a neo-conservative, a libertarian, or some combination of the above, you could make a fair case that she is none of the above, and certainly none of the above consistently. Much like Bush and his "cabal", she isn't an ideologically motivated person, she's a power-seeking person who realises that ideological noise can bring power.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 5:43 AM on May 17, 2003

Charles Darwin said about A. Coulter: "give her a crew cut and who would bother listening to her. She is not even a serious conservative."
posted by Postroad at 5:55 AM on May 17, 2003

"Misanthropic Bitch."

"Because her tits aren't fake"

"I want to have sex with her"

"the bitch "

"essence of evil"

"I'd hit that."

"I really don't think I'd even take the joy in hate-humping her."

"no fuck the trollies"

"to have sex with her."

"she's a power-seeking person "

Check the mirror, friends. Your "intolerance" is showing.
posted by hama7 at 6:21 AM on May 17, 2003

oh...is she supposed to be attractive?
posted by mcsweetie at 6:24 AM on May 17, 2003

Not to lower myself to responding to an Ann Coulter fan, but I was referring to this specific Misanthropic Bitch.

Nice try at a misdirect though. How about explaining which parts of her act don't depend on her being a good-looking woman spouting all this shit? Funnily enough I think I agree with Postroad here :)
posted by Space Coyote at 6:27 AM on May 17, 2003

I think all you people should leave her alone. Nazi's have feelings too.

Seems to me like, her father corrupted her, lead her down a dark path of argumentism, mendacity and belligerence, and she's blinded by the lack of perspective travelling this path has resulted in, thinking it's a natural and respectable way to behave.

My guess is she equated argumentism with feelings of affection and the joy of getting her father's attention, and is still blinded by this confusion; and so she fights on, emotionally blinded by the praise her father gave her for being such a bitch.

...pitbulls trained for fighting, behave much the same way.
posted by Blue Stone at 6:31 AM on May 17, 2003

All I know about Ann Coulter is that Bill Maher, on his HBO show Real Time, usually manages to shut her up quite well with a well-timed sarcastic remark when she goes off on one of her, often nonsensical, tirades.

True. On the episode I saw, it was pretty much her and Dennis Miller against a very liberal UPenn professor (who was, incidentally, also a minister). The prof destroyed every point she even attempted to construct very handily. She had nothing to support anything she said, and it showed. The whole thing devolved into:

Professor would make excellent point.
Coulter would say "you're wrong!"
He would respond with "but x, y, z proves I'm right"
She would say "you're still wrong!"
Dennis Miller would make stupid wisecrack.

What a twit. If you're going to be incendiary, at least be smart.

As an aside:
son_of_minya, I think you misunderstood Ufez. He didn't call her a "slut," he called her a "media slut," meaning that she is addicted to the media: she does whatever she can to be in the spotlight, NOT that she fucks everyone for whatever reason. I didn't see any misogyny in what he said.

On preview:
hama7, I've noticed that you consistently make the same wrong assumption about liberals: that they are all cultural relativists and belive that everyone should accept and love everyone and everything else. That is wrong. I, and many others, neither preach nor practice that. I have very strong ideas about what is right and wrong, and those ideas don't prevent me from being intolerant to those that I believe deserve it. So let's make a deal: you keep playing with your straw man, and I'll keep loathing you.
posted by The Michael The at 6:32 AM on May 17, 2003

hama> I don't have any problem with women in power - I like Margaret Thatcher and Condoleeza Rice, after all. My criticism of Coulter is of her opportunism, not her sex. I think she does more damage to the intellectual right through her ill-supported diatribes than any number of Eric Altermans would if left to their own business. The media may or may not be liberally-biased, and the government may or may not be run by an elite cabal of liberal intellectuals - I merely know that whatever the case may be, I would be foolish to accept Ann Coulter's reasoning that it is so.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 6:37 AM on May 17, 2003

Actually, scratch that. I don't loathe you, hama7; I'm sure you're a nice person once I get to know you (as I've read from other MeFites). I just loathe your ideas and your own intolerance. Now, keep playing with your straw man, and I'll keep loathing your ideas and intolerance.
posted by The Michael The at 6:39 AM on May 17, 2003

So Ann Coulter says a bunch of shit about liberals and sells books that way. People get all worked up over Ford vs. Chevy or their pet college-football rivalry too. My-tribe-vs.-your-tribe always sells if it's done right.

This is a fad, all the right-wing noise. There's a chance it isn't, but it probably is.
posted by argybarg at 6:50 AM on May 17, 2003

I just loathe your ideas and your own intolerance.

Tell you what, bud. You explain to me the point of the filthy language, sexual innuendo, and lack of respect toward women that my above quotes outlined, (which would make even Hanoi Jane and a whole host of other sickening feminazis cringe), and I promise I will be a thousand times more "tolerant".

Really. I promise.

Now, do these rules of "tolerance" apply only to those with whom you agree, or to everyone?
posted by hama7 at 7:02 AM on May 17, 2003

Personally, as somone who reads a lot on both sides of the fence, while it is easy to just engage in a snarky sexist dismissal of Coltier, perhaps her worst failing is that she, like her predicessor Limbaugh is not an especially good advocate of Conservativism. I can read and listen to Buckley, Novak and Will and while I rarely come to an agreement with them, I at least appreciate that they have something to say and are capable of saying it well. Coltier and Limbaugh read more like the gossip collumn.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:35 AM on May 17, 2003

First, I'm not your bud, so don't refer to me as such. Second, the point of the "filthy language, sexual innuendo, and lack of respect toward women that [hama7's] above quotes outlined" was to demean Ann Coulter. Now, I want to see this tolerance you promised.

See, I never said you were wrong in criticizing the invectives. I only said that you build a liberal straw man based on cultural relativism, which you haven't addressed at all.

I suppose what you really want is for me to attempt to *justify* the statements, but that's not what you asked for, so there you go: the point is explained. I can't and won't justify the invectives, as I think they are bad; such misogyny doesn't deserve a place in society (notice that the worst I said against here was calling her a twit, which was not filthy, innuendo, or showing a lack of respect toward women).

I'm not sure what "rules of tolerance" you're referring to, as I didn't mention any such rules. Please elaborate. I suppose, though, that I can't do much worse in my own intolerance, however I may show it, than equating women campaigning for status equal to that of men with purveyors of genocide.
posted by The Michael The at 7:46 AM on May 17, 2003

Remember:

The intellectual majority in the United States is liberal. It really is a minority that is in power, but it puppet plays the gullible Midwest with talk of Heroism and Faith.

The Republican party believes they have figured out a way to always remain in power. They thought this before Clinton, whom seems to have spoiled their show. The viciousness toward Clinton in the 90s was utterly frightening. It was soulless.

