A Giant Sucking Sound....

I have to give credit to anybody whose performance on Real Time leaves you thinking, "I wish Maher had found a more honest, more insightful conservative guest, who won't attempt to cloak her inability to respond to the facts raised by others by interrupting them and talking over them. Like his guest from last week, Ann Coulter." So, whether or not I should be surprised that she wants to take this nation down the same path forged by her much more famous great-grandfather, I have to hand it to Margaret Hoover for making Ann Coulter seem like a well-mannered intellectual.

Politics vs. Religion - Looking for Converts

One of the oddities of the G.W. Bush era, it seems to me, was the number of celebrity political conversions (or claimed political conversions) following 9/11. Many of the full or partial conversions seemed reactionary - Ed Koch and Ron Silver, and to some degree Dennis Miller, seemed to be excited at the idea of going to war with the Arab world, with Koch's embrace of Republicans as the only party willing to fight a war on Islam seeming to be consistent with his past statements on the Middle East.

I've never really understood why you would want to trumpet conversions such as these. To the extend that you're talking about a person who understands the issues, a more intense examination is likely to reveal that the conversion is largely limited to a single issue or is nominal. In the former case the conversion is likely to reflect a knee-jerk reaction, not a thoughtful response to changed circumstances. Otherwise you should see a shift in political thinking across the person's spectrum of beliefs, not just an announcement to the effect of, "I'm still liberal on everything else, but I'm a Republican because only they'll pursue this war to its bitter end." If it's the latter, the relabeling doesn't carry much significance. "I'm switching from Team A to Team B, but my opinions haven't actually changed."

Dennis Miller seems to fall, to some degree, into both categories. He's generally regarded as a bright guy, and he historically has included any number of obscure references into his humor in order to both convey that impression and to appeal to a more educated audience. He also had a caustic element to his humor that held no sympathy for the far left, and often seemed to take positions that were fundamentally conservative - did you ever get the impression that he favored a progressive tax code? But if you saw his monologues during his final year on HBO, it was hard to miss the fact that he had spent very little energy learning about, and even less thinking about, the Middle East. He also qualified his political conversion by insisting that he remained liberal on a wide range of social issues, such as reproductive freedoms and gay marriage. So the actual conversion was pretty narrow, and on a subject for which he had a new and shallow understanding, and that shallowness was evidenced by the new, shallow, Manichaen position he took on that narrow issue.

Not that I want to be cynical... (want doesn't actually enter into it - I am cynical)... but you sometimes also have to "follow the money". The counterpart to Dennis Miller would seem to be Arianna Huffington, although her claimed political conversion was much more broad-based. Both Miller and Huffington capitalized on their political conversions, Huffington more successfully than Miller. And with Huffington's recent sale of the Huffington Post to AOL, and her associated announced plan to try to harness as much free labor as possible to fill AOL's coffers with cash, some who previously accepted her conversion are taking another look and asking, "Was it sincere?" You could start by asking if her conservatism was sincere. Frankly, in politics, being able to fake sincerity is a valuable commodity. I suspect that if she possessed that talent, Ann Coulter would presently be a self-professed liberal - her ranting doesn't get her much face time on television and, no matter how absurdly titled, her books don't sell like they used to. Coulter does indignant, self-righteous anger quite well, and certainly there's a crowd that finds such displays to be appealing, but at best that's preaching to the choir. But it is interesting to see how these conversions have boosted (most often temporarily) the public profile of celebrities whose careers are on the wane.

The thing is, even though I see lots of evidence that high profile converts think highly of themselves and their insights, and by virtue of their celebrity they manage to get face time on the television to advance their brands, there's not a one of them whom I would point to and say, "That person gave a really good explanation for their political conversion and why their former positions were incorrect," or even for the single issue conversions, that such an explanation was offered for the one issue that supposedly pushed them over the edge.

Celebrities can be strong advocates for specific issues. Some celebrities are smart, informed people in their own right, and can be respected on that basis. But I'm not seeing the appeal of trumpeting the supposed conversion of a celebrity from one political column to another, and even less so when the celebrity's explanation for the conversion reflects that they remain weak, uninformed (even if self-impressed) political thinkers.

At The American Conservative, Clark Stooksbury recently questioned the political conversion of David Mamet,

Now he has a book coming called The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture— in which according to the the publicity material provided to Amazon.com—Mamet will “take on all the key political issues of our times, from religion to political correctness to global warming.” That sounds distressingly like the sort of right-wing tract published several times a year by conservative talk radio hosts, politicians and teenagers.

