Greenwald poses the question of what coulters popularity amongst conservatives says about the conservative movement in general. What it says is very simple. It is that people enjoy imagining their antagonists as their moral and intellectual inferiors. Conservatives derive enjoyment from seeing coulter depict liberals as brainless, pious girlymen for the same reason that liberals enjoy reading greenwald depict conservatives as psychologicaly flawed bigots.
The difference is that coulter is occasionally funny and never less than concise whilst greenwalds obese prose, fat upon its own self importance, waddles protractedly in arriving to even the most immediate of points. The quoted article could be compressed to a paragraph and lose nothing in substance.
I think that the Rush/Coulter tool is used more because it's what most outrages the opposition rather than it truly representing a widely held morality(or lack thereof) of people who vote Republican??.
And the Left use the same gimmick.
Well...I don't know. Someone like AL Franken really isn't as huge an asshole as Coulter.
I'm not going to argue degrees of assholism. It's all relative to what side your beliefs are aligned with. Those on the right would not agree with your assessment.
The important thing to recognize is that they are both indeed assholes.
I think that the Rush/Coulter tool is used more because it's what most outrages the opposition rather than it truly representing a widely held morality(or lack thereof) of people who vote Republican??.
And the Left use the same gimmick.
Well...I don't know. Someone like AL Franken really isn't as huge an asshole as Coulter.
I'm not going to argue degrees of assholism. It's all relative to what side your beliefs are aligned with. Those on the right would not agree with your assessment.
The important thing to recognize is that they are both indeed assholes. [/quote
You always want to insist that Right and Left and mirror images of one another and I think that's wholly inaccurate. It's not just a matter of degrees. If the Right can be accused of deploying the politics of hate, then the Left can be accused of deploying the politics of guilt but these are FUNDAMENTALLY different approaches.
The strategies and tactics have NOT been the same over the years even if, increasingly, both seem to be learning from one another (the Right being the more influential "teacher" just b/c they've had more success).
By the way, I could be wrong, but I bet more of your friends would like Al Franken than Ann Coulter. Coulter, despite being a well-known talking head and author wouldn't have a shot at running for public office. Franken's bid for senator might actually have some traction.
Of course the people on the "Left" like Franken.....duh.
He's spoken about how Karl Rove should be executed, how Coleman of Minnesota is a "butt boy", how the Clinton Impeachment could be compared to the Holocaust and how all Republicans are "Shameless Dicks"(Just a few, I could go on)
Is that ANY different than what Coulter does??
If this doesn't mirror similarly assholic behavior I don't know what you would agree would.
Of course the people on the "Left" like Franken.....duh.
He's spoken about how Karl Rove should be executed, how Coleman of Minnesota is a "butt boy", how the Clinton Impeachment could be compared to the Holocaust and how all Republicans are "Shameless Dicks"(Just a few, I could go on)
Is that ANY different than what Coulter does??
So why is Franken a more viable personality? Seriously, you seem to have friends on both the right and left I presume - do they see Franken - or any Left-wing pundit - as Coulter's ideological/inverse twin?
Is Keith Olbermann just Bill O'Reilly with a better haircut and vocabulary?
Punditry shares much in common but they don't operate along the same lines even if both sides deploy name-calling. I don't approve of all the tactics the Left have used over the years to make their point but I don't see them as indistinguishable from the Right in their attempts to make their voice heard or agenda met. The two sides want fundamentally different outcomes and thus, their tactics/strategies are different.
It's funny that just last night I came across a website that called Ann Coulter the "The Republican Michael Moore".
I disagree with your basic premise, mainly because I believe, and detailed in an earlier post, that both parties goals are to keep people pointing fingers at each other in blame and contempt.
Therefore not only are they using similar tactics, they are striving towards the same goal(imo)
I don't see Franken being a more "viable" personality at all. Does he get more press than Coulter??
The fact that he's talking about running for office, in the extremely liberal state of Minnesota doesn't give him any more national viability tahn Coulter.
And it is also my opinion that the Right is just as disgusted by Franken/Moore as the Left is disgusted with Rush/Coulter.
They all serve their purpose.
It's just easier to tolerate assholism when it's being done in the name and support of YOUR beliefs.
I think if you study candidates, political campaigns and the parties over the last couple years you'll see that there's actually some overlap and some differences in how they appeal to the public and voters.
Clinton for example tried the "big tent" approach and went after both Republican and Democratic votes. He was also willing to work with the Republicans in Congress.
Bush on the other hand went for his "base" which means he only appealed to Republicans. He, along with the Republican leadership in Congress, were also not willing to work with Democrats because they could pass legislation without them.
Many campaigns from both parties also have a tendency to go negative quite quickly and spend all their moneny on attack ads. They know that it will turn off voters and only "base" voters - those that always vote - will turn out. It makes it easier to predict winners and control voting.