So the Republican Party is doing the same thing again. They believe they have the magic formula of jingoism to stay in power.

Much like Hollywood has the blockbuster down to a science. Like Clear Channel has the 'hit' down to perfection.

All that must be done is fight. Do not think that the casual correctness of your idle thoughts is understood by half of the country, for it is not. What seems to you to be obvious and true is vague and misleading to those who saw Bush land on the carrier, and thought "Mission Accomplished."
posted by The Jesse Helms at 7:54 AM on May 17, 2003

I think hama7 was right to highlight the sexism in some comments here. Sheesh, whenever the Bush-bashing starts up, it's not like people chime in, "Yeah, he's a twit, but I'd fk'm." But the comments show sexism, not intolerance.
posted by win_k at 8:00 AM on May 17, 2003

Freedland nailed it: "...she flits from one right-wing prejudice to another." Yet another sign that politics is more about having one's feelings (prejudices) gratified than about a rational/ethical consideration of how citizens might live well together.

Jesse, I think you’re right about the gullibility. And it’s intractable, too; I’ve had no success pointing out flaws to conservative family members, even when it comes to Bush’s wacky tax policy that’s contradicted by his own economic advisers. They have faith in the current administration; Bush is a guy they can trust. I’m just worried about your assessment that the conservatives and the willing dupes are in the minority.
posted by win_k at 8:07 AM on May 17, 2003

Yes, Coulter plays more to the pathology side of politics than to the thinking side -- basically, she gives people a chance to work out their psychodramas through name-calling and group identification. Plenty of lefties do so as well.

I just think a whole lot of people ought to just fess up and punch their parents in the faces -- get it over with, instead of acting it out with miserable relationships and poisonous politics.
posted by argybarg at 8:32 AM on May 17, 2003

I'm still trying to figure out how "media slut" became "slut", personally. Joey Buttafuoco is also a media slut; am I suddenly misanthropic? Interesting twist; try to change this from a conservative vs. liberal argument and make it a sexually-based argument of intolerance.

It's simple (and not gender-specific) - any person spewing hate just so they can get into the limelight is reprehensible. Gender is irrelevant (as are skin color, religion, etc. - assholes come in all shapes and sizes.)

And when did sex become sexism? Last time I checked, we still have gender. Sexism is when one gender is treated differently from another gender at the societal level. Is it sexist that womens' bathrooms don't have urinals?

What amazes me is that even the friggin' dictionary is sexist - here's the definition of sexism under the American Heritage Dictionary (the part in bold should be deleted, IMHO):

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

I'm still trying to figure out how "I'd hit it" works out to a sexist attack. It's certainly poor taste and demonstrates a lack of personal respect, but it's not sexist unless someone adds "but I wouldn't pay it my salary" or "but I won't let it walk next to me" or some such. It's not a stereotyping of social roles - while sex can be construed as a social role, there's a basic biological component that's a bit hard to get around. Face it - she's attractive. It's hard to get one's head around the conflicting urges of being physically attracted to an ideologically repulsive person.

If "I'd hit it" was said to her, I'm not so sure she'd be offended - after all, one of her viewpoints is that the liberal left is slowly transforming the country into an androgynous state.

If you want sexist comments, bizarrely enough, try getting through Ann's assertion that it's OK for Rush Limbaugh to use the term "feminazis" because she says it refers only to the women who prefer abortion over childbirth. She's sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place - she's very much against feminism, but without it she'd not be able to have a public forum for her opinions, nor even be politically active - it wasn't all that long ago that women couldn't even vote. An old article sums this up nicely.
posted by FormlessOne at 8:59 AM on May 17, 2003

Space Coyote: if you find yourself agreeing with Me (Postroad) then it may well be time for therapy or meds of some sort....that statement is the nicest thing said to me since (I was told this) the doctor, circumsizing me, tunred to my mom and said: there sure is a lot to take off here but a great deal remains.
posted by Postroad at 9:06 AM on May 17, 2003

I am always surprised to see people blindly approving of someone like Ann Coulter. I like to read opinion from all points of the political spectrum, but I prefer to read of people who are reasonable. To call her a treasure after hearing and reading some of the outright lies and vitriol she spews seems outrageous to me. I have a hard time with people on both sides of the political spectrum that can't be critical and objective about their own party. Why is it when discussing a Bush Policy that I don't like, the Bush supporter brings up Clinton? It's that same kind of polarized view that gives people like Limbaugh and Coulter their audience. "Don't make me think, spoon feed me."

win_k, you're right about the attitude towards this administration. It was much the same during the Reagan years. I remember seeing accounts in the paper of people who met Ronald Reagan, and the comment was always something like "It was like being with my grandfather". It is sad that our political system has become a marketing contest where focus groups and image consultants are more important than debates about ideas.
posted by Eekacat at 9:13 AM on May 17, 2003

"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker [the young American who fought for the Taliban] is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realise that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

Oh, if only Ann Coulter actually bothered to pay attention to liberals rather than pigeonholing them all as believing something it would more convenient for her if they did believe.

Maybe then she'd actually be able to put forth a coherent argument instead of a stream of distortions and conjectures.
posted by oaf at 9:51 AM on May 17, 2003

This thread must be a treat for you, hama7. Coulter has invited her enemies to debase her by debasing herself and her entire sex (would any male conservative say that women shouldn't have the vote?), and now that some people have risen to the bait, you get to wag your finger at the liberals and point out how disrespectful we are of women.

Pathetic. The only thing unique about Coulter is that she plays up her sex appeal for attention, and we're not supposed to ridicule her on that level? Were she on the other side, she'd never hesitate to say the same things.
posted by Epenthesis at 9:51 AM on May 17, 2003

son of minya:

Apologies. I was far from erudite last night, and should've logged out before reading MeFi like I usually do after I've been out killing brain cells and other vital organs. I wasn't calling you and xmutex mysogist asses. I don't even know what the hell I was trying to say. I just found this part: "I am not saying I'm attracted to her physically, or even that I agree with what she says; just that I want to have sex with her. It is probably a neurotic impulse, but I love women that I can not understand." very strange, and something I'd never heard anyone fess up to before. It's an odd fetish, for lack of a better word.

But yes, what TheMikeThe said about "media-slut". Far different from a slut. I didn't mean to imply that she gives Bill O'Reilly favors during commercial breaks or anything.
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:57 AM on May 17, 2003

I was too hard on Ufez Jones. While I do think it's silly to point out supposed sexism while also making sexist comments, I think maybe it was an innocent misunderstanding.

On the other hand, I'm offended by some other comments here.

