I received an email this morning that I think is worth sharing inasmuch as it—when coupled with my reply—crystallizes certain of my positions on speech and identity politics. Under the subject line “Ann Coulter,” “esmyth” writes:
Ah, the irony!
When I was a little girl and anti-war liberals and hippies were tearing up the country with their explitive-laced vitriol, conservatives were the ones who stood for decent, respectful speech.
Now I’m a big, grown-up lady and it is the liberals who call for decent, respectful speech. Why? Because it is the *conservative* media, the *conservative* readership and the *conservative* politicos that have made Ann Coulter the movement’s mouthpiece (and a millionaire, let’s not forget!)
Ann Coulter may not speak for you personally, but she doesn’t care. And as long as she continues to rake it in, it’s not unfair to assume she speaks for *somebody.* A lot of somebodies. Who are they, then, if not the collective “you”? It’s not like CPAC didn’t know what she was like when they put her at the top of the bill last week.
And you know what? The shoe is on the other foot now. Now it is liberal America that can, with the ‘08 election just around the corner, say (quietly at first, and just to each other) “they must be insane – why are they just handing us the country like this?”
Well, I won’t worry too long about that. I’ll just laugh all the way to the voting booth!
I fear you not.
My reply:
Uh, I’m glad you don’t fear me, really I am.
But I didn’t attend CPAC—and many of those who did have already condemned Coulter’s joke. Others (like me) noted that we would, had we been asked, admit that we didn’t think the remarks particularly funny (having now seen the video-clip, I don’t believe it was intended as homophobic; Coulter claims, as I ventured in my original post, that she was using the word colloquially, and she specifically, in the same speech, lays claim to a pro-gay position, so I’m now inclined to defend her on principle)—but saying so when asked personally is quite a bit different than having a political opponent demand you distance yourself from something you didn’t say. Because to do so is to admit tacitly that your “side” is represented by anyone willing to claim its mantle—and as I don’t think there is a homogeneity to “conservative” speech (or to “conservatives” as a group, today so broadly defined as to be politically meaningless), I refuse to accept the tacit premise, which, as I argued in my original post, dignifies certain ideas about identity politics that progressives wish to see insinuate themselves structurally into the various modes of discourse.
Once that happens, the battle for individualism is, in my opinion, all but lost.
I do, however, find it telling that you view the policing of speech as a kind of game between competing political sides—and that it’s your side’s “turn” to make the rules. Far be it for me to offer advice to someone who believes herself to be so personally vindicated by the outcome of certain elections, but perhaps you need to step outside of your political identity for a few moments and look at things from the perspective of whether or not speech should, in fact, be policed based on how “respectful” it is—particularly when, as you all but concede in your petty tirade here, those in power get to decide what is, in fact, “respectful.”
For my part, I have never called for any such thing (does that mean I’m not really “conservative”?)—and when I was a little boy, and “hippies were tearing up the country with their explitive-laced vitriol,” I was on their side—if not politically, at least Constitutionally. It is only when the hippies grew up and, having mainstreamed their power, began instituting “free speech zones” and “hate speech” codes and insisting on a “tolerance” that has robbed useful discourse of its necessary saltiness and variance, that they lost me.
You, on the other hand, presume to decide what is respectful based on a combination of politics and schadenfreude—and what’s worse, you don’t even seem to believe that you’re doing so for any other reason than that you now can.
So I DO fear people like you…
One thing never really talked about is this assumption on the part of many “progressives” that those of us who are now identified as “conservative” would, in generations past, have been identified in that same way.
Which is why the implicit accusation that modern conservatives are responsible for the sins of “conservatives” past is so disingenuous—relying, as it does, not on a stable meaning of “conservatism” (leftism or “progressivism,” unlike today’s “conservatism,” is self-styled and advocates for a clear collectivist agenda), but rather on the deployment of the appelation by those who wish to tar any political opponent.
There is, of course, a broad berth between Pat Robertson and his paleocons, James Dobson and his social cons, and the South Park “conservatism” of classical liberals and right-leaning libertarians, who differ from the Reason libertarians mostly over national defense and the weight given the various branches of government under the separation of powers.
My emailer here seems to think that because many on the left have branded me a “conservative,” I am somehow necessarily tied to the entire spectrum of conservatism, which is, of course, absurd. In fact, the foreign policy and trade agendas of “progressivism” so often coincide these days with those of paleoconservatism that it is far more appropriate to call “progressives” collectivist paleocons than it is to lump, say, South Park conservatives or “neocons” together with Robertson (or even, to a certain extent, people like Bill Buckley).
Which is not to say either Robertson or Buckley aren’t conservatives: they of course are. Rather, it’s to point out that not all conservatives speak for other conservatives—which is precisely the point I made in my post addressing Coulter’s comments.
I recognize the political pragmatism involved in this game of “distancing” oneself from speech that can potentially hurt the (phantom) collective. I just think it’s a short-term fix that creates greater long-term problems for the tenets of classical liberalism.
****
update: Michelle Malkin with Bill O’Reilly on Coulter and Bill Maher; Coulter’s response on “Hannity and Colmes”; Laura Ingraham on Coulter. (via Hot Air)
****
update 2: Some spirited debate going on in the comments, which I appreciate. And just so my position is clear, allow me to reproduce here one of my responses from the thread:
I am not at all willing to concede that just because something can sound bad in soundbite form it is necessary for the right to rush to condemn it.
In my original post, I linked two such instances: Bill Bennett’s black abortion remark and Tony Snow’s use of tar-baby.
I believe my position on both those was perfectly clear.
Here, I believe something similar has happened. But it will only be what the progressives like to call a “teachable moment†were we to coalesce around what it was really intended to do, at least in principle.
I don’t see how pointing out that it may have failed to make its point as effectively as it wished to, however, can be construed as a “cringe-and-retreat†reaction.
It is a fair criticism of the execution.
Let me put this bluntly: having now seen the comments in context (including Coulter’s earlier commments in the same speech that staked a claim, from a conservative legal perspective, as pro-gay), I not only don’t feel the need NOT to condemn Coulter, but I support what she said in principle.
I just think her execution was sub par. There were less loaded terms she might have chosen, but that doesn’t make her remark homophobicâ€â€nor is there any need, given the context, to distance oneself from them (unless, of course, one wishes to see certain words completely stricken from the lexiconâ€â€a gambit that never works, as the intent behind them is, like oil, fungible).
In the past, I’ve criticized this kind of policing of words on any number of occasions, from efforts to demonize “illegal alien†to “oriental†to the PC nonsense that is working its way through textbooks.
There is, not to put too fine a point on it, something remarkably arrogant about homosexual advocates (and their active and tacit defenders) thinking it is their “right†to take ownership of a word that has, with usage, taken on different valences.
And the answer to them should be, “no, you can’t have it ‘back,’ because it was never really ‘yours’ to begin with.â€Â
Incidentally, I emailed a link to this post to people who have taken a number of different positions on Coulter’s remarks—from those offended by the remarks themselves to those who are defenders of the political pragmatism argument for distancing ourselves from the remarks as they were likely to be characterized.
