Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

CPAC Wrap-Up

Most incongruous booth in the exhibit hall: The ACLU. I did a doubletake myself when I saw them. To be sure, they were over in a corner that got the least amount of foot traffic, but even if they’d been next to Bloggers Corner they would have been the loneliest guys around. The Pro-American Muslims table got more traffic and excitement (and they were genuinely nice and sincere people, not some obviously politicized PR front group).

In a previous post, I named the Brownback legions as the winner of my prize for Best Imitation of a Carnival Barker at CPAC. They got their revenge. A Brownbacker managed to paste a Brownback bumper sticker on my shirt without my noticing, and I paraded around with it on for more than half an hour before I detected it.

Finally, I have a new category for a certain kind of right-wing polemicist: I’m going to call them "Ann D’Souzas," or "Dinesh Coulters." And I’m not going to discuss them. It ends here. No--don’t even try. Just forget it. Who?

Discussions - 26 Comments

Steve, I concur with your vow. Let’s keep ourselves to it.

Good vow: I think we should have an IGNORE box, and I’ve already given my opinion about a person or two or who should be in it. But a difference between Ann and Dinesh--her outrage is complete baloney, he may well have turned sort of sincerly nuts.

Peter - You created the "ignore" box only AFTER that post? Still, I agree with you.

Peter, but sometimes baloney is good. It’s an important social skill.

I recall reading in THE RIGHT STUFF, by Tom Wolfe, how would-be astronauts were subjected to various and utterly ridiculous tests. One such test consisted of a shrink passing to a candidate a blank piece of white paper, asking the candidate "what he saw?" Well one smart aleck type, looked at it, got a quizzical look, and said, "but it’s upside down," which caused the shrink to bend over to get a better look, then he looked up into the eyes of the candidate, whose eyes were just gazing at him, with that look that said: "You IDIOT!" Unspoken of course, unwritten, no interoffice memo, but one pilot demonstrated to his own satisfaction what he thought of the whole Mickey Mouse aspect of the program.

The great Alexander Solzhenitsyn relates how such provocateurs and humourists were important for purposes of retaining sanity in the camps. The biting word, the mocking comment, the sarcastic drawl, sometimes these were the only things that kept men, men, that kept humans, human.

We’re in a "dictatorship of relativism." It’s a dictatorship. One of the keys to breaking a dictatorship, ANY dictatorship is the use of the barb, sarcasm, irony, cruel ironies and cruel sarcasms too, they have their place.

As the dictatorship of the Left grows, as it gathers increased powers unto itself, we’re going to need MORE Coulters, not less.

Food for thought gentlemen, food for thought.

Think what you like about the ACLU, (of which I am a proud member). They are fearless!

Nice distinction between the two flamethrowers, Peter; and a great phrase, "sincerely nuts."
Dan, you give an impressive defense of the indefensible. I’m impressed but not moved in the slightest. Fung, in the FWIW department, the few ACLU staffers/members I’ve met have been conscientious and honorable people.

There’s no excuse for someone like Coulter, yet she is largely treated as a real superstar by the Right. As Dan’s post indicates, she simply provides the rough-cut version of what a lot of conservatives are thinking anyway. To the extent that D’Souza is being left behind, that has at least as much to do with what is seen as his friendly views towards Islam as anything else. Such views are simply not "politically correct" these days.

This is the sort of thing that gets conservatives all hacked off with the ACLU. The fact that they are willing to confront reprehensible garbage like this:

"A former White House official who ordered three activists expelled from a 2005 Denver public forum with President Bush says it was White House policy to exclude potentially disruptive guests from Bush’s appearances nationwide." (emphasis mine)

Apparently the Bush White House endorses a domestic policy of pre-emption as well as for their foreign "policy". You know, the way we took out Saddam, the guy behind 9/11, before he and his Al Qaeda agents launched one of their many nukes at us.

Craig: I suspect you’ll find that the Clinton White House had the same policy. They just didn’t confess to it as openly and directly.

I am no fan of Dinesh because I thought his book The End of Racism contained some deliberate slurs of paleos. But what exactly is the beef with him here?

Poor Craig. You misunderstood me. Edwards is a wimp, a flat-out wimp. But I’m not willing to go beyond that, and I certainly wouldn’t even have thought of uttering what Coulter did the other day.

But just because I wouldn’t say what she did, doesn’t mean that I’m going to participate in a thought-crime exercise.

I don’t see the wisdom in speaking denunciations that could have been written by the DNC. I don’t see the wisdom of maintaining the reign of political correctness over this dear land. It’s done enough damage already.

And before the ugliness of political correctness is finally entombed forever, there’s going to be a need for many an Ann Coulter to emerge.