They seem to follow the same mistake, like people who don't get a joke.
posted by son_of_minya at 9:59 AM on May 17, 2003

of other sickening feminazis cringe

hamas heaven, maybe you're not even a troll but a true believer in the constant screeds against anyone/anything remotely communistic you let us enjoy on a daily basis. and who knows, maybe you're a fun human being to be with in person (which by the way is moot in a Internet community like this). but in the context of your you-liberals-are-intolerant comment in this thread, stuff like your "sickening feminazis" really makes one cringe.

it's intellectually sloppy (you can do better than rehash Limbaugh's trashbin if you make the effort), and it's also the classic slip where you show everybody a very dark side of yours, not a pretty sight. (also: "Hanoi Jane"? what is this, 1972? have any good McGovern jokes for us, too?)
posted by matteo at 10:13 AM on May 17, 2003

Let me be the first to say I would not fuck George W. Bush.
posted by xmutex at 10:21 AM on May 17, 2003

What's the danger in Coulter saying what she has to say if she's so clearly wrong?
posted by frenetic at 10:23 AM on May 17, 2003

Let me be the first to say I would not fuck George W. Bush.

I would. It'd be nice to reverse the roles.
posted by Epenthesis at 10:43 AM on May 17, 2003

I would like to see Howard Stern interview Ann Coulter. I dislike both of them, but that would be worth watching.

I actually find Ann to be pretty funny in a way. She does not even argue issues, in fact she does little more than call liberals names and talk about how much she hates all liberals. She is either entirely out for attention and full of shit or she is a complete and total idiot, but either way she is of no real concern. Anyone that she influences with her ranting is a lost cause anyway.

I will never understand how anyone could find her even remotely attractive.
posted by bargle at 10:59 AM on May 17, 2003

What's the danger in Coulter saying what she has to say if she's so clearly wrong?

I'd go even further; give her a forum and let her talk. Ann Coulter is a vent for the concentrated rage and venom that lurks in the worst of us, and repulsive as it is, it's good to know about it and to hear it articulated. Certainly there's no danger of her converting anyone who isn't pretty far gone already. Letting her talk is like lancing a boil -- not only does it relieve the pressure, but it makes plain the horror and stink of the problem and lets those who care to get about the business of doing something about it.

Besides, as anyone who's ever debated knows, when your opponent becomes completely unhinged and is clearly beyond even pretending to marshal a cogent argument, it's a sign that they're inpretty bad shape, and the more they go on the more they discredit themselves and what passes for their position. Think McCarthy here.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:03 AM on May 17, 2003

What's the danger in Coulter saying what she has to say if she's so clearly wrong?

Are you serious?

What's the danger in selling candy laced with arsenic, if poison is so clearly bad for you?
posted by kayjay at 11:15 AM on May 17, 2003

Of course, blah blah blah blah free speech blah blah blah blah corporate media blah blah blah blah not sink to her level blah blah blah blah giving her more attention than she deserves blah blah blah
posted by kayjay at 11:18 AM on May 17, 2003

Good points by George_Spiggott.
posted by kayjay at 11:19 AM on May 17, 2003

The only thing unique about Coulter is that she plays up her sex appeal for attention, and we're not supposed to ridicule her on that level?

Bingbingbingbingbing... Epenthesis, you hit the jackpot.

Coulter's sex appeal is an inherent part of her schtick. Rarely does she fail to wear a miniskirt; you can tell that she believes the bad dye job to be integral to her message. And in a way, it is; she wants the incongruity of a semi-hot babe coming off like Josef Goebbels in pumps. Sex and brimstone; vitriol and lust. It's a heady combo, and I'd say she's playing it just right.
posted by kgasmart at 11:23 AM on May 17, 2003

Here, Johnathan Freedland of the genteel, centre-left Guardian

If you think the Guardian is just center left, I'd hate to see what you call far left.
posted by Beholder at 12:00 PM on May 17, 2003

Uh huh. To a New Yorker, the West is New Jersey.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:17 PM on May 17, 2003

If you think the Guardian is just center left, I'd hate to see what you call far left.

I'd hate to see your idea of "center."
posted by mcsweetie at 12:19 PM on May 17, 2003

And how would Muslims travel? "They could use flying carpets," she says, a grinning picture of charm.

This left my mouth agape for a whole minute.
posted by brittney at 12:31 PM on May 17, 2003

What's the danger in selling candy laced with arsenic, if poison is so clearly bad for you?

We're talking about words here, not poison candy. Not even words advocating putting poison in candy. If you see no difference between saying a bunch of things that offend a lot of people and trying to physically injure or murder someone, that's very confusing to me.

I should probably say that I don't care for much that Coulter has to say. I generally find the things she says offensive, but in a pretty subdued sort of way. Like listening to a crazy aunt at a family reunion.

The thing I find more offensive I guess is that the angrier people here seem to (and maybe I'm mistaken) believe that Coulter is dangerous because she'll be able to brainwash and trick everyone else into agreeing with or following her. Which seems condescening to me. Give other people a little credit. You seem to be able to not be poisoned by her words, is that because you're so much smarter than everyone else?

I believe she's essentially harmless and that about 95% of the power she currently wields is directly related to how she can get liberal panties in a bunch about the rotten things she says. Her skill at that is considerable, as evidenced by this thread.

There will always be a certain contingent that extremists (liberal, conservative or whatever) will attract and as far as I can see, that's healthy and good as long as it all stays nicely non-violent. I think it allows the majority to find the calmer, more gentle and tolerant middle ground much more easily.
posted by frenetic at 12:42 PM on May 17, 2003

And I agree with George_Spiggot's points. Well put.
posted by frenetic at 12:53 PM on May 17, 2003

Does anyone else think that Ann Coulter is given all the space she needs to spew her venom, and that people allow her to perform her outrageous hatefullness, simply because, as a woman, she's not really taken very seriously? So that discussion her devolves with a few comments to whether or not she's worth shagging? Can you imagine an unmarried ultra conservative man spouting off about how the America's gone to hell since women got the vote, flying carpets, and all the other schtick that is part of Coulter's act, without him being left to languish in talk radio? Without being a bit of an embarassment?
posted by jokeefe at 1:19 PM on May 17, 2003

Sheesh "discussion about her devolves within a few comments"
posted by jokeefe at 1:20 PM on May 17, 2003

Beholder and McSweetie: the Guardian is a long way from being the paper of the loony-left fringe here in the UK. It's a highly respected newspaper and was for a long time a solid supporter of the current Labour Government. Papers like the Independent and the Daily Star are both much more ideologically driven and left-wing, thus centre-left is precisely where the Guardian falls. I realise that you are both probably American and thus the idea of having a left-wing paper with socialist sympathies is alien to you, but I can assure you that it is the United States that is the anomaly here and not the UK. Elsewhere, the ideology behind the Guardian is well represented within the main stream of political discourse.