So far, no response. Too bad, too, because I think “conservatives” are quite capable of the kind of internal debates we’re seeing in the comments; the only problem is trying to get that debate to take place on a wider scale, and unfortunately, I don’t have the kind of bully pulpit that can really drive such conversations.
*****
update 3: In the comments, Steve argues:
I am reminded of the whole “niggardly†thing. Of course, we KNOW what it means. But, you cannot really use it unless you want to be misunderstood and have your message distracted.
As for Bill Bennett and Tony Snow (catching up here), different things. Obviously, Bennett was working on an assumption of Black crime. He should have apologized. As for Tony Snow, only an ignoramus would not understand the meaning of Tar Baby, but, in his case, I wouldn’t apologize but I would have to file it under the class of analogies that I wouldn’t be able to use in the future. Unfortunate, but true.
This is, of course, quite stunning and more than a bit dangerous to the cause of liberalism.
I mean, look again at what Steve just argued: “Of course, we KNOW what it means. But, you cannot really use it unless you want to be misunderstood and have your message distracted.”
Translation: We know what it means, but we must assume nobody else does. Therefore, their misunderstanding is to be countenanced and massaged—which, in effect, empowers ignorance rather than treating it as ignorance. It is the perfect example of the intellectual welfare state: rather than working to force people to break out a dictionary, we’d rather provide them with succor because, well, they can’t really be expected to learn things on their own, right? Those kinds of people?
That is a conservative position?
The position Steve holds, in fact, is hardly different from that held by regular pw troll “heet,” (see here) who flits through threads on occasion dropping invective, not at all conscious of the contradiction his own actions betray when compared to those to which he (ostensibly) prescribes.
“heet,” like Steve, knows that Coulter wasn’t making a homophobic reference. He’s only excited that he is able to pretend to take it that way and use it against her specifically, and against a monolithic group that he describes as “conservatives” more generally. Ditto his use of “tar baby” as a bludgeon—even though for that he could be kicking the now dead Robert Anton Wilson.
If Steve, or tachyonshuggy, eg., can’t see how this is related to “progressivism” and identity politics, I’ve been doing a lousy job explicating the linguistic underpinnings at play here.
I will say this, though—Ric and Steve Graham are right: As a political coalition, conservatives are suffering because many in that coalition are more concerned with appearing ”moral” than in defending the underlying principles of classical liberalism, no matter how distasteful they find the actual speech. Similarly, they are so concerned with trying to keep ammunition out of hands of the progressive left that they are allowing themselves to be outflanked.
I’m speaking here of the letter writers (which, no links from any of them, not surprisingly; the debate is OVER! A LETTER HAS BEEN WRITTEN!). As I noted in my first post, those who truly disagree with what Coulter said are certainly entitled to express that. However, the idea that they be compelled to do so is ludicrous—and the idea of language that is being given credence here is dangerous and, yes, tied to a progressive idea of identity politics.
So it is NOT a diversion to bring up progressivism, because their conception of how language works (an empowerment of the interpretive community to define the intentions of the speaker) is so remarkably dangerous.
****
final update: esmyth responds:
Hello, all.
I would like to thank Jeff for posting my letter and graciously inviting me to look in on the debate. It is a fascinating read – no irony or sarcasm intended.
First, I would like to say that many of the points here are good ones. I appreciate especially the references to the whole “niggardly” debacle, which I agree is one example (among too many, I’m afraid) of political correctness gone crazy.
Furthermore, everyone who complained about a double-standard, in which certain leftists tar all their foes with the Ann Coulter brush but then say nothing about Al Franken’s shameless and sophomoric book lampooning Rush Limbaugh’s weight issues, is absolutely correct.
On the other hand, I see plenty of that sort of thing going on in this thread, too, “the leftists” do this, “the leftists” say that. I guess it is human nature to picture one’s own philosophy as it appears on the ideal plane and critque the other guy’s as it appears in the much muddier waters of practical application.
This something that most of us must consciously set aside if we want to think realistically. It’s not easy, as you all know. And I must ask your indulgence for a moment to consider what it’s like to have best-selling books out there shrieking that I and all my loved ones are “traitors” and “godless.”
It is said that revolutions attract the best and the worst of men. Well, maybe the extreme polarization of debate in out country is not only putting the best and worst Americans to the public fore but also perhaps bringing out the best and worst in average individuals, too. Myself included.
So, I will do my best to take the lessons here to heart and to remember that Ann Coulter is a product not of any particular consensus on the Right, but of an entertainment industry which at best is a double-edged sword.
Finally, to the writer who is horrified by the idea that I may have reproduced and pities my offspring: I extend a very sincere invitation for you to come and meet my lovely little girl. I’m afraid you may be dissappointed, though, to find that my husband and I have raised her in what used to be called the “conventional” manner. Politeness towards others is mandatory at all times. She has been doing chores since nursery school. She gets no exposure to bad language or even her parents’ political biases. We place highest value on personal responsibility and solid education. To us, these are the qualities a person needs to get along in the world no matter whom one votes for…
Well, thanks again Jeff. Here’s to hoping for a better future, when the resentment and mistrust abate and left and right can find some common ground on which to build a better country for all.
Yeah. I could live with that.
God, I hope she doesn’t have children. You don’t suppose she has children, do you? Can you imagine being brought up by that? A do-nut full of Preparation H.
So what. Markos said, “screw ‘em”, with regard to four Ameericans who were dragged out of their vehicles, murdered, their bodies burned and then hung from a bridge. Is that a sentiment we can paint all leftist/progressives with?
Not if you have a brain and actually use it. But then it is so very easy to use broadbrush stereo-types and mis-characterizations.
What a twit. I guess when you have no ideas, you resort to smearing those you oppose. How at home your correspondent would have probably felt denonuncing her neighbors to the party block committee, or accusing someone of witchcraft.
My biggest concern is the Right’s collective apology, conceding the terms of debate. The circle of acceptable speech slowly, progressively constricts. I don’t mind if the Left hangs themselves with that noose, but I do mind if the Right follows suit. Interestingly, the Left seems to have boundless forgiveness for their “smart” and “funny” entertainers. Wouldn’t it be great if Cheney had been killed? Ha ha! And that’s from Barney Frank–an elected official. I would presume he does speak for his constituents, no? Amanda Marcotte was hired because her politics mirrored Senator Edward’s, right?
Ann Coulter represents exactly who? If we want to make that argument, then I think we should be a lot more stringent with all people who step over the line while making political commentary. Actually, I don’t believe that at all. It’s called free speech.
Steve H. Graham has been saying for years that the Left will win by attrition. When a Leftist screws up, the rest of the Left circles the wagons and starts defending the offender and accusing the victim. When a Rightist screws up, the rest of the Right turns to savage the offender and cast him or her out.