Stooksbury accepts that, as described by him, Mamet's liberalism could fairly be characterized as "brain dead" but that "His conservatism doesn’t sound particularly compelling either". Initially, Mamet claimed that his conversion to conservatism was driven by exposure to Thomas Sowell (who at least used to make interesting and thoughtful observations); now he claims that he "doesn't read political blogs or magazines. 'I drive around and listen to the talk show guys,' he said. 'Beck, Prager, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved.'" Ouch? But far from a surprise if you remember the column in which he explained his conversion.

From the publisher's description of Mamet's new book,

In 2008 Mamet wrote a hugely controversial op-ed for the Village Voice, "Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'", in which he methodically attacked liberal beliefs, eviscerating them as efficiently as he did Method acting in his bestselling book True and False.

I can't speak for his arguments about method acting, but the only thing left excoriated by Mamet's village voice essay was the idea that he should be taken seriously as a political thinker. If the publisher's strongest endorsement of Mamet's credentials remains that editorial, it's reasonable to infer that this is a "follow the money" situation - that Mamet, perhaps a few years too late, is trying to cash in on his political conversion. I wouldn't be surprised if his M.O. remains the same, "I was brain-dead in my political beliefs, but the wisdom and insight of Thomas Sowell Glenn Beck has set me straight." Authors pitching to a common audience frequently exchange endorsements; I suspect that Mamet his hoping to get his favorite right-wing radio hosts to endorse his book.

Is the problem that there aren't enough strong political thinkers available, such that people see it as necessary to pretend that a little league player is qualified for the All-Star team? Are we so far into a culture of celebrity that, on the whole, we can no longer tell the difference? Or is the problem that, as compared with the most brilliant stars with which they compete, celebrities with half-baked, high school level understandings of politics actually are thinking at the same level as the professionals? ("Hi, I used to write speeches for a President but other than that have no apparent qualification to write on political issues." "Congratulations, welcome to the op-ed page of the New York Times.")

Sara Palin, (Still) Dangerously Ignorant

Sara Palin is throwing another "You show me yours, I won't show you mine"¹ tantrum, this time about the White House's refusal to distribute war porn: "Palin claims the pictures should be released "as warning to others seeking America's destruction"...."

Were Palin interested, she would quickly learn that the sight of people - including children and civilians - killed by U.S. (and Israeli) forces are widely distributed in the Arab world, and that the reaction is generally not favorable to us. It also might have occurred to her, were she a bit more thoughtful, that suicide terrorists aren't particularly intimidated by the notion that if they survive they might be hunted down and killed.

Perhaps she's turning into Ann Coulter - say something outrageous, even if it makes you look like an ignorant simpleton, as long as it gets you into the press? On the other hand, perhaps she's a personification of "Act Naturally."
--------------
1. Is there a record of significance from Palin's entire life, including her partial term as governor, that she has not at least tried to conceal from the public?

Language of Violence and Revolution by Politicians and Opinion Leaders

What mythago said.

I sense that we're going to be overwhelmed with attempts to distance Loughner from the right wing world. "Somebody who knew him in high school says he's a liberal (not that it matters)" kind of stuff. We'll probably also hear "He was crazy, so the fact that politicians and commentators use the rhetoric of violence may not have actually made this shooting more likely." But that misses the larger point, which is that the rhetoric of the likes of Palin, Beck and Coulter legitimizes a mindset that is inherently anti-democratic (small "d" - in a democracy we solve our political disputes at the ballot box, not with guns) and whatever the intention will inevitably be taken literally by some percentage of the population.

It's not acceptable to shrug, "They're speaking metaphorically, so it doesn't count." They only back away from their statements when a price is imposed - and a price is rarely imposed and is even less likely to be significant. "Oh, the crosshairs on targeted Members of Congress were 'crosshairs that you would see on a map'? [Added: the latest 'explanation'.] I don't think I've ever seen that, and it doesn't explain the associated slogan, 'Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!', but... good enough for us."

The more common result appears to be reward - the violent rhetoric or imagery is covered by the media but not criticized (or criticisms are reported from political opponents while the news show depicts the exchange as routine politics), the speaker continues to get "talking head" spots on mainstream media shows... or gets hired to host shows... the sky's the limit. Let's recognize this for what it is in the hands of people like Beck, Palin and Angle: the deliberate use of a known political formula that brings fame, money and political influence.

