Mon 31 Oct 2005
An Ann Coulter/Michael Moore experience
Posted by David under journalism, philosophizing, what I did today
[2] Comments
As I was about to roll out of town for the ~4 hour drive to Chicago, I visited the library, in a last ditched effort to listen to *Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire* before the movie comes out in November. They didn’t have it. Dang. Well, I still needed something to listen to, so I just browsed.
I saw the audio version of [Ann Coulter](http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/welcome.cgi)’s book [*How to talk to a Liberal (if you must)*](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400054184/qid%3D1105923271/sr%3D8-1/ref%3Dpd%5Fcsp%5F1/002-3137557-8036860?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). I had seen this book on some best-seller shelf a while ago, and thought “Woah, apparently I should know who this person is”. So, I thought I should learn more. Of course, here was my opportunity, and I didn’t really feel like it. After all, my real goal here was to ease the lonely drive, not to educate myself on current public figures. If it was bad, annoying, etc., what was I going to do?
I kept browsing, and then found [*Michael Moore*](http://www.michaelmoore.com/)’s *Stupid White Men*. To be honest, I never thought I would read this book. Although Moore is certainly a hero to many of my friends, and while I certainly am more inclined to agree with him on political issues than I am someone like Ms. Coulter, he is not a hero of mine… I find many of his tactics offensive, and many of his fundamental ideas don’t appeal to me at all…
But, I thought, maybe I should try an experiment… I’d get both of these books on tape, and then alternate listening to them. They represent what most Americans view as the far, opposite ends of the political spectrum, so much so that I think many people on the left and the right don’t really want to be associated with the one people might naturally associate them with. So, I decided to go for it, also picking up *In the Time of the Comet* by H. G. