When my daughter Anna was eight and my son, Dylan was four, World War III broke out in our household at least once a day. Anna’s modus operandi, as she explained it to her grandfather, was: “I hit Jonathan. He hits me. Then I tell Mommy.”
In essence, that’s the liberals’ civility scam: They hit us. We hit back. Then their media lap dogs begin howling about incivility and yapping about the decline of gentility in the political debate (which, if I’m not mistaken, started with the presidential election of 1800).
It comes on cue: Ann Coulter writes a book and liberals start spewing about mean-spiritedness.
In her latest foray (“Godless: The Church of Liberalism”), Coulter observed that the “Jersey Girls”--four 9/11 widows who turned themselves into tools of the hate-Bush establishment--reveled in their celebrity status. OK, she also called them “harpies,” too.
Low blow! the media referees of political pugilism cry. (The self-appointed refs always seem to be gazing off into space when liberals rabbit-punch conservatives, or deliver a debilitating kick to the groin.)
Conservative obnoxiousness is a marketing device, the pundits explain. Coulter does it to sell books. Rush Limbaugh does it to boost his ratings.
“There’s something about the momentum of sustaining a reputation based on noise,” sniffs Roger Rosenblatt, “culture critic” for Time Magazine (whose idea of intellectual colloquy is eye-gouging anyone right of Mother Blood). Rosenblatt explains: “Someone like Coulter, in order to sustain a reputation that she’s forged for herself, is likely to think, ‘What can I say now?’ Eventually, how insulting can you get?”
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former enabler-in-chief who spent most of her married life plotting to destroy the reputations of women who accused her predator-husband, ran to give the Jersey Girls a big hug. “Perhaps her (Coulter’s) book should have been called ‘Heartless,’” the lady widely known for her warmth and humanity sneered.
But Coulter’s comments about the Jersey Girls weren’t gratuitous. She devoted a chapter in her book to the way the left picks spokesmen whose suffering is supposed to immunize them from criticism--Cindy Sheehan, Nick Berg’s father, Christopher Reeve, the Jersey Girls, etc. When we respond to their crackpot carping, we’re admonished for our stunning insensitivity.
Meanwhile, the leftists have perfected the gentle art of character assassination, while complaining about the politics of personal destruction. Their idea of a civilized dialogue is calling us really-mean Nazis, while our mouths are taped shut.
The quintessence of liberal civility is the thoughtful fashion in which the left expresses its disagreement with the policies of George W. Bush.
When a liberal writes a book about the 43rd. president of the United States, the word “lies,” “lair,” “stupidm” or “evil” must appear in the title. The trifecta of liberal Bush-bashing would be a book titled “The Evil Lies of Stupid Bush” (or, “The Stupid Lies of Evil Bush”).
Illustrative of the liar-liar-pants-on-fire school of liberal analysis, here are just a few of the titles offered on Amazon.com: “The Lies of George Bush” by David Corn; “Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn’t Tell You,” by Paul Waldman; “Big Bush Lies: The 20 Most Telling Lies of President George W. Bush,” Jerry Politex; “The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq” by Christopher Scheer, Lakshmi Chaudhry, and Robert Scheer; “Bush Lies in State” by Michael McCourt; and “Aliens and Cowboys: Bush’s Legacy of Lies” by Jefferson Lang.
Coming soon to a bookstore near you, “Neener-Neener/ I-Know-You-Are-But-What-Am-I? -- The Intelligent Liberal’s Guide To Political Discourse” by Franken Rodham Moore.
Or, consider the way liberals routinely demonize their opponents:
Evangelical Christians--Ignorant, superstitious, violence-prone fanatics intent on establishing a theocracy and putting homosexuals, abortionists, pornographers, feminists, Moslems, and Ron Howard in death camps.
Gun Owners--Homicidal maniacs who want to arm toddlers with howitzers and kill Bambi.
The U.S. Military--Stone-cold killers, Lt. Calley-clones programmed to indiscriminately murder women and children, and torture detainees.
Pro-lifers--Religious fanatics, misogynists who want to turn women into breeding stock, and violence-prone fetus-worshippers who care about life only in the womb.
Immigration Reform Advocates--Xenophobes who are betraying America’s nation-of-immigrants heritage and have an irrational fear of diversity as well as anyone named Juan or Jose.
Politicians Who Support the U.S. Presence in Iraq, but either A) Didn’t serve in the military, B) Served, but didn’t see combat, or C) Served, saw combat, but failed to win the Medal of Honor--Chicken Hawks, nancy boys, and hypocritical jingoists who’ll defend America to the last drop of the other guy’s blood.
In academia, where leftists are demigods, the dialogue has reached heights of elegance and refinement worthy of a Victorian drawing room.
Take Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor who called the Americans who died in the World Trade Center “little Eichmanns” responsible for America’s “mighty engine of profit,” while their killers were heroes who made “gallant sacrifices” to strike a blow against the American Reich.
Can Roger Rosenblatt be reached for comment? I don’t recall Senator Clinton condemning Churchill’s comments as “heartless.”
Besides the fact that she loves America and doesn’t sound like a raving lunatic, here are the essential differences between Coulter and Churchill: 1) Coulter isn’t paid by Colorado taxpayers; 2) Students aren’t forced to sit in a classroom and listen to her; (Actually, no one is forced to listen to her) and 3) Professors aren’t getting all weepy while defending her academic freedom.
Admittedly, conservatives give as good as they get. The difference between us and them is that we can argue as well as inveigh. They can only hurl invectives.
In her new book, Coulter is caustic and cutting. She also makes a devastating case against liberal crime-control policies (the ultimate oxymoron), abortion, stem-cell research, global warming, evolutionism, and public education.
Liberals can’t argue because: 1) Their positions are illogical and indefensible; 2) They’ve controlled the culture for so long that they’ve lost any debating skills they once had (their mental muscles have atrophied); and 3) Since they consider opposition to their agenda by definition evil, they think it’s beneath their dignity to argue with us.
That’s why liberals can’t succeed at talk radio--that, plus the fact that they’re humor-deficient. I may not always agree with Rush, but he’s an articulate, persuasive advocate. As a talk show host, Al Franken (author of the carefully nuanced book “Rush Limbaugh Is a Big, Fat Idiot”) is a great--whatever it is he’s supposed to be.
Because liberals can’t debate, they are forever telling us that on certain issues “the debate is closed”--words I’ve never heard from a conservative.
That and demanding that their viewpoint be subsidized. Speaking at the “Take Back America” conference on June 15 (these days, the left is always taking something back), Rep. Bernie Sanders (VP--Vanguard of the Proletariat--Vermont), urged his fellow progressives to take on “right-wing nuts” (how’s that for civility?) in talk radio. Perhaps Sanders should teach them how to dial a telephone--and demand that conservative stations and newspapers provide “alternative points of view.”
Apparently, controlling the networks (with the exception of FOX), America’s newspapers of record, Hollywood, public education, and the liberal arts faculties of 99.9% of colleges and universities isn’t enough. Sanders wants to force conservative media outlets to subsidize the opposition. (“Mommy, Rush has a weekly audience of 20 million. Make them give me my own talk show!”)
Coulter’s book now is #1 on The New York Times Best Sellers List. Clearly, we need a government program to force book-buyers to purchase liberal tracts.
As a survival skill in the political arena that liberals shaped, conservatives have learned verbal street-fighting. But at least we’re not hypocrites. We don’t sucker-punch the other guy and then start whining about the appalling lack of civility when he hits back.