And that’s a sad fact. Often fire is used to fight fire. Often flooding is answered by counter-flooding. Political correctness was created by a weird combination of leftist high-brows and cultural barbarians. It isn’t going to be destroyed without some cultural ugliness occurring. If you’ve a problem with what Coulter said, perhaps you shouldn’t have participated in the creation of an atmosphere of political correctness, because it was that atmosphere THAT PROVIDED the environment for a provocateur, for a bomb-thrower.

Coulter is a response, not a cause, certainly not a proximate cause.

"But just because I wouldn’t say what she did, doesn’t mean that I’m going to participate in a thought-crime exercise."



Amen Dan. The problem is that Coulter used a crude term. But the fact that homosexuals are now a Politically Correct protected category is a problem that should be relentlessly countered.

Jonah Goldberg over at The Corner has a different take:

Category Error

Lord knows I take backseat to no man in my admiration of our polymathic pal, Steve Hayward. But I think this statement at No Left Turns is unfair to Dinesh D’Souza:

Finally, I have a new category for a certain kind of right-wing polemicist: I’m going to call them "Ann D’Souzas," or "Dinesh Coulters." And I’m not going to discuss them. It ends here. No—don’t even try. Just forget it. Who?

Me: Whatever category you think Ann Coulter belongs in, I don’t think it’s the same one as Dinesh D’Souza resides in. Dinesh’s latest book is flawed and he’s provocative, but his intent is not to shock for shock’s sake and he engages his work on a level of scholarship that Ann doesn’t. You can be an enormous fan or foe of both, but I don’t see why your feelings for one should jibe with your feelings for the other.

I agree with Mr. Hayward. Coulter and D’Souza can spray their vomitus and unreasonably illiberal (respectively, and illiberal in the classic sense) wherever they want, but I have no room for them in my view of conservatism.

Coulter’s comment was a throw-away line designed to get a rise, and get a laugh.

D’Souza’s book however, had to be a year in the making. He poured a great deal of forethought into it. It’s based on his "studies" of the region, albeit an ever so selective and politically correct list of authors. He quotes Lewis at length, but take a gander at what Lewis is saying of late. He just spoke to Hebrew University the other day, and read his interview with the Jerusalem Post. Lewis wants us to get tough, especially with Tehran. Lewis doesn’t draw some mythical line between "radicals" and "traditionalists." Nor does Lewis blame the victim for terror attacks. He doesn’t blame Israel, he doesn’t blame Europe, and he certainly doesn’t blame the United States.

D’Souza’s book has been described by some as the writings of a man looking for attention. Someone earlier termed Coulter an "attention whore." D’Souza’s new book could be deemed the actions of one as well.

"Dinesh’s latest book is flawed"

What is the flaw? What is the issue? I must have missed this memo.

In short, I don’t see D’Souza’s book as an example of scholarship. I deem it a book with the veneer thereof.

He ought to be ashamed of himself.

And the idea of trotting out India, INDIA as a beau ideal for muslim/hindu relations is a joke, a sick joke. India exists in an uneasy, unspoken armistice. Atrocities meted out by one side are answered promptly, in kind, in spades, and in blood. If anything, domestic and sectarian politics in India serves as a CAUTIONARY tale, which we would do well to closely study. Just like we should study what happened to Eastern Rite Christians throughout the Levant and Anatolia.

Copious applause. I consider AC’s remark to be a harmless but offensive botched gag. It’s a little like John Kerry’s gaffe just before the election, only Coulter was trying to be offensive and only botched the joke itself.

Oh well, you go to war with the spokespeople you have, not the spokespeople you wish you had.

Dan Phillips: The problem is that Coulter used a crude term. But the fact that homosexuals are now a Politically Correct protected category is a problem that should be relentlessly countered.


Agreed. But how does calling John Edwards a "faggot" counter political correctness? Hayward is right. The big ignore button for Coulter and similarly uncivil tongues.

In response to the once-and-future Daniel K, I really don’t believe John Kerry’s remarks about being stuck in Iraq were a joke. He didn’t smile and the context had nothing to do with anything funny. Further, if he’d admitted/claimed he’d misspoken I’d be inclined to believe him, but the fact that he said it was a botched joke make me think that he really believed what he meant then lied about it.

Coulter, however, was obviously joking. I have to admit it was kinda funny, but I’m a crude individual and I honestly don’t believe language like that should be used in the public arena (especially if you want to win people to your side). If someone more serious made similar remarks, I think there could be legitimate outrage and calls for an apology, etc. But considering it was Coulter who made them (whose job description reads something like "be a complete asshole"), I can’t say I’m surprised or expecting any real backlash. And for the record I do think she’s bad for the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

Only women can take on the homosexuals and their radical agenda. If a man were to speak out against it, he immediately opens himself up to accusations of homophobia.

That’s why I said that America is going to need more Coulters before that particular noxious agenda is driven back.