In some ways I'm sorry that this thread's turned into a somewhat acrimonious discussion of Coulter's relationship with the rest of the USA. I found the article interesting enough to post on the front page not because of Coulter's outspoken views but because it's one of the first serious attempts I've seen in the British press to understand what's currently going on in the USA. Certainly there is little political recognition here in the UK of just how divergent our allied nations' policies are in many respects.

Whatever our feelings about Ms. Coulter, as Freedland says, there's no doubting that she voices the opinion of a significant fraction of Americans, in particular those to whom Bush speaks most strongly. If the rest of the planet is to properly understand and anticipate the USA, I think it's critically important to have dialogue with those who speak for the Bush-supporting American mainstream.
posted by Bletch at 2:13 PM on May 17, 2003

What I find amusing is that hama7 is playing the same role within MeFi as Ann C. is in the world at large (minus the babe factor, of course): the cartoon ultraconservative saying outrageous things to get the lefties to run around like deranged chickens. And it never fails! What pleasure it must give him. And I don't begrudge him the pleasure, since people who keep making the same earnest and/or outraged arguments to someone who is clearly interested only in stirring up trouble deserve whatever they get.
posted by languagehat at 2:33 PM on May 17, 2003

There will always be a certain contingent that extremists (liberal, conservative or whatever) will attract and as far as I can see, that's healthy and good as long as it all stays nicely non-violent.

But see, my perception is that the hatred fanned by the likes of Coulter is pretty virulent, and it really does make me wonder how long it is going to remain "nicely non-violent" in the U.S.

In an atmosphere where a John Walker Lindh needs to be killed in order to intimadate liberals, where those who disagree are not merely wrong but traitors, how long can it remain non-violent?
posted by kgasmart at 2:33 PM on May 17, 2003

I think that Bletch raises an interesting point, but on the other hand, I think there is a significant portion of the population this is absolutely alarmed by things like the Patriot Act, and whose thought, fears and consternation are NOT represented in the American media.

Does most of Europe think that all of us that voted Bill Clinton into two consecutive double digit wins, as well as a 65% approval rating POST IMPEACHMENT, have turned into rabid neo-conservatives overnight, and that narrow-minded bigots like Ann Coulter now speak for mainstream America? This is surely not the case.

The problem is that given the way the wind has been blowing these past 20 months, there is a huge segment of the population that is without a voice. The mainstream press has sold us out in favor or supporting our "warrior president".
posted by psmealey at 2:44 PM on May 17, 2003

What about Chile, where they elected Allende and America said, in effect, "You can't have Allende"?

Coulter is looking blank: "Who was elected by a free and open democracy in Chile?" Allende, I repeat. "I don't know enough about that to speak to it. But sometimes there are bigger fish to fry. The worldwide threat of communism was a bigger one."

I just forced myself to finish the article. Dear God.
posted by jokeefe at 4:21 PM on May 17, 2003

What pleasure it must give him

I bet that smug evaluations of earnest/outraged users' behavior give hamas heaven a nice frisson of recognition, too
posted by matteo at 4:22 PM on May 17, 2003

psmealey, I think that it's the case that you and Bletch are both right -- that what's interesting in Freedland's article is the attempt to understand Coulter as representing, in a way, an aspect of America the rest of the world needs to understand (just as I need to understand it, however much I'd like to believe it's a passing fad). It's her job to try to redefine the "mainstream", help keep it looking as rightwardly flowing as possible, in the hopes of convincing the (largely convincable) public that gosh, maybe it IS time to throw away those silly notions about racial equality and so forth.

Coulter's game is to make it seem as if she speaks for "real Americans" -- when in fact she is hoping to fashion opinion, not reflect it.

As for Coulter herself: the accusation "twit" (to say nothing of the dwelling on her perceived babe-itude) is in my view a gigantic missing of the point. She's deciphered the code for ideological success in the current media environment: fascinate with image, stay on message, overwhelm, never apologize, and take no prisoners.

Whether or not Coulter believes a single word of what she says is something I think no one watching/reading her is likely to know. Personally, she looks to me to be like a shrewd performer in pursuit of an endless string of rhetorical "wins" -- a perfect warrior for the Team Roger Ailes. Freedland seems oddly convinced he can figure out or discern what she really believes: hell, isn't it obvious that's the one thing that her performance precludes?

Final note to a too-long post. Coulter's savagery works for the right in the same way that PETA's super-radicalism helps more moderate animal-rights organizations. By making many of Bush's circle look "reasonable" her rants help keep the "mainstream" right where the Rumsfelds of the nation want to sail their toy boats.
posted by BT at 4:49 PM on May 17, 2003

To clarify my first point -- what I mean is that though I think it's great that Freedland wants to understand what Coulter represents or "speaks for," I think that she's more interested in shaping opinion than reflecting it.
posted by BT at 4:51 PM on May 17, 2003

What's the danger in selling candy laced with arsenic, if poison is so clearly bad for you?

We're talking about words here, not poison candy.

Dude, have you ever heard of a figure of speach? An analogy?

The thing I find more offensive I guess is that the angrier people here seem to (and maybe I'm mistaken) believe that Coulter is dangerous because she'll be able to brainwash and trick everyone else into agreeing with or following her. Which seems condescening to me. Give other people a little credit. You seem to be able to not be poisoned by her words, is that because you're so much smarter than everyone else?

I don't think anyone here thinks that "everyone else" is going to be convinced by her. Still, just as with Rush Limbaugh, there are a fair number of people listening to her, nodding their heads in agreement.

I do agree that everyone who hates her might just be better off to ignore her. Attention is what she craves, and that is exactly what she gets. But then, part of the beauty of this country is that she is free to blather on as much as she likes, and I am free to tell her to shut the fuck up.

(Ok, I've now used up at least an entire two month's worth of thought on her. I'll say no more.)
posted by kayjay at 5:24 PM on May 17, 2003

to someone who is clearly interested only in stirring up trouble deserve whatever they get

So, I should not speak up at the next Bush-bash or hysterical uninformed dogpile on Bill O'Reilly, or the next front page thread which bluntly seeks to demonize republicans? That sounds a lot like a double standard, which as a matter of fact, it is.

Where exactly are the "earnest" arguments?

There was a long stream of ignorant, pernicious name calling in this thread, which I found neither "earnest" nor pertinent, but rather ironic, just as I now find your comments. The message is: We'll preach tolerance unless we disagree with you, then you can just shut up.

Which I think is what you are saying, disappointingly.
posted by hama7 at 5:31 PM on May 17, 2003

I hate to say it, but I agree with hama7 on one point - tolerance works in both directions.

Ann Coulter is a pain in the ass, true - but she has just as much right to speak her mind as do those who oppose her. The point is, I'd rather have her as a public example of what is considered an unacceptable philosophy than as a private example of an accepted philosophy.