This is a demonstration of that, with Steve himself pushing for a chance to take a slash.
The Left’s prime tactic these days is being offended at trivialities and depending on the sympathy thus garnered. We, all of us (including Jeff) just conceded the right to define the terms of discourse to our enemies, and thus lost a bit of ground in the contest.
Regards,
Ric
Melissa: Of course, you’re right. That letter was moronic and sounded remrkably like the kind of thing Kos or the mindless Marxkinder would have written. I said as much at Captain’s Quarters. The Right is being polluted by Left-think. In five years, there will be no effective philosophical difference left between the parties.
TimB: I realize it’s a tad coarse and inelegant–especially at this time of day–but fuck off. I just want to say that while free speech is still legal.
Fuck off. There, that felt good.
Excuse me, Tim P.
Love it: The irony of not seeing one’s own irony.
Only when it serves them, dearie, as the facts themselves show, only when it serves them.
But yes, they do tend to be for stuff before the political tide turns, and like group-think schooling fish, bingo, now they’re against it.
Think Instant Leftist Boilerplate.
How did I do that, exactly, Ric?
I think the joke fell flat, but I am certainly not conceding the right to define the terms of discourse—and in fact am making just the opposite case.
Having not found the joke funny or particularly timely is not the same as finding it offensive or rushing to act offended.
And I’ve stated several times now that those who do are weakening classical liberalism for short-term pragmatic political considerations.
Now I’m a big, grown-up lady and it is the liberals who call for decent, respectful speech.
Except, of course, for when they lose all sense of decorum and get hateful because they are so fed-up.
Unless you are talking about in the aggregate, Ric, in which case I take your point and agree with you wholeheartedly.
No. If the Right was taking up NewThink, Coulter would have immediately issued a Moulitsian “apology”—“I’m just so very sorry you’re so thin-skinned you can’t take a trivial insult.”
Look, it’s obvious that there’s no apology they will accept—that’s an unfillable void, a black hole into which all sincerity vanishes, generating more heat and light as it crosses the event horizon. There is no point in shoveling more of our souls into the Pit. Screw ‘em.
Regards,
Ric
Now I’m a big, grown-up lady and it is the liberals who call for decent, respectful speech.
Bwahahahaha, You might want to check Patterico’s Pontifications roundup on that. *wink*
I’m not so much bothered by what Coulter said as by the venue in which she said it. I can’t imagine that Lincoln would have called Douglas a faggot in any venue. I don’t understand what it is that we’ve lost by expecting a modicum of civility.
I think Jeff’s attitude is exactly right: it doesn’t fall to me to apologize for what Coulter says.
Hmmm.
Remember. When a progressive, such as California Lt Gov Bustamante, calls African-Americans “ni**ers” it’s an act of love.
LOVE! You got that!? LOVE!!
Don’t even get me started on Robert Byrd.
Yes, it’s primarily “in the aggregate”, Jeff, but you are distancing yourself—or attempting to—from Coulter’s remarks, and a nod is as good as a wink in this case. As I said before, their whole strategy depends on not accepting that. They won’t, and every time you give ground they’ll attack more strongly. It’s the definition of their strategy, and it works. Why would they give a millimeter when the others are retreating?
Regards,
Ric
Hmmmm.
Looks like this “big, grown-up lady” has never been to DU.
I am only distancing myself from the efficacy of the joke, Ric. Of course, I wasn’t there, and so there is a certain “flow” that I’m missing from the overall context of the speech.
Having now seen the clip, though (and as I make clear in today’s post), I don’t think she said anything homophobic, and so I am now far more inclined to take up her defense.
I don’t distance myself at all from her right to make the joke, nor do I think it appropriate for anyone else to apologize for her.
Coulter’s decision not to apologize, too, is hers. On Hannity and Colmes, she makes a persuasive case (she butters me up by using “intend”), and so for me, that puts paid to that.
Whether or not what she said is helpful to the conservative “movement”, on the other hand, is a different question entirely—one that is dependent upon the reaction. Which, as with the Dubai Ports deal, has been entirely wrongheaded, in my estimation.
There will be no retreat from me, trust me. I just this morning caught the more full context via the Hot Air clips—which will only strengthen my position.
My first response, which didn’t DEFEND Coulter so much as it noted that it is not my obligation to condemn her, was based on having only heard the brief bit that is being quoted everywhere.
I don’t think Coulter is a homophobe, I don’t believe the use of “faggot” or “that’s so GAY” should be policed, and I don’t think everyone rushing to condemn her thought through the implications of what they were doing.
I also don’t think, politically, the remark is particularly helpful unless those of us interested in classical liberalism can turn it around and use it to expose the tactics of progressivism.
I’ve tried to do that. If I’ve been unsuccesful, that’s a failing of execution, not of ideology.
Until you have heard the ENTIRE SPEECH you have no right to comment. This of course was taken totally out of context and I found it very funny. It is so appropriate that the same people excoriating Ann are the same ones that said or did nothing when Dean and his cronies called Bush worse than this. Her meaning is clear to all who bothered to listen to the entire thing. Of course she is ascerbic and the remark by itself is crude but, in the context it was not and all this kerfluffle is much ado about nothing. Really folks, don’t you have something else to bitch about? How about Shrillary’s southern drawl in her speech in Selma? Or perhaps that global warming is a big scam and Algore is a crook. sheesh
By the way, colliquial English defined faggot as a man with a mustache so stick that in your pope and smike it.
I guess one reason we keep returning to the “fag sound bite” is because there is an irresistable urge to hyperbolize the whole thing.
I think it’s really rather simple. Ann Coulter, who has made a career, among other things, by being outrageous, used the word “faggot” at a distinguished political forum.
Now, I do think there is some political blowback here (I have discussed it.) I also don’t think that Ann “really” hates fags, and, for that matter, neither do I. I do however consider it simply obvious that words like faggot, including “raghead”, and including all the well-known blood-drawers, are just not appropriate to any public speaking venue, much less syndicated columns, books, etc. I’m surprised that anyone cannot see that.
Oh, please. “Faggot” has NEVER been acceptable speech when referring to a non-stick.
No one has done anything of the kind. You don’t go around calling people “faggots” in public speeches. Why is that so hard to understand?
Are you telling me they were BOTH faggots?!
I AGREE that ritualistic distancing is phony precisely because it is ritualistic. If you don’t think it is appropriate to say “faggot” at a political convention, then say so. If you think it is, then say so. If you feel that you shouldn’t have to comment on someone else’s words, also fine. Of course, if the latter, that sort of limits the amount of condemnation that can be dished out the next time Amanda talks about her “twat.”
1. Actually, you have every right.
You just might come across as uninformed.
2. And I do believe that, in addition to refusing to pile on Coulter, this site has been quite active on the Gore scam front.
Until you’ve read the site, you might wish to see number 1, above.
Issue for me is, I didn’t find it funny or offensive. I’m not going to condemn Coulter for anymore than a bad joke, which countless liberal “humorists” are very guilty of on a daily basis.