The political views of Loughner are irrelevant to this issue, as are the political views of the likes of Palin and Beck. Their conduct is the problem, not their political beliefs. If there were a left-wing radio firebrand using equivalent rhetoric, he too would be part of the problem. If he were embraced by the Democratic Party, were an opinion leader for that party, or were considered to be a serious contender for its next presidential nominee, that would highlight a serious problem within the Democratic Party. It's well past time for the mainstream media and the Republican Party to stop embracing the crazy, but if they choose to continue do so they should do as mythago suggests - take credit for legitimizing violence in the political arena and for its bloody consequences.

Dennis Prager's Conservative Man's Guide to Sex

Remember how, a while back, Ann Coulter would rant about how married couples have better sex lives than singles. And you couldn't help but wonder, "How would she know?" Dennis Prager has thoughtfully provided us with the answers: Married women have a better work ethic. (At least if they want to stay married.)

It seems almost gratuitous to make fun of Prager, not that it's going to stop me. He's apparently in the grip of a bizarre form of the whore-madonna complex for which the only cure is his demand that madonna "put out". According to Prager, here's how women think:

A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by her willingness to give her body to him. This is rarely the case for women. Few women know their husband loves them because he gives her his body (the idea sounds almost funny). This is, therefore, usually a revelation to a woman. Many women think men's natures are similar to theirs, and this is so different from a woman's nature, that few women know this about men unless told about it.

Here's how men react:

A man whose wife frequently denies him sex will first be hurt, then sad, then angry, then quiet. And most men will never tell their wives why they have become quiet and distant. They are afraid to tell their wives. They are often made to feel ashamed of their male sexual nature, and they are humiliated (indeed emasculated) by feeling that they are reduced to having to beg for sex.

Prager admits that there are rare occasions when a husband "should not initiate sex", although the exceptions to his "24/7" policy aren't enumerated. But make no mistake, as much as the husband may be writhing in undisclosed self-doubt if his wife doesn't put out all the time, it's the woman's job to clearly communicate those times when the husband shouldn't ask for sex ("women should not expect men to read their minds"). I'm thinking Prager might forgive a wife's lack of accommodation at times of severe illness although, on the other hand, if she's already in bed....

Seriously, rather than writing columns lecturing women that, even though it's not in their nature to like sex very much, and certainly not very often, they should accede to their husband's sexual demands on almost all occasions he could have written a column lamenting to men, "Women don't like sex very much, perhaps not at all, so don't let your feelings get hurt when they say 'no'." Sure, people would still make fun of him, but maybe not quite as much. But at least it would be honest.

What sort of marriage does Prager envision, where a wife is to "give her body to" her husband as she acts "happy no matter what [her] mood", all the while keeping secret the fact that he isn't sexually attractive to her? For all of his whining about how women allow themselves to be "governed by feelings and moods", implying that men are rational beings, why not simply encourage men to be rational, accept their women for what they are, and build a marriage premised on mutual respect? Under Prager's logic, isn't it men who are being irrational, becoming angry, distant, ashamed, and unfaithful because they aren't willing to learn or accept basic "facts" about female sexuality?

This is where it gets interesting. When madonna doesn't "put out", the Pragers of the world feel justified in seeking out that other type of woman. Except Prager's already told us that there's really only one type of woman - there's no evil vixen of "the kind you don't take home to mother" who actually likes sex. According to Prager's columns, sex for women is always a quid pro quo. They don't get a great deal of pleasure from it, so they need to get something else. When Prager warns wives,

To ask that [your husband] also regularly deny himself sex with the one woman in the world with whom he is permitted sex is asking far too much. Deny him enough times and he may try to fill this need with another woman.

What type of woman is he suggesting would "fill his need"? Prager's attentions always turn to the material:

What if your husband woke up one day and announced that he was not in the mood to go to work? If this happened a few times a year, any wife would have sympathy for her hardworking husband. But what if this happened as often as many wives announce that they are not in the mood to have sex? Most women would gradually stop respecting and therefore eventually stop loving such a man.

Or maybe she would tell him, "Honey, you hate your job. Let's work on your résumé, and help you find a new one where you won't be so miserable."