Both right and left members have agreed that, unless you agree with their viewpoints, your opinion isn't valid. I disagree - I like the idea of a country that embraces Carville and Coulter at the same time, listens to both of them (as well as other opinions), reviews the facts, and then frames their own opinion. I don't have to agree with what Coulter says - I just have to uphold her right to say it, however nasty it may be.
posted by FormlessOne at 5:52 PM on May 17, 2003

Which I think is what you are saying, disappointingly

Or maybe not. In any case, that's the point about "tolerance" I was trying to make to the Michael.

Which is the whole problem with the left.
posted by hama7 at 5:52 PM on May 17, 2003

I hate to say it, but I agree with hama7 on one point

I hate to say it, but thank you.

I didn't really hate to say that.)
posted by hama7 at 5:54 PM on May 17, 2003

"ignorant, pernicious ... hysterical, uninformed": Adjectives do not replace facts or examples. Find an argument you disagree with and refute it.

There was a long stream of ignorant, pernicious name calling

Sauce for the goose: this is Coulter we're talking about. Hell, she outright admitted to knowing nothing about Allende so there's your documented ignorance, and as for perniciousness, writing a book full of proven lies and slander ostensibly to expose lies and slander? If it gets more pernicious I'd like to know how.

hysterical, uninformed dogpile on Bill O'Reillly

As opposed to Bill O'Reilly himself being hysterical and uninformed, I suppose.

or the next front page thread which bluntly seeks to demonize republicans

There is a difference between demonizing a class of person and responding to the real-world actions of the principal representatives of those persons. Demonizing is what Coulter does to liberals, or tries to. Very much to the choir, so there's no actual harm done, but still.
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:56 PM on May 17, 2003

hama7: I'm sorry if you got the impression I wanted you to shut up; that wasn't my intent. I'm all in favor of the widest possible range of opinions being expressed on MeFi, and (as you may or may not remember) I've defended your right to speak against your more virulent detractors. What I find disappointing is that you so rarely (in the political threads) express views with any nuance or produce anything more substantive or interesting than the likes of "Coulter is a treasure, naturally." And the only point I can see to your posting that is to watch the outraged lefties cavort and squawk in a satisfying way.

That having been said, you're right that earnestness has been in short supply in this thread, and the series of sexist remarks you quoted is truly revolting. Grow up, guys.
posted by languagehat at 6:03 PM on May 17, 2003

What I find disappointing is that you so rarely (in the political threads) express views with any nuance or produce anything more substantive or interesting than the likes of "Coulter is a treasure, naturally."

You may find this hard to believe, but I am earnestly and very truly quite fond of Ann Coulter's writing, she is certainly tops among the political pundits, a genre which can be pretty dull.

I find her hilarious, insightful, outrageous and original, and frankly those factors all add up to my forming the opinion that she is a treasure. She is a treasure in much the same way that Phyllis Schlafly is a treasure. They are both outspoken, unexpected and honest, and virulently anti-feminist, and from intelligent women it's pure adrenalin.

So wow, big surprise, the Guardian interviews Ann Coulter, and Metafilter falls all over itself dumping on her. I disagree with the group, but Coulter is fantastic.

I did misread you comment, and I apologise.
posted by hama7 at 6:19 PM on May 17, 2003

See, now when you expand on your sentiment, I find it much more interesting. "Pure adrenaline" conveys something to me that "treasure" doesn't.

(No worries about misreading -- it's practically the MeFi national sport.)
posted by languagehat at 7:23 PM on May 17, 2003

hama7, I'm glad you love Coulter so much; it's nice to see someone taking so much enjoyment from life. You still, however, haven't responded to my last post.
posted by The Michael The at 8:22 PM on May 17, 2003

hama7: :-) The truth is the truth, after all. I don't agree with Ann; she's willing to overlook facts to push her opinion forth. But, then again, so do we all. The world isn't as simplistic as either side makes it out to be, nor is every issue cut and dried. Point is, we have the right to discuss and either affirm or refute those issues.

Part of the point of free speech is having the tolerance to listen to arguments to which we don't subscribe. We have just as much right to refute Ann's spurious claims as she does to claim them. Both right and left think that, somehow, if you don't agree with them, you've lost the right to say anything at all.

At that point, you've gone from democracy to something approaching fascism, to me. I'd rather have Ann visible, and defused, than invisible and festering.
posted by FormlessOne at 9:32 PM on May 17, 2003

As a writer, she makes a good TV personality. Her prose is choppy, unfocused, and often awkward - her columns read like C+ essays from a sixth grade punditry class.

She belongs to the Eddie Haskell school of modern witticism.

But...

She's got legs.
And she knows how to use them.

(And now that I've self-indulgently missed the point, I'll defer to BT's comment, which makes an interesting one.)
posted by Opus Dark at 10:03 PM on May 17, 2003

You still, however, haven't responded to my last post.

I kind of did, but let me try again:

Using filthy language and epithets to "demean" (your words) someone for their supposed "intolerance" smells a trifle like yesterday's salmon.

This thread and the responses in it are not exactly without precedent on MetaFilter. Cultural relativism is a leftist ruse to be used on only certain designated political targets, as I'm sure you're well aware, which is the problem with it, and your description of it as "love everyone and everything" leaves me wondering if you really understand its implications and pervasiveness. More here.

Sure, it's fine to be "intolerant" of Ann Coulter's ideas, because they "deserve" to be ridiculed and "demeaned", as do the other well-known topics about which it's politically correct to be "intolerant", like anti-abortion advocation, religion, patriotism, capitalism, or everyone's favorite: CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS. But the goal is the same: to tear down everything that the West stands for.

I'm certainly not suggesting that you should take your opinions elsewhere, nor that you should refrain from heaping derision, "loathing", intolerance or scorn on anything or anyone with whom you disagree, and you are obviously not alone on the topic of this thread.

But I'm going to speak up too.

I hope I have responded to your last post satisfactorily.
posted by hama7 at 10:42 PM on May 17, 2003

Point is, we have the right to discuss and either affirm or refute those issues.

We agree absolutely. Well said.
posted by hama7 at 10:43 PM on May 17, 2003

Sure, it's fine to be "intolerant" of Ann Coulter's ideas ... as do the other well-known topics about which it's politically correct to be "intolerant", like anti-abortion advocation, religion, patriotism, capitalism, ...

For you to speak of tolerance rings pretty hollow, but to speak of it in terms of Coulter is ludicrous. I haven't noticed anyone on MeFi advocating killing Ann Coulter for her beliefs -- whereas she has often advocated killling others for their beliefs. So spare us the "tolerance" bull. Nice attempt at using your opponents' language against them, though.