Don’t understand that last bit, Steve. There’s a difference between being coerced into a ritual denunciation and choosing to speak on an issue. I wrote my post about Coulter before I’d read anything other than an AP article on it. It was my reaction. I knew it would be a kerfuffle. I said what I thought and moved on. If that’s not satisfactory to someone else, fuck ‘em.
Bullshit. How can you know that in advance? Context and intent are what matters. As I keep saying, the kind of short-term political pragmatism that accepts the demonizing of words is a long-term loser for classical liberalism.
Also horseshit, insofar as it is attempted as a subtle dig. Coulter is not representing any candidate, and so doesn’t presume to speak for any. Marcotte and her twat, different story.
And, if you want to make the argument that Coulter speaks for “conservatives,” well, I believe the post already deals with that.
Dan: I am not trying to get you, or Jeff, or anyone else to “condemn” Coulter. I am surprised that so many fine intellects are turning themselves into pretzels trying to argue that there is nothing objectionable about using the word “faggot” in a public speech. OF COURSE it’s objectionable.
And, yes, if you aren’t going to “police” usage of a word that everyone knows is objectionable (talkin’ ‘bout “faggot”, here), then you lose some ground the next time some lefty is accused of using inappropriate speech.
You know, I do get it as far as the political ramifications go, of Ann Coulter using the “f” word in front of a Repub get together that’s official and important. Would Lincoln make her comments? No. Surely in Lincoln’s time there was a court jester who would have, though.
I just don’t think the political price outweighs the free-speech price. If the organizers wanted a guarantee of appropriateness, they should have had Peggy Noonan speak.
But more than that, look how trying to play nice and share works with the progressive Left. Concede, concede, concede and they still will paint the Right as homophobic, racist, greedy, misogynous, war-mongering, teacher-hating thugs. They want us to shut the hell up. First, it’s Coulter. Next, it’s you and me.
I’m with Ric on this. Concede nothing. And, for what it’s worth, I don’t think Jeff is conceding anything. What was shocking to me over the weekend was how the Right jumped on the bandwagon with such enthusiasm. Maybe in the flush of the CPAC high, Coulter’s tin note deflated the love-in, but perspective has been totally lost.
Just a wee blogger in Texas, but the meta-issue for me is Free Speech and the Left’s concerted effort to police the Right. Their own moral rightness is never in doubt, so self-policing, would like be, so like totally redundant, ya know?
I condemn Dan for using the word “kerfuffle” ‘cause that’s just gay.
Ha! You meant “kerfluffle”!
I bet you understand completely why we allow this type of speech, which makes me wonder why you feel the need to put yourself in the position of arbiter of what can and cannot be said in public.
Ric is right; we need to stop with the hair shirts when one of “ours” says something outrageous. Yes, it was outrageous. So what? Who doesn’t know by now that this is what Ann does?
DISTURBING visual. Thanks a lot.
Don’t put words in my mouth fascist!
Then I suppose we should all immediately demand an apology from you steve and strongly suggest you enter rehab. Or are blogs magically exempt from any public speaking venues?
I’m a regular reader and commenter—I was going to say “contributor”, but that’s somebody else’s judgement to make. And if I see Jeff’s reaction as participating in the cringe-and-retreat the rest of the Right is doing, what can you expect the lefties to see?
Imagine what would happen in a parallel case from the opposite side. Actually no imagination is necessary—just read the comment thread at Patterico’s. Oh, that was so long ago, and the person issuing the slur is nobody important, and the whole thing is just, y’know, minor and why are you so thin-skinned, and anyway it’s true if you look at it in the right light… The best defense is a strong offense.
I wish that short of shit didn’t happen in public fora. But if it does, trying to insist on the Marquis of Queesbury Rules against submachine guns is a good way to end up under the road.
Regards,
Ric
Oh please, the left hates us on general principle. You cannot gain ground with that crowd, and why would you want to?
Well, yes, Ric, we do consider you a contributor. But in point of fact, the lefties who’ve cared to weigh in don’t see Jeff’s (or my) position as being critical enough of Coulter, as a couple of Jeff’s posts below demonstrate.
I just went and listened to Michelle’s clip. Here’s where she’s wrong. She’s assuming the press would actually cover the equal rights guy or an impressive speech. She’s wrong. They wouldn’t be covered. That’s just it. The only voluminous press the Republican side gets is for the Mark Foley affair or the maybe, possible, we hope outing of a covert CIA officer.
Positive press? Where? Show me where and maybe I’ll buy the argument that Ann’s inflammatory remarks obscured all the greatness that would have been covered at the CPAC by the MSM. No, the left silences two ways: this pseudo-outrage and complete silence. Remember Kos’ depriving a story of oxygen? That’s Left-think and that’s what informs editorial decisions every day in the MSM.
So would we have heard glowing CPAC reports were it not for Ann Coulter? Please.
The only sense I am getting here is a reluctance to criticize a “fellow” conservative, because it “gives ground.” Whatever.
This is the kind of hyperbole that keeps this thing going.
BMoe: Why should I apologize? I’m just commenting on someone else’s blog. If Jeff wants to proscribe the use of a word here, I’m ok with that. It’s his blog.
I am not asking or expecting anything. Nor did I have any idea at any time of some kind of collective conservative Going to Canossa over the use of the word “faggot” by Ann Coulter. I _am_ surprised that people that I am talking to here—just here—seem to have difficulty in agreeing that, you know, you really shouldn’t say shit like that at a political convention. But, OK.
I agree with this comment from Treacher over at one of Patterico’s threads:
“Stumble†would imply that this is an anomaly for her. It’s not.
Guess we’ll just have to settle for living up to our own standards.
Comment by Jim Treacher  3/4/2007 @ 12:04 am
I don’t think he’s saying about what can and can’t be allowed; he’s clearly saying that such things are unacceptable.
Which is implicitly subjective, granted. He finds it unacceptable. He thinks probably most others also do, or at least ought to. Reading between the lines, sure, but that’s the sense I get. Steve’s not arguing for making it illegal, or censoring, or any such, as far as I could tell.
And I agree, mostly. I don’t think that agreeing is going to change anything, though. Other people are amused by things that leave me wondering where their taste is; otherwise reasonable and intelligent people point to things at Sadly No! and laugh with, rather than at. Go figure.
Thought Experiment
You have just been hired as a speech writer for President Bush. The following draft paragraph, to be delivered in a televised address from the Oval office, has been sent to you for editing:
“I look forward to a time when all Iraqis will be able to live together in peace and harmony. Shiites. Sunnis. Kurds. Turkmen, and women. White Iraqis. Black Iraqis. Straight Iraqis—and faggots—all living together, and building a brighter future.”
Hint: Use a little common sense
I don’t happen to agree with Treacher there.
I am not at all willing to concede that just because something can sound bad in soundbite form it is necessary for the right to rush to condemn it.