What woman would love a man who was so governed by feelings and moods that he allowed them to determine whether he would do something as important as go to work? Why do we assume that it is terribly irresponsible for a man to refuse to go to work because he is not in the mood, but a woman can - indeed, ought to - refuse sex because she is not in the mood? Why?

I almost wish there were a webcast of this, as I would like to know how much anger, fear, frustration, even rage at God explodes out of Prager as he cries, "Why?" But there you have it. Women benefit from men going to work and providing them with material stability, geegaws and doodads. And a woman's equivalent responsibility in marriage is to willingly "give her body to him" pretty much any time he asks. If only women worked for a living, maybe then they would understand....

In the rest of life, not just in marital sex, it is almost always a poor idea to allow feelings or mood to determine one’s behavior. Far wiser is to use behavior to shape one’s feelings. Act happy no matter what your mood and you will feel happier. Act loving and you will feel more loving....

Okay, Dennis, if that's truly what you believe, how about trying this at home: "Act like you're getting lots of sex from your wife." Don't blame her when you feel dissatisfied in the marriage, feel insecure, or start picking up hookers.

As one bright and attractive woman in her 50s ruefully said to me, “Had I known this while I was married, he would never have divorced me.”

I can almost imagine the conversation:

Woman: "I am so upset. My husband was cheating on me, sleeping with prostitutes, and now we're divorced."

Prager: "If he was sleeping with prostitutes, he obviously wasn't getting enough sex at home."

Woman: "Well, he would come home from work late, reeking of alcohol, lipstick on his collar. It was a real turn-off. Not to mention I was concerned about sexually transmitted disease.

Prager: "He went to work, and you still didn't reward him with sex on demand? It's the same thing, you know. We all have jobs we hate, but we gotta do 'em. He goes to work every day for the pay and, when you think about it, he's merely asking you to do pretty much the same thing. By rejecting him for sex you're making him feel ashamed and emasculated, and the only way he can recover from that is by getting sex somewhere else. Since women don't like sex very much, are you really surprised he sometimes had to pay for it?"

Woman: "Had I known this while I was married, he would never have divorced me."

Prager: "I told my ex-wives the same thing, and boy are they sorry now."

And there you have it - everything Prager knows about sex. Don't you feel silly now, that you were afraid to ask?

"How Dare McCain Hold Me Accountable For My Own Words!"

Another right-wing ranter is (supposedly) going to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Cunningham does so much to redeem himself....

In his first public comment since Tuesday's event, Cunningham defended his use of Hussein, which he called "a proud Muslim name."

"I have nothing but respect for my Muslim brothers and sisters," he said. "The ones who oppose that particular name, they're the ones with the problem, not me. His name is Barack Hussein Obama."

Right....

Believing Nothing vs. Believing Anything

All too often one idealogue or another will misattribute to "Chesterton" (one assumes G.K., not A.K., although they probably don't know the difference) a "quote" to the effect of,

“When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn’t believe in nothing. He believes in anything."

Given that the typical proponent of this quote has no apparent devotion to any particular religion (beyond, perhaps, self-worship), it is difficult to take them seriously even if you don't recognize the misattribution. Yet except perhaps for the most vapid or most mendacious of that bunch, were they to actually think about the quote it is difficult to believe that they would insult Chesterton by trying to insert such an inane thought into his mouth.

At one end, the misquote is used to try to claim that religion somehow acts as a check against man's base nature, and thus that a man who believes in God will be constrained in his actions by the rules of his faith, while a man who does not can convince himself that any variety of evil is in fact a good, or that without the fear of eternal damnation the only constraint on his actions will be secular consequences (if any) of "getting caught". The latter theory presupposes that every religion incorporates some form of eternal damnation, which is simply not the case. (And even where it is, as with Puritanism, if the acts you commit during your life won't affect whether or not you reach heaven, where's the constraint? Only in "getting caught" and punished by man.)

Further, there's something a bit off-putting about the notion that somebody is more morally developed if they refrain from acting only because they fear an external consequence, as opposed to because they have developed an internal moral compass. When somebody behaves only because God may be watching, it becomes necessary to preach that God is all-seeing, because otherwise you would have to watch your back every time you stepped into the shadows.

