Several (thousand) blogs have tackled the menace known as Ann Coulter. They have discussed her ego, her ugly remarks about the 9/11 widows, liberalism, “Anti-Christian” gays, and the environmentalists who hate God. If we lived in a more intelligent age, a woman like Coulter would have been placed in an institution, or at least tenured in a Mississippi junior college History department.
Perhaps it is wrong to attack her arguments by attacking the person, but Coulter regularly carries out character assassination to sell her books and make money. She attacked the women whose husbands died in the collapse of the World Trade Center in the following diatribe:
“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”
As the NY Times wrote recently, “She has since suggested wistfully that Timothy McVeigh should have parked his truck in front of The New York Times, joked that a Supreme Court justice should be poisoned, and said that America should invade Muslim countries and kill their leaders. And she recently admitted that she is “no big fan” of the First Amendment that allowed her to say all of that.”
Her books sell in the millions, and she makes millions. But her political pornography is an incitement to hate. Her words, rather than elucidating or educating , merely enrage and anger. Lost is our sense of reason and logic.
This woman is no friend to conservatism, at least the conservatism that backs up argument with fact.
For more on Ann Coulter:
http://theheretik.us/2006/06/06/god-awful-ann-coulter
http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2006/06/evil_minds.html
Here in Van Nuys 
Oh Canada (is this the same person as Dave) wrote: … – or join forces with Ward Churchill. Check. Ok, that was just a shot. But I believe it.
Ann Coulter is a right wing public personality. She is not an academic nor does she hold any formal position of power within any official Republican Party organization.
Ward Churchill, on the other hand, is an academic, and the controversy spawned by “On the Justice of Roosting Chickens” is far reaching. The controversy over his essay and book, which boiled over four years after it was written, has led to Churchill poisoning the well for him and his colleagues in the Colorado public college system. The Colorado legislature will now have the power to micromanage tenure. This has a chilling effect on all instructors, especially considering that the political climate in Colorado is almost evenly divided between liberals and conservatives. Professors with rightward-leaning views had also better watch out, because the leftward-leaning residents could just as easily pressure them.
It’s also chilling because Churchill was expressing his own political beliefs and his essay was not written with “the authority of the chair,” meaning that “Roosting Chickens” was not intended as a scholarly or academic work. He is a small time Noam Chomsky, who is the most influential living leftist intellectual figure despite him not being a political scientist (his academic background is linguistics.)
Churchill’s actions were far more detrimental than Coulter’s.
… You view my conservatism, which is “deviant” …
I do not know you enough to gauge what your politics are. Nothing I am saying is an attack on you, so try not to take it personally.
… from your liberal world view as a weakness,
Just as I don’t know your politics, you don’t know mine well enough to call me a liberal. I am not, and I disagree with ideologies too much to take on a label myself.
But a liberal world view I regard as a compliment. Most people would if they knew what it was. Here is liberalism from Wikipedia:
Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value. Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed. In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property.
This is a widely accepted definition of liberalism in political science and philosophy.
This also means that most conservatives are liberals as well. Conservatives believe in the right to life, liberty and property. What makes American liberalism and conservatism different is that America never had to liberalize from monarchy. Conservatives preserve these rights without having the threat of a monarchy usurp them.
and your liberal world view as a strength ( or you wouldn’t believe it.). What’s your point. Check.
Much of western thought since the Enlightenment treasures liberalism and views it as a strength.
Fascism is anti-liberal. Fascism views the prerogatives of the state as superior to the needs of its constituents, and therefore needs to make its constituents accept the state’s prerogatives.
…By virtue of the fact she’s popular, this means she’s a fascist?…
Yes, but not by virtue of fact that she’s popular. Fascism is a form of totalitarianism that has had mass appeal. Communism, however, has not, since the Soviet Union provided succor to disparate communist movements throughout the world. Communists were able to succeed where they did because of the Soviet influence, but in many cases the popular revolution was a coalition that also included socialists and nationalists all competing for power.
Fascism has traditionally always required popular support among all classes, but popularity does not inherently make something fascist, as well see below.