In my original post, I linked two such instances: Bill Bennett’s black abortion remark and Tony Snow’s use of tar-baby.
I believe my position on both those was perfectly clear.
Here, I believe something similar has happened. But it will only be what the progressives like to call a “teachable moment” were we to coalesce around what it was really intended to do, at least in principle.
I don’t see how pointing out that it may have failed to make its point as effectively as it wished to, however, can be construed as a “cringe-and-retreat” reaction.
It is a fair criticism of the execution.
Let me put this bluntly: having now seen the comments in context (including Coulter’s earlier commments in the same speech that staked a claim, from a conservative legal perspective, as pro-gay), I not only don’t feel the need NOT to condemn Coulter, but I support what she said in principle.
I just think her execution was sub par. There were less loaded terms she might have chosen, but that doesn’t make her remark homophobic—nor is there any need, given the context, to distance oneself from them (unless, of course, one wishes to see certain words completely stricken from the lexicon—a gambit that never works, as the intent behind them is, like oil, fungible).
In the past, I’ve criticized this kind of policing of words on any number of occasions, from efforts to demonize “illegal alien” to “oriental” to the PC nonsense that is working its way through textbooks.
There is, not to put too fine a point on it, something remarkably arrogant about homosexual advocates (and their active and tacit defenders) thinking it is their “right” to take ownership of a word that has, with usage, taken on different valences.
And the answer to them should be, “no, you can’t have it ‘back,’ because it was never really ‘yours’ to begin with.”
Hope that makes my position more clear.
“I am surprised that so many fine intellects are turning themselves into pretzels trying to argue that there is nothing objectionable about using the word “faggot†in a public speech. OF COURSE it’s objectionable.”
Who died and made you God?
So does anyone realize that is all payback engineered by Whoopi Goldberg for O’Reilly and freinds getting her canned from Slimfast?
Because Slim-Fast is the face of the Democrat party.
Allright enough of that. I agree with Jeff, in that this is a big so-what. Cpac doesn’t speak for me, I don’t really care who they have speaking or what kind of jokes they tell, but if someone is invited or hired to represent a political canidate we should understand that their views probably mesh pretty well with the canidates.
I don’t think Coulter was hired to shill for any particular canidate at that venue.
But I also agree with Steve, in that it’s not polite to use the word “faggot” in a speech in a public forum, conservative or not.
But I disagree with them both because I think the joke was mildly humerous, not as an anti-Edwards/anti-gay slur, but as a comment on free speech. What she meant was that if you were sent to rehab for using an expletive, or calling someone a name, then there was no way she could say anything about our freind Edwards the shameless. It was obvious to me, just hearing the sound bite, but the reaction on both sides has been beautiful. Hilarious even.
And if her voice and manner didn’t grate on me like fingernails on a chalkboard, I might even tune in next time she’s on TV. But probably not, because she reminds me of those girls in college who did things like run the newspaper and organize the events that I got drunk at and ruined. You know, the go-getter type, driven.
I won’t buy her books though, because honestly, I just don’t care.
And don’t let me catch you editing your comments Dan or I’ll tell Greenwald you added an “l” which is only slightly more gay than without.
That’s ridiculous. Ann Coulter is a PUNDIT. To my knowledge, that is the extent of her affiliation with the Republican party.
Steve —
Your Thought Experiment is silly. The referent to “faggots” there is, based on the context, quite clearly to homosexuals. And of course, the venue is entirely different.
Go visit hotair (link is in the post above) and watch Coulter’s explanation. Then come back and argue against that instead of producing thought experiments that are completely non-analogous.
Ann Coulter is not president. In fact, she’s not even a politician. See where your question is silly, Steve?
I’ll bet most politicians wouldn’t say faggot on the record. So what? They’re whores, prostitutes who depend on voters for power; if they can avoid it, they’re not going to say anything that’ll kick the faux outrage factory into high gear.
But I can tell you from personal experience that it’s ok to use the words fag and faggy and faggot around gay people. How does that fit into your vision of it being unacceptable?
Why does “the Left” always come up in this discussion?
“The Left” is irrelevant.
“The Left” didn’t say the ‘offending’ word.
Invoking The Left is. . .well, a diversion. They don’t police their own? No shit, Sherlock. They say worse all of the time and get no flack? Get a stamp and mail that to forty years ago when it was news.
Jeff’s position is not my own, but it’s pretty ironclad and totally congruent with his whole thing. Jot me down for just being shocked at a provocative statement and not wanting to hear it. Jot me down for thinking the community standards on tossing out cuss words at formal speaking events are pretty defined and should be respected whenever possible.
If that’s illiberal, fine. I hear you. I’m essentially arguing for soft limits on speech. Can’t say boo about McCain-Finegold now can I?
But don’t jot me down for giving two good goddamns about what Bill Maher or some leftie good somewhere says, because I don’t care one way or the other. It has no bearing on this.
It does, Jeff, but I don’t think that you’re really disagreeing that much with Treacher. The point is that we don’t decline to say that we disagree with someone based on the probable tactics of people who oppose them. We don’t engage in self-censorship even if it’s liable to be seen as supporting the rhetoric of “the other side.”
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I don’t always practice civility. Early in our invasion of Afghanistan there was a terrible incident where our military was given bad info and ended up bombing a wedding party. I thought, watching the news report, “Well, what’s the big deal? It’s not like most Americans have never been bombed at a wedding reception.” I wasn’t able to say that to anybody, though, till my brother Matt called me later on in the day.
“Faggot” is meant to be deprecatory, and it’s inextricably tied to sexuality. If somebody were to say that he’d speak of Giuliani, but if he said “Dago” he’d have to go to rehab, I probably wouldn’t think that was very funny, either.
I can’t get as worked up about it as some people do. Maybe if I watched the whole thing, I’d feel differently about it. When I was a kid, though, my best friend, who wasn’t very athletic, was constantly called “fag” on the playground, and I got into a lot of fistfights over it. The fact that he’s gay (as it happens) doesn’t make me feel differently about those scrapes. So maybe that’s my problem.
She didn’t just drop the word out there with the intent to offend. To make the point she wanted to make, there was no other word she could have used; which makes all of the effort being expended to condemn it all the more crazy.
So remember kids, you can’t use bad language that refers to other bad language used, and even more importantly, you had best make sure that every single sentence you type or speak can stand completely on its own.
Unless of course if you are a member of a protected class or of the “correct” party affiliation.
This is the world we are going to leave to our kids? It is tyranny wrapped in a happy face with the promise that no one will be offended.
BTW Jeff, there’s a number of links in your first update that are broken.
I hope none of you are lying about what you have said to other people about the word faggot. You could be indicted and then convicted.
To the best of my ability, I cannot recall.
Jeff: I can’t “watch” Ann right now but I will get back to it.
I do get the feeling that some people seem to think that stating that the use of the word “faggot” is inappropriate is a “surrender” to the forces of Left, and I’m sorry about that. I just assumed that everyone felt that using that word in a public speech was inappropriate. I am somewhat surprised that so many seem to think that it is OK, depending, of course, on context or intent. Fine.
