January 06, 2005

Why I Love Ann Coulter, Part II

Most of us are raised to be painstakingly civil. Worse, most of us scandinavian midwesterners are trained from birth to be thoroughly conflict-averse. And when you're a conservative in Minnesota, you're probably working on recovering from four decades of political Stockholm Syndrome, as you slowly train yourself to realize that Arne Carlson, "R" aside, was closer to Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan.

It's hard to be an assertive conservative, in short.

And yet, at the back of your mind as you confront some of the idiocy of mainstream liberalism, there's a voice in the back of your head - my college major advisor called it "the imp of the perverse" - that tells you "Grab that moron by the scruff of the neck and kick his ass!". Oh, yes, you're a well-trained midwestern conservative, and you stifle that voice. You bottle up the pure ridicule you feel for your dimbulb opponent. But you so desperately want to let it fly, just once.

And that's why we need Ann Coulter. She's the catharsis our inner conservative needs, the one to go ahead just do it, to just to ahead and say the sort of things that so many on the left feel no compunctions about saying.

Only - this is important - she's usually right:

"I'm thinking about putting up a reward on my Web page for any liberal who will mention either Afghanistan or the Kurds," she said. "I mean, 85 percent of Iraq is free, it's beautiful - we have about 300 troops patrolling the entire Kurdish area. These poor beleaguered Kurds are free, are happy, are dancing in the streets, and liberals simply won't mention them. I certainly thought Afghanistan was going to be a tougher nut to crack than Iraq- the Russians couldn't take Afghanistan! They've basically been at war for a hundred years—even when nobody’s there, they're at war with one another. We took Afghanistan in a month, and now they've had elections and women vote, and they didn’t vote for some crazy lunatic mullahs. So that's a pretty good year."
Oodles of observations follow.

Posted by Mitch at January 6, 2005 06:03 AM | TrackBack

In case you don't know, "The Imp Of The Perverse" is an Edgar Allan Poe story, and a good one. Always reminds me of the bits of Moby Dick after "Call Me Ishmael" where the narrator describes taking to sea whenever he feels like running through the streets knocking off people's hats.

But anyway, the real problem is, you can civilly debate with these fools forever and ever; they will never concede or even acknowledge one point, and heap abuse on you the whole time besides. But if, after all that time wasted on them, you dismiss them as morons, they'll immediately respond with, "Nice name-calling. I guess that's the best you can do, eh?"

No, you got the best first, and ignored it; you've earned the ridicule.

Yes, I'm using your comments section to work out some issues. Is it that obvious?

Posted by: Brian Jones at January 6, 2005 08:41 AM

I can sooooo relate! The liberal mind's complete rejection of anything related to fact or truth just leaves me sputtering in frustration! Given that I am unwilling/unable to waste my time trying to argue with a fog, I actively avoid such discussions. I guess I could put it down to my Scandinavian heritage, but it's mainly a protective measure to preserve my sanity.

Posted by: Kris at January 6, 2005 09:36 AM

I think the catharsis factor accounts for the relatively greater significance and power of blogging on the conservative side.

Posted by: Charles R. Williams at January 6, 2005 11:24 AM

As you might have gathered from previous comments here, I usually broadly agree with the opinions you express.

That said, your argument here is one that works equally well for leftist defenses of Al Franken and his fellow travellers. That I find the arguments of the right less offensive than those of the left speaks to my political orientation, not to their underlying value.

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you on this one. There really is something to be said for suffering in silence or answering diatribe with reason rather than lashing out (even with much better reasoned diatribe).


Posted by: Doug Sundseth at January 6, 2005 02:54 PM


I agree - hence the "Imp of the Perverse" reference.

My better self would react like a rational, intellectual grownup.

My less-better self, though, needs a workout once in a while, if only to blog the carbon out of the cylinders. Thus comes my inner Coulter.

Posted by: mitch at January 6, 2005 03:27 PM

Er, that's "blow" the carbon out of the cylinders, natch.

Posted by: mitch at January 6, 2005 03:27 PM

I love Ann Coulter, too. She's wicked, funny, smart, witty and correct. She's not afraid to fight fire with fire, call her a name, she'll call you a worse one. Yes, she says and writes what so many of us are too well mannered to say out loud.
It's perfectly true that you can't argue with a liberal. They don't hear you. But argue with them anyway, and keep it logical, because you never know who else may be listening. In the past, I have kept my mouth shut, but now if my kids are in the building, I will not let liberal nonsense go unanswered, even if I'm eating dinner in the liberal's house, and she makes great lasanga! I just try to keep it civil, and complement the cooking. And then I email the lib all of Ann's columns!

Posted by: mlp at January 7, 2005 10:29 AM

wow, one post it's "COULTER IS GOD!" next is "MIKE MALLOY IS SATAN" how are they different? yikes...

Posted by: jesse v at January 10, 2005 08:34 PM