As for the former argument, that believing in God will necessarily entail your accepting an ethical framework which will constrain your actions, whereas a nonbeliever will (presumably) act on self-will, that's not borne out either by the teachings of religion or by the acts of man and secuarl society. Whether or not you accept Kohlberg's stages of moral development, they do illustrate how a sense of ethics can develop toward a set of "universal ethical principles" even in the absence of religion. And religions are far from uniform. While Icelandic blood feuds may well have followed the model set by interactions among the pantheon of Norse Gods, few would now argue that it is a superior model to the secular U.S. court system merely because it was founded in religion.

In terms of religion preventing you from "believing anything", while I appreciate that some people truly believe that had they been devout, tyrants like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot would not have engaged in hostile warfare and genocide. I discredit Bill Maher's frequent retort that this type of leader and his followers are tantamount to religion. While perhaps a charismatic tyrant can inspire a fervor among his followers that is similar to that of a religion, a part of religious belief is accepting a framework created by the church. While giving due deference to the fact that some of history's worst genocides have been committed by secular leaders, in no small part that results from industrialization and the rise of secular society. That's not conceding the argument - but "lesser" genocides of the historic past might have eclipsed those of the modern world had similar technology been available. And let's not forget how thorough some historic genocides have been - look at the Spanish Conquest, or the absence of a Native population from Newfoundland. At least in my opinion, the treatment of citizens by a typical European government is markedly better in the present than it was during the reins of its various historic kings, queens and princes, even when they sincerely believed themselves to have been placed on their thrones by God.

Where religion does stop you from "believing anything", it is often because the competing thought is deemed contrary to church teaching. Even when that fact was scientifically provable, undeniably true, and completely vindicated by history, the consequence of disputing church teaching could be exceptionally harsh. (In this same vein, many people who are unquestionably devout in their own faith express incredulity at the teachings of other faiths - how can they believe that.) This continues into the present through the blather of people like Ann Coulter, who argues that global warming is a "religion" to the left - because religion is a bad thing? (Or is that just a talking point she borrowed from her friend, Bill Maher.)

Because we can't prove them wrong for a thousand years, and I think the other thing about it is, it goes back to Chesterton’s statement: that when people stop believing in God, the problem isn't that they believe in nothing, it's that they'll believe anything. And that's what you constantly see with people who don't believe in God: They're always imitating the most ridiculous, primitive religions. And it is like a primitive religion, thinking if we just change these lightbulbs, we can change the temperature of the ocean. It's the craziest thing! Even primitive people wouldn't believe something that silly.

Coulter implicitly claims that she "has religion" (although she demonstrates no sign of faith, beyond perhaps worship of money and excessive consumption) and thus apparently believes herself beyond such mundane tasks as fact-checking or sourcing her claims. Those darn secular folks with their science and facts - force them to recant, then (just to be safe) keep them under house arrest.

Global warming is not being addressed in a responsible manner in our society, not because of religion or secularism, but because some powerful corporate interests have worked very hard to convolute the message received by the public, and because they and other powerful corporate interests have lobbied very hard to stop or slow any regulation which might increase their costs. Contrary to Coulter's claims, many religions have accepted global warming as a reality, including the Catholic Church. So, typical of a proponent of the Chesterton misquote, she's wrong on the facts, wrong on the science, and wrong on religion.

Although global warming is simply an example I use in this larger discussion of the Chesterton misquote, I will nonetheless close by quoting one of those nutters who argues that we can fight global warming by changing light bulbs:

EPA and the Bush Administration take seriously the challenge of global climate change, and we are discussing actions to meet the Supreme Court’s decision. I appreciate your willingness to be part of the solution. Environmental responsibility is everyone’s responsibility, even in the case of climate change.

Earth Day is a good opportunity to remind each and every one of us of our own ability to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses we emit in our daily activities – commonly referred to as our “carbon footprint.” And some of these actions may be easier than you think.

The next time you are shopping for a new computer, television, or even a light bulb, consider the advantages of buying an ENERGY STAR product. By purchasing an energy-efficient model, you’ll not only reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted in order to power your appliance, you’ll save money on your electric bills.

Perhaps next time, before implying that the President an irreligious primitive, Coulter will Ask The White House.

But That Was Different

Andrew Sullivan explains why it was "high camp" to call Al Gore a "total fag", but wrong to call John Edwards a "faggot":

My only response to my reader is that seeing her live in front of a young, cheering crowd made me feel a lot less complacent. Being a gay man in a crowd that cheers a woman denigrating someone for being a "faggot" is an educative experience.