And you're right that people like Coulter and Moore play the same role for their camps, i.e. getting their base motivated while pissing off the other side.
Well...I don't know. Someone like AL Franken really isn't as huge an asshole as Coulter.
Al Franken's an asshole?
The comparison of Coulter and Franken just doesnt make sense on any level. Even when the Democrats are in power, the Republicans are still the voice of those with the real power in America- the corporations. Dems will always represent the little guys....even when some of them are republicans. Moreover, Republicans are inherently assholes, at least those who understand why they are republicans are assholes. There are hundreds of issues but the dividing line between democrats and republicans has to do with selfishness. The GOP is always looking out for #1. taxes? breaks for the corporations and the rich. affirmative action? let the minorities pull themselves up by their bootstraps. social and educational programs? on the bottom of their "to do" list. crime? nail the low-income criminals, but protect the white-collar guys. immigration? keep em out...unless they want to mow my lawn.
Comments
Greenwald poses the question of what coulters popularity amongst conservatives says about the conservative movement in general. What it says is very simple. It is that people enjoy imagining their antagonists as their moral and intellectual inferiors. Conservatives derive enjoyment from seeing coulter depict liberals as brainless, pious girlymen for the same reason that liberals enjoy reading greenwald depict conservatives as psychologicaly flawed bigots.
The difference is that coulter is occasionally funny and never less than concise whilst greenwalds obese prose, fat upon its own self importance, waddles protractedly in arriving to even the most immediate of points. The quoted article could be compressed to a paragraph and lose nothing in substance.
I'm not going to argue degrees of assholism. It's all relative to what side your beliefs are aligned with. Those on the right would not agree with your assessment.
The important thing to recognize is that they are both indeed assholes.
He's spoken about how Karl Rove should be executed, how Coleman of Minnesota is a "butt boy", how the Clinton Impeachment could be compared to the Holocaust and how all Republicans are "Shameless Dicks"(Just a few, I could go on)
Is that ANY different than what Coulter does??
If this doesn't mirror similarly assholic behavior I don't know what you would agree would.
So why is Franken a more viable personality? Seriously, you seem to have friends on both the right and left I presume - do they see Franken - or any Left-wing pundit - as Coulter's ideological/inverse twin?
Is Keith Olbermann just Bill O'Reilly with a better haircut and vocabulary?
Punditry shares much in common but they don't operate along the same lines even if both sides deploy name-calling. I don't approve of all the tactics the Left have used over the years to make their point but I don't see them as indistinguishable from the Right in their attempts to make their voice heard or agenda met. The two sides want fundamentally different outcomes and thus, their tactics/strategies are different.
I disagree with your basic premise, mainly because I believe, and detailed in an earlier post, that both parties goals are to keep people pointing fingers at each other in blame and contempt.
Therefore not only are they using similar tactics, they are striving towards the same goal(imo)
I don't see Franken being a more "viable" personality at all. Does he get more press than Coulter??
The fact that he's talking about running for office, in the extremely liberal state of Minnesota doesn't give him any more national viability tahn Coulter.
And it is also my opinion that the Right is just as disgusted by Franken/Moore as the Left is disgusted with Rush/Coulter.
They all serve their purpose.
It's just easier to tolerate assholism when it's being done in the name and support of YOUR beliefs.
so true for all deep into their own politics
asking someone with their own poloitical thoughts to think outside the box is like explaining call waiting to a deaf person
shit'll never happen
I think if you study candidates, political campaigns and the parties over the last couple years you'll see that there's actually some overlap and some differences in how they appeal to the public and voters.
Clinton for example tried the "big tent" approach and went after both Republican and Democratic votes. He was also willing to work with the Republicans in Congress.
Bush on the other hand went for his "base" which means he only appealed to Republicans. He, along with the Republican leadership in Congress, were also not willing to work with Democrats because they could pass legislation without them.
Many campaigns from both parties also have a tendency to go negative quite quickly and spend all their moneny on attack ads. They know that it will turn off voters and only "base" voters - those that always vote - will turn out. It makes it easier to predict winners and control voting.
And you're right that people like Coulter and Moore play the same role for their camps, i.e. getting their base motivated while pissing off the other side.
Al Franken's an asshole?
The comparison of Coulter and Franken just doesnt make sense on any level. Even when the Democrats are in power, the Republicans are still the voice of those with the real power in America- the corporations. Dems will always represent the little guys....even when some of them are republicans. Moreover, Republicans are inherently assholes, at least those who understand why they are republicans are assholes. There are hundreds of issues but the dividing line between democrats and republicans has to do with selfishness. The GOP is always looking out for #1. taxes? breaks for the corporations and the rich. affirmative action? let the minorities pull themselves up by their bootstraps. social and educational programs? on the bottom of their "to do" list. crime? nail the low-income criminals, but protect the white-collar guys. immigration? keep em out...unless they want to mow my lawn.