There are, it seems to me, a lot of words you don’t use in a public forum, including group slurs (of which “faggot” is one), the seven dirty words, and a whole host of words that you don’t use if you don’t want your meaning confused.
Three words off the top of my head: “prophylaxis”, “promiscuous” and “meretricious”
“Prophylaxis” would be an appropriate word to describe establishing security around any particular area in the Iraq, or the Gulf generally. But no one would ever use that word. For obvious reasons. The word hasn’t been “stolen”, and people won’t be jailed for using it, but, common sense.
By the same token, Amanda’s blog is a mish mash. But if I called it “promiscuous” I would be construed as saying something hurtful about her sexuality. Not nice, and beyond the meaning I want to convey.
No question that Hilary’s speech in Selma was “meretricious”—but if I say that, I will be accused of calling Hilary a prostitute. I think she is, but I wouldn’t want to say that in a speech at a political convention either. I also wouldn’t want to say that “Hilary’s praise of her husband’s achievements amounts to lip service” at a political convention, unless I were Pat Buchanan, and even then I’d get into trouble.
I am reminded of the whole “niggardly” thing. Of course, we KNOW what it means. But, you cannot really use it unless you want to be misunderstood and have your message distracted.
As for Bill Bennett and Tony Snow (catching up here), different things. Obviously, Bennett was working on an assumption of Black crime. He should have apologized. As for Tony Snow, only an ignoramus would not understand the meaning of Tar Baby, but, in his case, I wouldn’t apologize but I would have to file it under the class of analogies that I wouldn’t be able to use in the future. Unfortunate, but true.
I don’t think the aim of political discourse in the end is to say whatever you want to say with whatever words you want. The aim of political discourse is to bring people around to your way of thinking, and, yes, to be effective, that means self-censorship.
Of course, if you want to _not_ censor your vocabulary, by all means, do your thing. If your words are incendiary enough, and you are a writer or a public speaker, and you do it often enough, then you may end up in a line of work where your speaking and writing skills are under-utilized. This isn’t about fining people or putting people in jail.
Much as your Dems seem to want Ann Coulter to succumb to some variant of Russian Journalists Disease, I expect they’re all secretly delighted over this foofrah.
It’s the Rights take on this that seems odd.
It appears that the bloggers most offended by her remarks were the ones in attendance. As much as I enjoy and continue to read their various blogs, I wonder how much their reaction to Coulter was influenced by them being mutual witnesses. Whether or not they might have felt differently about the whole thing had they read about it or watched it individually and privately, rather than being mutually visible participants.
That said, Coulter strikes me to be of the same type of personality of the one in the group of us kids that all walked to school together that would ALWAYS smash a foot into the deepest puddle; thereby soaking everyone – including himself.
He would do it always. Always. And the joke eventually became about his “doing” it, rather than about getting splashed. We all knew it would happen, sooner or later; and the hilarity was in the degree of inappropriateness of the humour rather than the quality of it.
For all I know, that guy may have grown up and had a little girl that became the long blonde streak of piss & vinegar called Ms.Coulter.
Who decides where the lines are drawn? I agree that calling someone a faggot with the intent to demean them based on sexual orientation is in poor taste, and it is not something I would do, because it is a hurtful act over something they may well not be able to control.
I worry because we live in a society that has a double standard on “acceptable speech”, and I worry because we seem to be a society who is rapidly becoming a place where giving offense is the worst of all possible sins. We need to “butch up” a bit and remember that we are under no obligation to believe the crap that others say about us.
I will defend Ann, and Jeff, for what they say because they are the ones pointing out how ridiculous this all is.
Mal, those in attendence also were those who feel that they have some investment in the image of CPAC, and that it has either been besmirched or had the attention of its issues obscured by the Coulter donnybrook. I am interested in the ideas and opinions of some of the people there, so I paid a little attention, but not much. Kind of like if one of my friends were a big fan of the Nashville Predators and they were in the Stanley Cup finals.
You do, for you. I do, for me. It’s what subjectivity is all about.
Jeff doesn’t need defending, and Ann…Ann is an irritant. If the world is my oyster, Ann Coulter would be covered in many, many layers of pearly whiteness.
So to speak. NTTATWWT.
This Scooter Libby conviction has me a bit peaved. For instance, say that a cop pulls you over for whatever reason and he asks if you have any prior speeding tickets and you say no. However, the fact is that you do have prior speeding tickets but the record has been expunged.
Can the state then come back at you and say that because you lied to the official that you now must face punishment?
Is it just me, or is this all very kafka-ish?
Sorry, I know this isn’t related but it could be.
“Ms. Coulter, whom did you first learn of the term faggot from?”
The upshot seems to be that CPAC and its organizers should be concerned about what Coulter said.
The rest of us are just flapping our gums to hear ourselves talk.
“Ms. Coulter, do you remember a classmate in third grade named Willie Shaddock? The one you and your friends dubbed ‘Willie Shuddup’? He claims he was present when you first heard the word ‘fagot’ at recess in March of your third-grade year. This conflicts with your testimony before the grand jury. How do you plead?”
I’ve got little time for Coulter, and I think anyone who says she speaks for all on the right/center/libertarian right is a simpleton to say the least.
Steve calls the use of the word “objectionable”. I’m not sure if that’s the term I would use, I’d probably just say it was “stupid”. I certainly wouldn’t use it in a public forum the way Coulter did, and I’m sure most people wouldn’t either. That said, I don’t think it was particularly homophobic, either. It was definitely no more homophobic than the lefty comedian I saw this weekend who wrote down on poster board that he hoped Dick Cheney’s “faggot” daughter would have a daughter who was a “faggot”. Strictly speaking, this was homophobic, since Dick Cheney’s daughter IS gay and he used a perjorative term in reference to her. And it was still funny, if ugly. But the sheer hypocrisy of those that continuously use language such as that, as exposed by Patterico this week, never fails to astonish me.
What’s interesting for me is to watch the huge debate going on in comments sections of other right-leaning blogs. Personally, I come down on the side of those such as Malkin, Morrissey, Moran, Patterico, etc. who say Coulter should have kept her yap shut. OTOH, I understand where those who say she used tactics the left has used for years, and we should use them in return are coming from. In addition, neither Jeff nor anyone else here should make an effort to distance themselves from Coulter, since they never claimed to have any association with her anyway.
But what’s most disturbing for me is read the email JG received that started this post. It’s disturbing in that there is a mindset on the other side that loves to gloat, to hint that THEY are now in control, and that they do not fear us. The implication that “we” are to be feared at all indicates an unhealthy thought pattern over there.
The end all is this:
(1) Ann Coulter is a grown -up and I, as an individual, am in no way responsible for her actions nor do I, as an individual, have to apologize;
(2) there is no real organization to which she and I belong, hence I have no group identity with her that I would need to apologize for her comments;
(3) even if “conservative” was the connection between her and I, as Jeff noted, this is so loose a connection that I again have no need to apologize for her.