That unfortunate laugh track....

Seeing college kids line up to worship her tore me up. These kids deserve better. They're young and smart enough to be interested in conservatism - and this is what they are getting?

They're young, of average intelligence as compared to their peers, and they're interested in Ann Coulter. The rest is wishful thinking.

It Was Funny When It Was Said By A Talking Doll, But....

I gave up on Townhall.com a long time ago, as you rarely learn anything from one of its screeds that you can't discern from the headline and byline. Daniel Larison apparently has a greater tolerance for palaver than I, and he brought my attention to Mary Katharine Ham's reaction to Coulter's "faggot" joke.

Point being, I had a soft spot for Ann. When I left N.C. to move to D.C. a couple years ago, a friend gave me one of those talking Ann Coulter dolls, which I immediately set about hiding in my liberal editor's office, rigged to squawk about liberalism every 10 minutes. Heh. Luckily, he was a good-humored man.

Oh, tee hee. What sort of things does that doll say?

"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like Liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."

Oh, how hilarious. I mean, how unfunny. As Ms. Ham says,

I, for one, am proud that there are Middle Easterners, gay men and women, and other minorities for whom conservatism is an ideology that empowers. Don't they get enough crap from our lefty colleagues for "leaving the plantation?" Why should they be subjected to more from one of their supposed allies?

Am I wrong to infer that she intends that comment to include followers of Islam?

So the "joke" that was funny (or at least not inappropriate) when originally made by Ann Coulter, and which was funny when repeated by an Ann Coulter doll in her (good natured, tolerant) liberal editor's office, would have been horribly inappropriate if repeated years later at the CPAC event?

Why am I still left thinking that the real problem was the laugh track.

Ann Coulter's Inappropriate Laugh Track

Through Lawyers, Guns & Money, I was introduced to a piece of ambush journalism from CPAC which starts with Michelle Malkin refusing to sign a photograph of Japanese Americans, interned during WWII, and closes with Ann Coulter's now infamous "faggot" joke. I'm not a huge fan of ambush journalism, but I'll leave that topic for another day. I did appreciate the opportunity to see Ann Coulter make her joke, and to get a better impression of why it flopped.

The problem isn't that it was different or more inflammatory than her past rhetoric. It wasn't.

The problem is that she had a laugh track.

In fairness to the CPAC audience, the laughs were far from uniformly appreciative of the joke. There's enough groaning and surprise mixed with the laughter to let you know that many people were reacting to the outrageousness of the statement, which was probably Ann Coulter's expectation - this is her M.O. Does anybody contend that she truly believes John Edwards to be gay? There's nothing clever about a third grade insult like, "He's gay", but Ann Coulter has built her career largely on similarly childish insults.

The problem this time is that there was obviously a significant percentage of her audience who found her funny. Had she made the same comment on a show like Real Time With Bill Maher{, the audience would have... oh, how did Hitchens put it... they would have made "booing and mooing noises". Ann Coulter would have displayed her trademark smug smile and said something derisive about the audience (like, they're so PC they'll want to send her to rehab for making that joke). And everything would have carried on as usual.

The problem here isn't that Ann Coulter did something more outrageous than she's done before. The problem isn't that she embarrassed herself - to the extent that she ever had any shame, she gave it up a long time ago in pursuit of riches. The problem is that this time she got a large number of self-described conservatives at a major conservative event to embarrass themselves. Ann Coulter did what a good speaker does - she knew her audience, she spoke to her audience, she connected with her audience, and she told a joke that worked with her audience. The conservative horror, be it feigned or real, is not a reaction to what she revealed about herself, but is to what she revealed about a large percentage of self-described modern conservatives.

Unqualified? Mediocre?

Perhaps it is just me, but when I hear people who know next-to-nothing about the law or legal practice, let alone Supreme Court jurisprudence, squawking that Harriet Miers is "unqualified" or has a "mediocre" record, I have to question their motives. When I hear somebody who actually has a law degree, and a history of non-legal writings and columns which play fast-and-loose with the facts, join that reactionary circus... well, then I know I'm hearing somebody who probably knows better. (Is Coulter truly mad because Bush didn't pay homage to the Federalist Society? Does she truly believe that only a conservative nerd from an elite law school is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court? Perhaps she's jealous?)