Check. Does this also mean that the New York Yankees, Hugo Chavez, and Coldplay are facists?
Of these three you mentioned, Hugo Chavez has the possibility of being fascist. There is the cult of personality and there is a widespread support among the working class. What remains to be seen is how he’s ultimately received among the religious, military and economic elites. The international businesses community wants him dead, and for good reason. The petit bourgeoisie may still end up coming out ahead despite Chavez’s heavy-handedness. What remains to be seen is where the economic chips may fall. If he ultimately sets up a state-run command economy, he’d be more of a Leninist or Stalinist. If he ultimately wins the peace of the business elites, then we have a case of economic corporatism a la Mussolini. The same goes for his actions to the religious establishments. Religion (especially Catholicism) is not inherently right wing; there is a large pan-Latino liberation theology movement that is very popular and sympathetic to leftist causes.
New York Yankees and Coldplay are not political organizations, but sports has had the favor of fascist governments. Artists and intellectuals have traditionally been enemies of the fascist state.
Point 4: If her statements of violence are so inciteful and influential, give me an example of one violent statement that has come to fruition. Or I guess that was more of a theory. …
I could give you quite a few. Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” led to the death of 6 million people, and that was in the concentration camps. That’s not counting the casualties of war the Nazis inflicted or suffered. Karl Marx was not alive to see how the Soviets were inspired by his work, but his works would have to have the highest body count in history. This is revolutions, failed insurrections, Cold War client-state warfare, and killings committed by communist groups that have attained statehood. I could not come up with a hard figure, but the figure would have to be in the area of 300 million to 500 million. There are more examples. Jews around the world have been murdered by people influenced by a Czarist forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” More recently, Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was a reader of the white supremacist novel “The Turner Diaries.”
If you meant Ann Coulter, no political violence has occurred that has been attributed to her. Yet. Her books could long fade from public consciousness, but this does not mean her words will not influence some determined mad man or woman any time in the future.
PS: The world may not be Manichean, but some things are preferential.
I agree.
LikeLike
“If her books had been a work of scholarly aspirations, she would flunk out of a remedial civics class at a community college.” – or join forces with Ward Churchill. Check. Ok, that was just a shot. But I believe it.
“Second, she also frames her conservatism as strength and deviant ideologies as weakness”. – You view my conservatism, which is “deviant” from your liberal world view as a weakness, and your liberal world view as a strength ( or you wouldn’t believe it.) . What’s your point. Check.
“Coulter’s latest book is a No. 1 best-seller. This is no fluke.” – ie: By virtue of the fact she’s popular, this means she’s a fascist? Check. Does this also mean that the New York Yankees, Hugo Chavez, and Coldplay are facists?
Point 4: If her statements of violence are so inciteful and influential, give me an example of one violent statement that has come to fruition. Or I guess that was more of a theory. Never mind…I mean Check.
PS: The world may not be Manichean, but some things are preferential.
LikeLike
Dave wrote:
Go ahead and make your point. So far all you did was call ann names.
And I was letting her off easy compared to her comments.
But, anyway, if you love long-winded explanations on political philosophy, you’ll love this post.
Ann Coulter’s writing style and appeals closely mirror the fascist polemics of the early 20th century. Fascist and fascism have become a pop-culture slur, and merely invoking it ensures that all discussion heads downhill. But it’s important to realize that there was a method to the madness of fascism, and how fascism will reveal itself in societies that are in denial about it.
Fascism has many variants, but it generally describes a totalitarian government that believes that the people collectively form the entity of a state that is above them and is the supreme identity. Fascism comes from Italian and Latin words that mean “to fasten” or “to bind.” Fascism sought to fasten the people, the economy, religion, together into the state, which was one and the same with all of its constituent parts and at the same time superior to them.
Fascism is largely reactionary. The early 20th century was a tumultuous time, with intermittent periods of war and peace, political strife, rapid social change and unstable economic systems. Fascism competed with other ascendant political philosophies, especially liberalism, socialism and communism. This also came at a time when many states and churches were losing their grip over their societies.