The reign of political correctness is so strong, that only certain people can speak on certain issues. It took an ethnic Asian American to speak on the internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War, {Michelle Malkin}. It took D’Souza to speak on certain racial issues, and he was inoculated because he wasn’t Caucasian. And against the homosexual agenda, which offers a nightmare for our country, it’s going to be women that will have to stand up. For no man is going to go out there and take on that issue. Just isn’t going to happen.

It’s sad that the situation is such that we need a Coulter, and we’ll need far more of them. But that’s the case.

Sad faces won’t turn back the radical agenda. Muted voices expressing "regret" aren’t going to cut it.

One of the more troubling outcomes of this drama is the number of Conservatives willing to make peace with that radical and corrosive agenda, willing to denounce Coulter even before the head of the Democrat party.

It makes no sense to try to turn back Roe, {which stands on a certain legal attitude} and allow the homosexual agenda to run amok. One cannot stand without the other. The homosexual agenda NEEDS Roe, and Roe LEADS INEXORABLY to the homosexual agenda. Both are entwined. If you are serious on one, then you’re serious on the other.

That’s why it was so ridiculous to see so many Conservatives doing the work of the DNC denouncing Coulter. Coulter is fighting their fight. Whether they like her style or not, whether they agree with her methods or not, she’s fighting their fight.

She is their ally.

They may not like her company, she might not be welcomed at the faculty lounge.

But then again, what have Conservatives in the faculty lounge managed to accomplish of late?

Not a whole hell of a lot, now have they?

Dan writes: That’s why it was so ridiculous to see so many Conservatives doing the work of the DNC denouncing Coulter. Coulter is fighting their fight. Whether they like her style or not, whether they agree with her methods or not, she’s fighting their fight.


Damn straight, Dan! I’m glad we’ve got faggot nigger wop gook hymies like you sticking up for Ann and the conservative movement. Keep up the good work. Civility rocks!

Conrad,

Dan Phillips: The problem is that Coulter used a crude term. But the fact that homosexuals are now a Politically Correct protected category is a problem that should be relentlessly countered.



Agreed. But how does calling John Edwards a "faggot" counter political correctness?



The point is that it must be absolutely clear that the criticism of Coulter is of her crudeness. Not that homosexuality is now immune from criticism and off limits.

Yea, "civility rocks," and we’ve seen so much of it from the left since 1968. Yea. Go ask Robert Bork about civility! Go ask Newt Gingrich. Go ask John Tower. Hell, go ask the ghost of William Westmoreland.

The Democrats tried to finger the President of the United States for 9/11, and you chirp to me about "civility."

The Democrats appointed JAMIE GORELICK, AND BEN VINISTE to THE MOST IMPORTANT commission since the Warren Commission investigated the assassination of JFK. And you chirp to me about civility.

Dude, I’m a Conservative. That means my mind has been trained in mental combat. Every day a Conservative wakes up, he’s in for mental combat that day. Doing nothing more than turning on the news, picking up the newspaper, he’s involved in mental combat. Nobody becomes a Conservative WITHOUT going through that.

That being the case, do you really think your comment left an indentation upon me.

Your comment indicates that you’ve been conditioned by the cultural left. Congratulations!

I’ll leave this thought for you: Isn’t there more to life than making political fashion statements?

Dan P. That line you suggested must be maintained can’t be. Otherwise I would share your position.

It took the ravings of many a barbarian before political correctness was installed. And it’s now POWERFUL. How powerful? Even 9/11 wasn’t enough to reduce it to rubble. That’s how strong it is. We have guards wearing white gloves when they hand the koran to terrorists on Gitmo. THAT’S political correctness in action. That’s how powerful it is, that’s how extensive it is.

Conrad’s comment is reflective of that. He raved on about he knows not what, but notice his attitude, that moral certainty that’s the hallmark of the radical, that David Horowitz described so well in his books.

We’re not going to turn back political correctness by scholarly tomes demonstrating it’s utter inanity. We’re not going to turn it back by making long, sorrowful faces, issuing sad statements.

Everything we’ve done heretofore against this deathly political correctness has been insufficient.

Humour is KEY to destroying domestic dictatorships. And that means Coulter. Sure, she’ll cross the line, she’s crossed it in the past and she’ll cross it in the future.

C’est la vie...? Non. C’est la guerre.........

The stakes the left is playing for are civlizational and generational. They’re playing for keeps.

I’ll tell ya what. We Conservatives, entre nous, amongst ourselves, we’ll make a deal. After we beat back the left, after we destroy the ugly edifice of political correctness, after we save ourselves and our civilization, after we save the West, after we add new laurels to our country, AFTER ALL THAT, then we’ll have the time and the leisure to denounce Coulter. Then we’ll express dismay that we had to make use of such as her. BUT ONLY AFTERWARDS, not before.

So if you’re going to hold a thought crime session, count this Conservative out!

This just in: Libby found guilty on 4 of 5 counts. Sentenced to recuperate at Walter Reed.

Now, back to the important stuff.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/9989