Ric,
I think that’s attributing a victory to them that they haven’t achieved. If certain conservatives disapprove of the the joke as being beneath the audience, that is an expression of their own standards of discourse and not a concession to the PC howlers. That the left is up in arms about it is incidental, not causative.
That said, the leftist hypocrites that dumped untold quantities of homophobic vitriol on Jeff Gannon, Mark Foley, Ken Mehlman, Ted Haggard and even our manly, heterosexual host, well, they can suck my dick. And John Edwards, with his financial support for people who make Coulter look like a nun? Well, fuck him too. Their complaints fall on my deaf ears.
Speaking as a Dem, I say you guys are on the right track. I don’t care what twisted justifications you can come up with, just get more conservative pundits and politicians publicly calling people “faggot” and “tar baby” and “nigger”.
Write thousand word blog posts about “ownership” of a word! Opine on the nastiness of the Left and how they totally get away with worse! Parse her speech so carefully that you can PROVE she didn’t mean to call Edwards a faggot! Whatever it takes, folks.
As much as you’d like to think it isn’t true, you don’t make the rules of public discourse. Everyone collectively makes them. And people who don’t have their heads up their own asses know what is acceptable and what is not.
And they can collectively suck my dick.
You mean like this little Marcotte screed, heet?
Its not obvious to me, Steve. Why is it obvious that you should be empowered to assign your own meaning to Bennett’s remarks (explicitly contradictory to what Bennett says he intended), and then expect Bennett to apologize for your casting of his remarks?
What? Huh? What did I say? Well, whatever I said I meant it, but I’m sorry if anyone took any offense.
“Look! Over there! A blogger typed a nasty!”
In this case, it is irrelevant b/c the situations are completely different. And I’m pretty sure you know that. FTR, I’ve never stood up for her. As a matter of common sense, bloggers who wish to get on the straight and narrow path that is required for positions w/ public scrutiny need to take a page out of tac’s book and just take down all of the crazy shit they’ve said.
heet – or you will inform them, yes?
esmyth – the succinct way of putting your position would be “Who can, may.”
I don’t accept your rules.
If fact you can take your rules and shove them where the sun don’t shine.
Who’s the progressive now, bunky?
No, heet, that’s not necessarily true.
Little children are known to blurt out inappropriate commments at inappropriate times, but that’s not because they have their heads up their keisters; it’s simply because they haven’t matured to the point that they have a sense of what’s acceptable and what’s not.
Every adult has these immature moments. The proplem is that for many on your side these “moments” stretch out for years or even a lifetime.
Did I inform the conservatives who have distanced themselves form Coulter’s remark? I must have been drunk again.
TerryH: As I understand it, Bennett was not accused of using a “slur”, he simply made a statement to the effect that if Black women aborted their babies crime would go down. That is going to offend many people, and it’s not hard to unpack.
Correct me.
Marcus and O’Brien:
Good. I completely encourage this attitude of yours. Please, convince more conservative voices to call people faggot with the cameras rolling! Your ballsy independence will not be in vain, young soldiers!
heet, if you’re going to claim that Democrat(ic) politicians and pundits don’t say patently stupid and offensive shit, you’re just the glenns, man.
Fortunately, I don’t give a tinker’s damn what you think, heet. You are demonstrably less than irrelevant.
“In this case, it is irrelevant b/c the situations are completely different.
Posted by heet | permalink
on 03/06 at 11:49 AM”
Yeah, Marcotte was hired as blogatrix for a major Democratic Presidential contender.
Ann Coulter was, and is, a…..private citizen.
Dan :
I would never claim such a stupid thing.
I think you might be a trojan horse, Steve.
I mean, look what you just said: “Of course, we KNOW what it means. But, you cannot really use it unless you want to be misunderstood and have your message distracted.”
We know what it means but we must assume nobody else does, and that they’re misunderstanding is to be countenanced and massaged—which, in effect, empowers ignorance.
That is your conservative position?
Go. Run with heet. Who flits through here constantly dropping invective and doesn’t at all see the contradiction in his own actions to the ones he (ostensibly) ascribes.
heet, like you, Steve, knows that Coulter wasn’t making a homophobic reference. He’s only excited that he is able to take it that way and use it against her specifically, and against a monolithic group that he describes as “conservatives”. Ditto his use of “tar baby” as a bludgeon—even though for that he could be kicking the now dead Robert Anton Wilson.
If you, or tachyonshuggy can’t see how this is related to “progressivism” and identity politics, I’ve been doing a lousy job explicating the linguistic underpinnings at play here.
I will say this, though—Ric and Steve Graham are right. As a political coalition, conservatives are suffering because many in that coalition are are more concerned with appearing ”moral” than in defending the underlying principles of classical liberalism, no matter how distasteful they find the actual speech.
I’m speaking here of the letter writers. As I noted in my first post, those who truly disagree with what Coulter said are certainly entitled to express that. However, the idea that they be compelled to do so is ludicrous—and the idea of language that is being given credence here is dangerous and, yes, tied to a progressive idea of identity politics.
So it is NOT a diversion to bring up progressivism, because their conception of how language works (an empowerment of the interpretive community to define the intentions of the speaker) is so remarkably dangerous.
That’s from the open letter the “CPAC Bloggers” wrote. I’m kind of excited about this letter cause I almost never get to use the words “gobsmackingly twee,” which is what the letter is. But my reaction is more of a “whatever, dude” than a critique. The point, I think, is that Ann Coulter embarrassed some people. I guess the people who are embarrassed by Ann Coulter are people that found their identity in some intrinsic way on being part of “The Conservative Movement.” These guys say as much:
Sheesh. Whatever, dude. I’ll stand over here. These CPAC blogmeisters got embarrassed, and the rest of us should feel embarrassed too, and Ann must be shamed, shamed, for the Age of Ann has passethed, and the hobbits have spurned the temptations of Galdriel, and what hath been wrought by our Movement must and shall remain pure and perfect and uncorrupted. So say we all.
Steve,
Bennett was arguing against making broadbrush generalizations, and he offered a factually based corollary to that which he was arguing against.
What is it he should have apologized for? Noting the inordinately high black crime rate? THAT would be surrender to PC.
Christofascist.
Godbag.
The Holy Spirits white hole stickiness.
I encourage reactionary leftists to continue to publish their insane, mindless hatred.
Especially on Democratic Presidential candidates web sites.
What you meant to have meant was . . .
Murdered Americans? Screw them!
And I hope the Vice President gets assasinated.
Yup, keep it coming, moonbats.
I’m trying to figure out whether, and how, a “conservative movement” is the opposite of a revolutionary movement.
Jeff,
I read some of the handwringing from the left when Marcotte was being flayed and there were very similar arguments. “We lefties shouldn’t buckle to the pressure from the right! Don’t let them define what is acceptable speech! We eat our own instead of fighting for what is decent and good!”