But the goal is the same: to tear down everything that the West stands for.

This pretty much seals it: you don't have any business calling anyone else "hysterical".
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:05 PM on May 17, 2003

But the goal is the same: to tear down everything that the West stands for.

or rather, what "your side" thinks it stands for. anyways, *tin foil hat reference*
posted by mcsweetie at 11:15 PM on May 17, 2003

"Check the mirror, friends. Your "intolerance" is showing."

How is my responding to your idiocy in any intolerant to Ms Coulter?

You still remain a troll, hama7.
posted by zerofoks at 1:01 AM on May 18, 2003

Cultural relativism is a leftist ruse to be used on only certain designated political targets, as I'm sure you're well aware

See, I was *not* aware of that. If you believe that CR is a "leftist ruse" with "political targets," you obviously haven't read any of the academic literature, especially anthropological, that is based on it. That said, I also guess that you glossed over what I said before: that CR is, frankly, bullshit. I'm glad the screeds you posted screamed the dangers of CR and Marxism, but in my university education (at a very liberal institution), it was given a fair and honest treatment in the several classes in which it was mentioned. I don't think I'm the only liberal that rejects CR, and I'm sure other individuals accept it wholeheartedly in all situations, not just on "political targets." So there you go, building that straw man again.*

But the goal is the same: to tear down everything that the West stands for.

I hate to break it to you, but Marx was German and wrote in England. That's pretty western. And Christ (if he was an actual person) lived in the Middle East (and the greatest number of the world's Christians live in the Eastern hemisphere). A-hem. Pardon the flippant response. What would you do if you found out that a, gasp, liberal, firmly believes in capitalism!??!?!?! (points to self)

hama7, I shall now make the most important point here:
You question my intolerance of Ann Coulter. I have no problem with well-argued, well-reasoned, strongly supported points of view, made by anyone, regardless of viewpoint, race, religion, etc. I pay attention and add to my intellectual growth. Ann Coulter, however, makes points that are NOT well-argued, well-reasoned, or strongly supported. Everything I've read or heard her say has been along the lines of "This liberal should be killed. Liberals are evil." I have seen no reasoning, no good arguing, no support. When she gets some of that, I'll listen. Until then, she's little more than an air-expulsion unit to me.

*Have you ever studied the philosophical problems with god-based morality?
posted by The Michael The at 5:48 AM on May 18, 2003

Barometer still working.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:50 AM on May 18, 2003

Ann Coulter is proof that you can never be too thin or too bitch.
posted by alumshubby at 8:58 AM on May 18, 2003

Marx was German and wrote in England.

Chomsky is American and writes in Boston. Anti-Western writing does not require a geographical location to be recognized as anti-Western.

And Christ (if he was an actual person)

I see what you mean about the "very liberal" education comment.

Ann Coulter, however, makes points that are NOT well-argued, well-reasoned, or strongly supported.

Well, that comment leaves me wondering if you've actualy read anything she's written. It's one thing to take her most outrageous comments and interviews for which she's paid to be a personality at face value, and it's quite another read what she's written before formulating a cookie-cutter opinion that miraculously mirrors a horde of likeminded sophisticates at MetaFilter. Coincidence?
posted by hama7 at 5:03 PM on May 18, 2003

And Christ (if he was an actual person)

I see what you mean about the "very liberal" education comment.

1. You know for a fact that Christ existed? Prove it. Was the earth created five thousand years ago, too?

Well, that comment leaves me wondering if you've actualy read anything she's written. It's one thing to take her most outrageous comments and interviews for which she's paid to be a personality at face value, and it's quite another read what she's written before formulating a cookie-cutter opinion that miraculously mirrors a horde of likeminded sophisticates at MetaFilter. Coincidence?

2. I've read a few articles by Coulter, and I've seen her on Bill Mahr's Real Time as well, none of which impressed me. Question my judgement all you want, but don't accuse me of being a simple follower. A civil discussion is nice, but insults are quite out of line.
posted by The Michael The at 6:22 PM on May 18, 2003

A civil discussion is nice, but insults are quite out of line.

That sounds familiar. Isn't this what I've been saying?

I don't have the benefit of having seen or heard Ann Coulter speak, so I can only base my impressions on what I have read.

No offense intended.
posted by hama7 at 7:23 PM on May 18, 2003

That sounds familiar. Isn't this what I've been saying?

word. wouldn't you agree that all the sexist comments flying around here prove the importance of feminism?
posted by mcsweetie at 7:38 PM on May 18, 2003

Chomsky is American and writes in Boston. Anti-Western writing does not require a geographical location to be recognized as anti-Western.

Well, there is an interesting shift in definition here. Marx comes straight out of Western European political theory and a long tradition of leftist reform efforts that came out of the Industrial Revolution. In fact, one of the suprising aspects of Marxism is that it assumes that any revolution would take place within an industrialzied capitalist society rather than in the agrarian fudal societies of Russia and China. Chomsky also certainly is not grounded in Eastern philosophy but entirely in Western philosophy.

While it is nice to use doublespeak to paint the left as anti-Western, the left is pretty firmly grounded in the same conception of Jeffersonian rights that were the foundation of American democracy. The idea that all humans are endowed with inalienable rights, rather than rights that just exist for the convenience of American citizens and only in times of peace.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:27 PM on May 18, 2003

I think the Sydney Line put it best:

"[The Sydney Line philosophy] derives from the Classical tradition of Greece and Rome and the British sceptical Enlightenment. [The Sydney Line] has long opposed the French radical Enlightenment and German Romanticism, as well as their derivatives: Marxism, Nazism, and contemporary identity group politics."

More here.
posted by hama7 at 10:13 PM on May 18, 2003

It's one thing to take her most outrageous comments and interviews for which she's paid to be a personality at face value, and it's quite another read what she's written

This, in the same posting where you link not to an article By Noam Chomsky, but to a smear piece which very selectively quotes Noam Chomsky. Nothing like practicing what you preach, eh?
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:42 PM on May 18, 2003

"[The Sydney Line philosophy] derives from the Classical tradition of Greece and Rome and the British sceptical Enlightenment. [The Sydney Line] has long opposed the French radical Enlightenment and German Romanticism, as well as their derivatives: Marxism, Nazism, and contemporary identity group politics."

Good for him. You know, hama7, no matter how much Keith Windschuttle wants to call Godwin on those things which annoy him -- the welfare state; his own academic colleagues; those uppity Australian Aborigines -- it still doesn't undermine the fact that Romanticism and the German Hegelian tradition are deeply Western. Only someone pathologically indisposed to the concept of dialectic could deny this.