Fascism did fasten societies together, though almost by accident. Fascism pushed together a complete society out of mutual desperation. Liberalism threatened the state establishments, the clergy and those employed by those institutions. The working class was also ambivalent to liberalism, since it was primarily a bourgeious movement. Socialism and communism threatened the merchant and propertied classes, but had tremendous appeal with the poor. Fascism was able to pick from all segments of society, but there had to be a common thread linking people of uncommon backgrounds.
Nationalism was it. If a fascist were to ask a Beltway political campaign manager how to sell fascism to the public, nationalism would be the “consensus builder.”
Nationalism itself is not an ideology, though, because it alone means that societies should be organized around a nation, a people who wish to organize a society around a common race, religion, language or geographic proximity. Nationalism itself does not endorse any particular economic system or administration of government.
Fascism, on the other hand, is totalitarian, which means it has clearly defined programs for all societal spheres.
Fascism has an economic program very similar to socialism and communism. Though the business class was protected, workers enjoyed a strong social safety net. Fascist governments were Keynesian. What set fascism apart from socialism and communism was that the latter two advocated that the economic sphere must be directly in the hands of government. Fascism would coordinate the interests of the government and the economy. Benito Mussolini referred to this cooperation as “corporatism.”
Fascism was also all-encompassing. Fascist governments always had a religious component, since religious institutions were able to organize and condition societies around the religion, the same way fascism sought to organize and condition societies around the state.
Also, religion was under siege from the radical left. Socialism and communism were atheistic and would have dismantled religious institutions. Religion, with prototypical fascist tendencies, was a beneficial ally and a protected entity under fascist governments.
Fascism also established itself as the polar opposite of the radical leftist ideologies, though all had appeal to the lowest classes. What distinguished the radical left from fascism was that socialists and communists positioned themselves as history’s victims out to avenge all past wrongs; fascists saw themselves as history’s enforcers and saviors.
This helps explain why fascism is the most violent political ideology. Going back to the historical divide, the radical left was pacific, wishing that people can overcome their history, which includes the violence of history. Fascism reveled in history, and evoked past military glory to the point where violence and raw emotion were inseperable.
The matrimony of violence and emotion manifests itself throughout fascism, as nationalism became hyper-emotional. National emblems became totemized. Anthems, flags and institutions bearing the state’s name stirred tremendous passions throughout the citizenry.
Fascism’s leaders valued emotion and saw reason as a threat. If emotion and violence were inseperable, reason and peace must be the polar opposites. Intellectualism threatened to soften the populace and make weaker men.
Men in the sense of males, not the archaic gender-neutral term to mean humans. Males are physically stronger, and a nation that values violence and passion must emphasize that strength is masculine and weakness is feminine. The weak are to serve the strong if they are to survive. Women are to be systematically weaker, but must be passionate just enough to embrace their roles in society. They would fulfill the servant roles of sex outlets, homemakers and child-rearers.
Men, meanwhile, assume the feminine role in relation to the state. They would put their strength to serve the state as workers and warriors. The warrior culture is especially important, as this is where they also learn the premium society has for loyalty. After all, loyalty=strength; rebellion=weakness. And, the martial environment is where they can put passion-violence to practical use.
The military became the embodiment of fascism in practice: passionate, violent, loyal, strong and successful producers of national glory.
And this is the shortest explanation I could give of fascism as a general philosophy. The most prominent European fascists, Spain’s Franco, Italy’s Mussolini and Germany’s Hitler, are all considered fascist but each regime had distinguishing characteristics that made them different in style and substance.
So where does Ann Coulter figure into fascism the ideology, and not just fascism the political slur?
Her writing makes it clear that she is playing to her readers’ emotions. (If her books had been a work of scholarly aspirations, she would flunk out of a remedial civics class at a community college.) She uses political and ethnic terms with the intent to slander those people by virtue of association. Her prose is also Manichean, with the logic being binary and juvenile. This further proves that she is only attempting to appeal to her readers’ base emotions.
Second, she also frames her conservatism as strength and deviant ideologies as weakness. Remember what attribute fascism values.