It is all secondary to the fact that Marcotte was a complete liability and should have been canned as soon as her nuttiness was realized.
I’ll say this about the observation the Coulter didn’t REALLY call Edwards a faggot : it doesn’t matter. She’s no dummy. She knew precisely what she was doing. She trades in outrage and publicity. That was a bad forum for that kind of publicity and cooler heads know that. If you think Coulter’s statement is worth fighting for, let me ask you this – would she sacrifice any of her celebrity to stand up for you?
Coulter is a distraction and inviting her to speak at the event was a mistake. Pinging me for taking some satisfaction in this mistake is hardly fair.
Or the equally late Joel Chandler Harris.
McGehee – yes – “costive” is another word I’ll happily dust off for our CPAC blogger buddies.
By ‘acceptable’ you mean stuff you agree with and makes you feel good….
I enjoyed what Coulter said. I said: “Hahahahaha!” after she said it. It made me feel good, so it must be ‘acceptable’.
There is no objective definition of ‘acceptable’. Don’t bullshit people that there is.
Den Br’er Faggot found hisself all stuck to de Tar Baby dat he done try to sodomize. An’ de more he struggle, de more stuck he git.
An’ Br’er Fox he come a-whistlin’ out o’ de woods, an’ he say: “Br’er Faggot, it seem like you done git yo’self inta one heap o’trouble! I’s a-gonna cook you an’ eat you!” An’ he laugh all mockety-like as he extrycate Br’er Faggot from de Tar Baby’s bung-hole.
Now, Br’er Faggot knowed he was in a fine fix, an’ no doubt, an’ he gotta think quick. So he say to Br’er Fox, “Oh, Br’er Fox, you kin cook me an’ eat me if’n you likes, but whatever you do, please, please don’ stick me up de butt.” An’ Br’er Fox, he start to thinkin’ . . .
Uncle ReamUs
Pablo,
I wish you were right, but I think the Left has won the war of words. Scientists, political commentators, all Americans, filter their speech, their scholarly exploration, their reasoning, not because what they say or think isn’t worthy of discussion or learning, but because of how they fear they’ll be judged for expressing it–or outright blackballed. The list of unspeakables grows by the day.
We have all become over-sensitive victims or victim enablers. Sometimes I’m frustrated with my own self-filtering. Expressing opinions about the unspeakables gets one branded and labeled as a bigot.
The Right seems to think that if they police their speech, the Left will see the Right as the fair-minded, erudite, inclusive group we believe ourselves to be. The Right seems to think that by not giving the Left ammunition, they won’t fire. Both of these premises are false.
Ideas, even a poorly executed or worded joke such as Ann Coulter’s, are not worth discussion because the truth is known: Leftists are innately good and pure. So no one better question Hillary or Obama about their jive talking down in Selma. And no body better question Edwards about his issues with religion. And no body better question the science of global warming or the purveyors of such cherished beliefs like Al Gore. And no one better believe that gay marriage isn’t a right. And no one better extol the virtues of a gas-hogging SUV.
How free does anyone feel to express their conservative opinions outside forums like Jeff’s? Some things are just understood in the world these days: you don’t believe, think, behave or speak in certain ways, or else….
Jeff’s blog is like whiskey during prohibition: a secret indulgence. At least there is a few places left where ideas can be discussed and chewed on. Why, it’s liberating!
Steve: First let me correct your typo and tell you what you really meant to say-
Matt Yglesias sorts this out for you better than I can:
Jeff: Let me try this again.
I heard about Coulter on Friday, saw the clip, thought it was very inappropriate, and that was that. I think Sunday I commented on it here.
I think the reason this argument keeps going round and round is because of a reluctance to criticize her for using the word. I mean, sure, we use it here, we use it in our private lives, we have used it with gays in conversations, etc. But it’s not the kind of word you should use on a podium, and therefore, when s.o. does that, they deserve to be criticized for it. That’s the sum of my position. (That and the blowback for the GOP for saying it.)
Was she making a homophobic reference? No, because she doesn’t hate homosexuals, but, yes, because of the way the term was used. Check out what Andrew wrote about it. Yes, Andrew tends to get all worked up everytime he talks about being gay, but he makes some good points about the word, and what the word connotes and was meant to connote in this case.
But I wasn’t even getting into that. I think saying words like “faggot” (and all the rest) are (at minimum) in poor taste. The reason this has gone on so long is that I keep getting messages from people who (apparently) think it’s Okay to say that word in a speech at a political convention, yada yada yada.
As to the other points you address:
1. Niggardly. Real question: if you had to describe the cheapness of either a Black person or to audience of Black people, would you use that word, or would you reach for some other one? I wouldn’t use it; but not because I think Black people are especially vocabulary challenged. My experience with words like that is that they at LEAST create multiple planes of interpretation that get in the way of what you are trying to say. In the same sense, I wouldn’t use the word “cavalry” and “Calvary” in the same paragraph, either. That is ASKING to be misunderstood.
2. “Empowering Ignorance” When you talk to regular folks you use regular language. Not because you are afraid of being beat up but because you will be dismissed as a pompous ass. “Niggardly” is just one of those words that is not very common, and if it comes up in your regular conversation on a regular basis with regular folks, then, Props.
3. ““progressivism†and identity politics”
I understand it, but it’s not necessary, as far as I can see, to even be having that conversation. Again, I just assumed that everyone agreed that you don’t say “faggot” in a crowded bathhouse but I guess others think different. I have tried to drop this issue half a dozen times, the posts keep bringing me back.
I think that Ann’s podium remark was inappropriate. I said so. I started getting rejoinders justifying the remark. I responded to that. That’s all this is about.
Yes Melissa, before the Age of Aquarius nobody would have said peep if a popular author insinuated a former Senator and Presidential hopeful was a big homo at a public conference. Where has America gone?
I don’t think her statement is worth fighting for. I think the principle behind it is.
Coulter is really secondary here. Like the email that started this thread, Coulter’s remark provided an occasion for people to debate the issues raised here—which span from the dangers / advantages of a “soundbite” new culture to serious questions about interpretive assumptions.
And it is only a mistake if we let it be so and don’t debate the points it raises.
Because if we do—that is, if we on the right spend less time moralizing and more time looking at what is underlying the various arguments—we’d be better off in the long run.
But then, nobody much listens to me anyway. Were I on the left, I’d be a fucking STUD.
Wait a minute. Nobody said he was a BIG homo.
Try viewing this from a mindset that doesn’t think of people in terms of color and you’ll have your answer.
And all this “regular” folk talk—that’s intellectual welfare statism, as I noted in my update.
Terry H, Pablo: The only problem with Bennett’s statement, to me, is that, by using “Black” as an adjective in that case he invited misunderstanding and therefore got off message. If _I_ had said that, I would have immediately apologized, not to self-flagellate but to get back on message. However, I didn’t follow the original story so I don’t know how it played out.
“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”
Thomas Jefferson