What you're advancing instead is a totalizing position: the idea that there can be only one Western intellectual tradition (objectivism), and that any other candidates floating around not only don't qualify but are actually anti-Western. The irony is that this totalizing impulse carries you closer to Marx (there can be only one mode of production), or Foucault at his most extreme (there can be only one episteme), than you might think.
posted by Sonny Jim at 12:28 AM on May 19, 2003

What you're advancing instead is a totalizing position

I merely agree with the position, and it's proved to be the most successful and prosperous model, as most free capitalist democratic republics usually are. That's hardly "totalizing", but feel free to disagree.

I don't agree completely with objectivism (not that it makes any difference), but it has many qualities which make it noteworthy and interesting.
posted by hama7 at 12:58 AM on May 19, 2003

wouldn't you agree that all the sexist comments flying around here prove the importance of feminism?

Maybe, but chivalry and respect work pretty well too.
posted by hama7 at 2:26 AM on May 19, 2003

[objectivism] has many qualities which make it noteworthy and interesting

Such as what?
posted by Grangousier at 3:10 AM on May 19, 2003

Such as what?

Such as what is written in the links I provided, like laissez-faire capitalism, morality and stuff, and what enabled me to buy Cocteau Twins records like Victorialand and Garlands. :)
posted by hama7 at 3:37 AM on May 19, 2003

I find her hilarious, insightful, outrageous and original/outspoken, unexpected and honest

Yeah, well you could say much the same thing about a chimpanzee that craps in its hand and flings it at you. That doesn't make the chimp a credible political pundit.

I can't help but wonder at the mind that can (quite rightly) criticise the flaky logic and suspect fact-checking of Chomsky, while maintaining the frankly absurd position that Coulter is anything other than a grotesque media freakshow.
posted by backOfYourMind at 4:23 AM on May 19, 2003

Hatred only succeeds because we are all conditioned to believe that love is somehow embarassing.
posted by walrus at 4:52 AM on May 19, 2003

I see nothing especially interesting or noteworthy in the links Hama7 provided in this thread. Perhaps he'd like to explain what makes them so. Or perhaps he's talking about links from another thread. I only ask because I've tried to find out from objectivist web sites what it is exactly that their philosophy consists of and it seems to be, primarily, that they are right and everybody else is wrong. I can't see exactly what it is that they believe they're right about. More than any other ideological prejudice, conservatism seems to be about declaring oneself to be a member of a team and then cheerleading that team to the exclusion of any kind of flexible debate. At least Trotskyists argue about something, even if they are deranged.

I'm not sure that laissez-faire capitalism works, or at least you have to keep on adjusting your definition of "works" until it fits what results. If a stark division between rich and poor is a problem for one, then it definitely doesn't work. It's necessary for a society to decide what its priorities are and whether such a system supports those priorities. I've seen no real evidence that it does support the priorities that any of the societies that I'm familiar with value. Certainly I remember when the Thatcher government of the early 80s vocally supported a Friedmanite monetarist system (which is at least related, yes?) and had to abandon the project after a couple of years when it became clear that they were facing social disaster.

What exactly do you mean by "morality"? Occasionally someone like Peter Hitchens or Roger Scruton will appear on my radio to hold forth about Morality, but again they're pretty vague about what it is they're talking about. It seems to be something separate from the the individual and imposed from (for the sake of argument) above, but beyond blind obedience (and I would take a lot of convincing that that's in any way a virtue) I can't see what they expect from people. There certainly seems to be no corellation whatsoever between viable moral frameworks and economic systems.

Garlands is by a long chalk the least of the Cocteaux, ranking far behind even the (often unfairly dismissed) Parlophone albums.
posted by Grangousier at 4:57 AM on May 19, 2003

Hama7's Sydney Line link -

Since the 1920s, Sydney has generated a way of thinking that amounts to a distinctive intellectual tradition. It is not exclusive to Sydney, nor has it ever been the mainstream position in this city, but this is where it has established itself and thrived.

Oh fortheluvva... and the author's name is Keith Windshuttle !

You have got to be taking the michael now - come on!
posted by backOfYourMind at 5:32 AM on May 19, 2003

Here's a good place to start, if you're interested. I'm sure there's something in there about the amorality of socialism.

What I do not necessarily agree with is the objectivist view of atheistic morality, but to each his own.
posted by hama7 at 6:09 AM on May 19, 2003

What I do not necessarily agree with is the objectivist view of atheistic morality

A Christian who aligns himself with objectivism - I see mutually exclusive thought is a talent you've refined to a high art Hama7.
posted by backOfYourMind at 6:17 AM on May 19, 2003

That sounds familiar. Isn't this what I've been saying?

It's what we've both been saying, as well as other people in this thread.

mcsweetie: wouldn't you agree that all the sexist comments flying around here prove the importance of feminism?

george_spiggott: This, in the same posting where you link not to an article By Noam Chomsky, but to a smear piece which very selectively quotes Noam Chomsky. Nothing like practicing what you preach, eh?

KirkJobSluder: While it is nice to use doublespeak to paint the left as anti-Western, the left is pretty firmly grounded in the same conception of Jeffersonian rights that were the foundation of American democracy. The idea that all humans are endowed with inalienable rights, rather than rights that just exist for the convenience of American citizens and only in times of peace.

All very very true.

Maybe, but chivalry and respect work pretty well too.

Respect goes a long way, but chivalry has one fatal flaw: it comes from an era where women were mere posessions, and that is wholly incompatible with modern society. We (well, most of us) finally recognize that women are independent and sentient beings that are able to choose their own path in life without being controlled by another sex. Feminism is the process of helping the rest recognize the same thing. In its truest form, it has nothing to do with making men inferior to women, as many conservatives would have you believe.

About the Sydney Line:
Any philosophy that includes a bit on politics, such as objectivism, is suspect. The link discusses what it supports, but absolutely no (that I could find) discussion of the philosophical principles that support it. It's nice to say "We believe this and this," but as I have been stating, I want evidence. Show me the proof that this philosophy is valid and sound.

While it is now out of favour in the academy and in most of the media, and is today very much a minority taste

Out of favor... well, an epistemology shouldn't just go out of favor if it's valid and sound. Perhaps there has been sufficient evidence against it that aided in that drop from the public eye?

I don't agree completely with objectivism (not that it makes any difference), but it has many qualities which make it noteworthy and interesting.

Some yes, but the fact that it's based on a tautology (A=A) and that rape is endorsed as an act of love (see The Fountainhead) pretty much destroy it in my eyes.