Third, fascism is totalitarian, but it has always had widespread popular support among all classes. Coulter’s latest book is a No. 1 best-seller. This is no fluke. Obviously, a large number of people agree with her and support her by buying her book. Temporary popularity has no bearing on the merits, or ethical and moral implications of the work itself. The atrocities of Nazism are not mitigated by the fact that most Germans were cool with Hitler’s regime during the 1930s and 1940s.
Fourth, Coulter has repeatedly and casually desired inflicting harm on people she hates. Coulter herself will never do these things herself, but even she has enough common sense to know that her words carry heavy weight because she’s a public figure. She’s in a position to incite violence, and has never disavowed her statements. Moreover, she knows her vitriolic statements, like exploding the New York Times or poisoning judges, is a shared sentiment by the rich and powerful and she will not be punished for making such statements.
Fifth, Coulter is a conservative. That means she agrees with the conservative program, which has largely been reactionary since the last half of the 20th century. A conservative believes society should not move forward, or if it does, slowly enough to be acceptable. Self-described conservatives have been on a crusade to dismantle laws that have resulted in favorable gains for workers, women and minorities. (Liberals fret over why poor whites vote Republican against their “class interests.” I’m personally less forgiving to excuse this behavior as a symptom of pervasive propaganda. Poor whites, especially males, are voting in their class interests. A poor white male once had coverture; women’s rights effectively took away the man’s property right acquired in marriage. White males sees workers’ rights as a form of weakness; you work hard or not at all, especially when all the jobs available are crap. Also, the civil rights laws throughout the mid-20th century meant that governments could no longer use the power of the law explicitly against minorities and provided for remedies; this meant that minorities could now get help that made them a viable threat to whites for jobs, education and other civic resources. This is why the good old days have a certain appeal.) No doubt many conservatives feel the best days are behind us and society must reclaim greatness by going back to what made us great, as opposed to whatever the future may hold.
So, let’s run down the list. Emotional appeal? Check. Strength appeal? Check. Mass appeal? Check. Carnal appeal? Check. Romanticized historical appeal? Check.
It was not easy for me to write all this, but a small thank you or kudos is appreciated.
But name-calling is much easier and way more fun. :> And to think I spent all that time minoring in political science in college and worried that I can never put it to use.
LikeLike
Wad,
Go ahead and make your point. So far all you did was call ann names.
LikeLike
Oh canada, if you would like a brief description on what fascism is, I will be glad to provide it. It might involve long paragraphs and multisyllabic words, so it’s not exactly for everyone.
Then you must also recognize that I can make a damn fine point, and once I do so, give me some credit.
Oh, and by the way, neo-liberal is not a widely accepted term in politics. Presumably you mean a counterpart to neoconservative. Neo-liberal is a widely used term in economics, though. The American translation of the term is someone whose economic philosophy resembles those of the Libertarian party.
LikeLike
We’re not talking about Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Oriana Falacci, “oh canada.” She’s got the cojones (metaphorically speaking, of course). Coulter didn’t make her name attacking Islam; she has made it by pulling ludicrous publicity stunts like, well, attacking the 9/11 wives.
LikeLike
Can we please move past the references to Hitler that neo-liberals have been pulling out of the air whenever someone decides to stand up to people and governments who want to murder you if you’re gay, a woman who wants to sleep with more than one man, white, go to a non-religious university, are a different religion other than…i won’t say it, are a different sect of a religion other than…I won’t say it. Anyway, the more rediculous your analogies and accusations become, the more people move away from your ideas and positions, and the vast right wight conspiracy grows in your mind and feeds off itself. Anyway, grow up and please move on.
Ann is the balls.
LikeLike
Ann Coulter is a right-wing porn star.
She owes a great deal of her career due to being a waifish blonde. Otherwise, she would be a cipher in the chatter of hate radio.
But she taps into a righty’s primal lust for, 1) her and, 2) for the things she says.
Coulter’s invective melds lowest-denominator tub-thumping with a romanticization and incitement of violence. She’s a textbook fascist.
She’s clearly playing to the angry white male. She appeals to their basest carnal and political desires in a way that Rush, Gordon or Bill cannot. She is the reincarnation of Mussolini and Hitler with sex appeal.
LikeLike