Let's be honest about the panoply of right wing judges who were groomed and positioned to take the seat now to be filled by Miers - their resumes which ostensibly qualify them for the job are a product of politics. This isn't to say that they aren't bright, or even brilliant - but it is beyond question that they have been guided from above through what had been deemed a necessary series of jobs and judicial positions to ensure that they would be deemed "well qualified" by the ABA, while avoiding any public position that would mark them as extremist. The goal was not only to create a list of possible Supreme Court candidates who had the required resume and judicial philosophy, the goal was also to create a range of candidates who would win confirmation even were there a Democractic majority in the Senate.

The criticism of the Miers nomination that I feel is most relevant is that found buried in George Will's invective:

The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers's confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.

In an essay that is only slightly less puerile - falling somewhere between Will's call for experience with the issues and Coulter's ire that the carefully groomed roster of right-wing candidates was ignored - Charles Krauthammer agrees:

To nominate someone whose adult life reveals no record of even participation in debates about constitutional interpretation is an insult to the institution and to that vision of the institution.

The Bush Administration's response, that she's some sort of an outsider with real-world experience, who will improve the Court by being unfamiliar with precedent, is unappealing - and one that I wish Miers herself would disclaim. At least if it is untrue. ("I'm not pleased with the way my car is running... maybe I should add some Coca Cola to the gas tank.")

I cannot imagine that the right-wing angst is truly about Miers' resume, the law school she attended, or the firm where she worked. Had Miers spent a few years serving as a federal appellate judge - a position to which she would have been easily confirmed with her conservative critics pouring scorn on anyone on the left who raised their present objections - their complaints would seem petty. But had that occurred, it is more likely that they would know her - that is, have some sense of her capacity as a judge and her approach toward the law and Constitution.

I don't think they care at all that Miers is not a law review editor from an elite law school, who clerked for the Supreme Court and worked for an elite firm before moving into government work and, ultimately, being appointed to the federal bench. I think they are concerned because they recognize that somebody who has not spent a great deal of time contemplating constitutional issues is unpredictable. Her politics may be perfect, but that doesn't mean she won't set politics aside if she is persuaded that the law dictates a different result. And it doesn't mean that, when she is compelled to think deeply about constitutional law issues during her service on the Court, she won't find that deeper thought leads her to reconsider her prior position.

That is to say, I think the primary concern among the right about Harriet Miers is not that she will be a thoughtful judge who will consider the issues, and not legislate from the bench. I think their fear is that she will do exactly that. When they protest that they don't want a judge who will "legislate from the bench", they mean that they want a judge whose politics both known and set in stone, and who can be expected to consistently apply those politics from the bench. A call for a Justice "in the mold of Thomas and Scalia" is a call to upset a century of precedent that most Americans take for granted. The argument that their activism is acceptable because it ostensibly "undoes" past activism seems hypocritical.

As for President Bush, I don't think he cares that his preferred nominee doesn't have "the right pedigree". He personally believes she is a suitable candidate, and he learned a lesson from the Roberts nomination that if you nominate a candidate whose views are unknown, you leave your opponents little to work with. He does not seem to have the patience to appoint her to the Court of Appeals and hope that another Supreme Court opening comes along - and I think that he views such a move as unnecessary resume padding, particularly given the Republican Senate majority. I believe that he fully expects her to advance his agenda, and the assertion that somebody needs to be "more intellectually qualified" for a job seems to raise his hackles. (Despite the Krauthammer-style prattle - "There are 1,084,504 lawyers in the United States. What distinguishes Harriet Miers from any of them, other than her connection with the president?" - Miers has a better resume than what? Probably 99.5% of practicing lawyers?)

On Bill Maher's show last night, Ann Coulter responded to the question of why the political right found Miers to be unacceptable, while it had acquiesced to the repeated appointment of underqualified and unqualified nominees to a host of government positions. Her response was to the effect that "The Supreme Court is different". Without endorsing Coulter's implicit suggestion that it is okay to nominate poorly skilled people to other federal posts, I think that the Supreme Court truly is different. But President Bush has never given me the slightest impression that he shares that perspective. If anti-Miers conservatives are not comfortable with how President Bush approaches his job, well, perhaps they should have gotten to know him better before working so hard to elevate him to the Oval Office.

The Prattle of the Coulter

For some reason, pretty much every columnist these days feels obligated to write about Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ". Ann Coulter just added her two cents - although I am probably overvaluing her contribution.