What I do not necessarily agree with is the objectivist view of atheistic morality

Strange, that's one of the strongest points. Christian morality is much more hollow because it relies on either 1. God not being omnipotent or 2. a completely arbitrary set of moral rules. Ask if you need an explanation of that.
posted by The Michael The at 6:27 AM on May 19, 2003

I'm not interested in someone's opinion of the amorality of what someone else believes, I'm interested in their explanation of what they believe. That web site is one of the ones from which I was unable to extract anything of value. The fundamental problem of what I see there is that (ironically, I suspect) it stems from a position of judgementalism rather than any useful way of describing the world as it is. To me it resembles (irony, again) the harder forms of Islam, where "The Truth" is embodied in a book, to be conveyed by an elite class, contradiction of which is heresy. Similarly here, there appear to be a range of prejudices which are described as "rational", contradiction of which are irrational, socialistic or whatever. With the rejection of skepticism, their "rationalism" isn't rational at all, but a philosophy closer to gnosticism.

For all his faults (not least of which was a literary style as impenetrable as Rand's appalling prose), Marx did at least describe the structure of the world around him rather than try and impose a structure upon it. Notions of class and ideology may well still be useful today. If they are not useful then better tools should be found

I can see how, in a human world increasingly based around the pure exchange of data, notions such as those of the semioticists, the structuralists and post-structuralists have a lot of use. There is certainly a division between the reliability of the physical universe (at least on a Newtonian scale) and the universe of human interaction where, as far as I can tell, everything is contingent and everything is negotiated.

The society in which I live is messy and complicated and derived from a number of sources of which Capitalism is, no doubt, one. But my present comfortable state owes at least as much to the work of the labour movement, the postwar consensus (in the foundation of the National Health Service and the broadening of tertiary education) and the fact that England had its revolution early and managed to avoid a lot of the sort of turmoil that much of Europe saw during the 19th century. Turning one's nose up at the world because it doesn't resemble one's spotless theories is what I expect from fringey and broadly useless ideologies, be they Green Anarchism, Trotskyism or (apparantly) Objectivism.
posted by Grangousier at 6:51 AM on May 19, 2003

Hama: "[The Sydney Line philosophy] derives from the Classical tradition of Greece and Rome and the British sceptical Enlightenment. [The Sydney Line] has long opposed the French radical Enlightenment and German Romanticism, as well as their derivatives: Marxism, Nazism, and contemporary identity group politics."

Nice, but even this places the ideologies you hate firmly in the Western tradition (although even that is a bit murky, much of the Classical tradition comes to us filtered through Islamic philosophers like Averreros.)

The Michael The: Respect goes a long way, but chivalry has one fatal flaw: it comes from an era where women were mere posessions, and that is wholly incompatible with modern society. We (well, most of us) finally recognize that women are independent and sentient beings that are able to choose their own path in life without being controlled by another sex. Feminism is the process of helping the rest recognize the same thing. In its truest form, it has nothing to do with making men inferior to women, as many conservatives would have you believe.

Good points. It must be said that chivalry is based on the obligations of living in a fudalist society rather than a society based on equals engaging in trade and discussion within an open democracy.

One of the things that is not mentioned about Marx is that Marx was writing under conditions where free market capitalism had already broken down for many workers. If you lived in a company town, you were living in the midst of a horizontal monopoly. The company owned the house you lived in, the store you bought food from, the place you worked and the schools your children attended. The economics of these systems were fixed so that workers were always in debt, binding them to the job. Essentially, capitalism had re-created a 10th century fudal system in which large segments of the population were beholden to new Lords, or (many titles for which translate literally to "bread giver").

Ironically, these are whe very conditions in which Smith predicted that the market breaks down. The market works, only as long as there is competition.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:06 AM on May 19, 2003

For all his faults (not least of which was a literary style as impenetrable as Rand's appalling prose), Marx did at least describe the structure of the world around him rather than try and impose a structure upon it. Notions of class and ideology may well still be useful today. If they are not useful then better tools should be found

This was the problem with Marxist anthropology in the 70s and 80s. Cultural anthropologists studying largely egalitarian societies kept trying to use Marxist theories to describe the social situations, but failed, as it was as compatible as a square peg in a round hole. It sort of goes in, but it's a stretch (at best) to claim its a perfect fit.

The economics of these systems were fixed so that workers were always in debt, binding them to the job. Essentially, capitalism had re-created a 10th century fudal system in which large segments of the population were beholden to new Lords, or (many titles for which translate literally to "bread giver").

With the fixed economies, the company towns were essentially microcosms of communist economies. It's situations like these, where both communism and lassaiz-faire capitalism both break down, that demonstrate the need for some regulation of the economy.

I'm reminded also of an article I read (I wish I could re-find it) about the population of a certain Brooklyn neighborhood, Park Slope. The neighborhood is a gradient, from the poorest west side, by the Gowanus Canal, to the richest east side, adjacent to Prospect Park. The article described, amusingly, how the housing there was in essence acquired in one big road race that started at the canal. The poorest people, hungry and with children to carry, had to drop out of the race early, while the richest had cars, racing strollers, and bikes to easily outpace and outlast the rest and claim the best housing at the end near the park.

Pardon my poor recreation of the article, but it's also a representation of a strongly class-divided society. Capitalism has obviously worked much better historically (and theoretically) than socialism, but while the people of the lowest class may have every desire and will to raise themselves, they just don't start out with what they need to get there. In wholly free-market capitalism, the rich can just buy themselves new Maseratis and the poor can forget about even trying to catch them, and just stay where they are, creating larger and larger class divides.

This is a prime example, I believe, of why social development is a very worthwhile expense for a government that truly cares about its citizens. Citizens that are able to learn and develop as people, and even go on through college or further, are going to be infinitely greater benefits to society than a citizen that has to worry about from where his next meal is going to come, let alone graduating high school.

Have we veered too far off topic?
posted by The Michael The at 8:46 AM on May 19, 2003

social development is a very worthwhile expense for a government that truly cares about its citizens.

Which can't be done without punishing achievement.

Inequality of Wealth and Incomes

The Soviet System's Economic Failure

Full text at Mises
posted by hama7 at 5:13 PM on May 19, 2003

Which can't be done without punishing achievement.

Everything has its cost. Don't start crying "Soviets!" now, because that's not at all what I meant. You see "social development" and your tinfoil cap starts screaming "COMMUNISTS! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!" I'm obviously an advocate of free-market economics as I've stated above, but there is a balance to be achieved between the free market and social development. Is the 1/3 the government chops off my paycheck deterring me from economically achieving more? No, obviously not, because if I earn more, I'll still be taking home more than if I were earning less.

For example, if I earn $30,000 per year, I take home $20,000, but if I earn $90,000 per year, even though they're taking $30,000 from me, I'm still coming home with $60,000. That's a hell of an incentive for me.

The fewer people that are productive citizens, the worse off the economy will be, so in the long run, social development can benefit the economy more than harming it if performed properly.
posted by The Michael The at 6:26 AM on May 20, 2003