William Safire, the New York Times' in-house "conservative" – who endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992, like so many conservatives – was sure Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" would incite anti-Semitic violence. Thus far, the pogroms have failed to materialize.

Did you get that, folks? You were kidding yourself all these years if you thought Bill Safire was a conservative.

Coulter's focus seems to be on anti-Semitism - denying that Gibson's film could inflame anti-Semitic attitudes - but her editorial suggests to me something very different. It suggests to me that, beneath a thinly stretched surface of pseudo-Christianity, Ann Coulter has a very low opinion of Judaism. Beyond her comments suggesting Safire doesn't 'get it' (apparently because he's not Christian), she continues,

But again I ask: Does anyone at the Times have the vaguest notion what Christianity is?

How can I interpret that, as a comment about an organization she knows has a heavy Jewish editorial presence, particularly on the heels of her attack on Bill Safire?

Coulter concludes by reaffirming that she hates all Muslims. But I am left with the uneasy feeling that her opinions toward Jews aren't much different.

Comments

Coulter Most Foul, II

A true conservative would own up to her misconduct and apologize. But no - like the "conservatives" she worships - including Joe McCarthy and George Bush, Jr. - that would be too much to expect from the likes of Ann Coulter. Her effort to claim that she "technically" told the truth is positively Clintonian.

Comments

Coulter Most Foul

The L.A. Times rebukes Ann Coulter for her latest lies:

The Heritage Foundation posts an Ann Coulter column saying a Kerry supporter, Vietnam vet and former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, "did not give his limbs for his country" because the grenade that injured him was not hurled in combat. How absurd and insulting to all veterans.

Read what really happened.

Comments

Ann Anger and Ed Coulter

This isn't a judgment - it is just an observation. A friend of mine recently pointed out to me that "Ann Coulter is Ed Anger". At that time, I am not embarrassed to say, I was not aware that Ed Anger is a "columnist" for the Weekly World News. In case you have not heard of her, Ann Coulter is a right-wing columnist, best known for being a skinny blonde, and secondarily known for her shrill accusations that everybody who disagrees with her is guilty of treason. Having now reviewed a number of Ed Anger columns, and a number of Ann Coulter columns, I have to say that my friend had a valid point.

There are some very interesting stylistic similarities between Ed and Ann. Both like to commence their editorial pieces with scorching invective which, if recited in an elementary school setting, would ring of precocious immaturity. That is, one would not expect a child so immature to have their vocabulary, but otherwise.... Well, judge for yourself.

Ed Anger rants:

These yahoos think we're the bad guys and that the real problem in the world today is "American imperialism" -- not that nutcase Saddam having enough anthrax and nerve gas to wipe out the human race 10 times over.

Ann Coulter rants:

In the wake of Dean's success, the entire Democratic Dream Team is beginning to sound like Dr. Demento. On the basis of their recent pronouncements, the position of the Democratic Party seems to be that Saddam Hussein did not hit us on 9/11, but Halliburton did.

Ed Anger rants:

We're the most powerful nation on Earth and we ought to act like it, by jiminy. I say, let's shove peace down the throats of these foreign rascals -- no matter how many people we have to kill to do it. ... Once we have the whole Earth speaking one language everyone can understand, united under America's thumb, we'll finally have world peace.

Ann Coulter rants:

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

Ed Anger rants:

Sen. Hillary Clinton -- Old Thunder Thighs' only "qualification" for office is that she looked the other way while Bill played hide- the-cigar with some porky intern..

Ann Coulter rants:

According to an ABC poll, 48 percent of Americans have an unfavorable impression of Hillary, 53 percent of Americans don't want Hillary to ever run for president, and 7 percent of Americans have been date-raped by Bill Clinton.

Now let's look at the structure of their work. Ed Anger likes to use numbered lists, e.g., Let's Recall These Liberals Too!. Ann Coulter likes to write similar things, but using bulleted lists, e.g., I Guess You're Right: There Is No Liberal Media Bias. A distinction without a difference? And obviously, both like to take potshots at "liberals", without being particularly clear on what a "liberal" is (beyond somebody who disagrees with them).

One small point of difference may be that Ann Coulter will occasionally interrupt her invective with a complaint that "liberals" engage in name-calling. I haven't seen that Ed Anger has ever been that hypocritical. Oh yes - and Ed Anger is a joke. That is a difference, right?

Comments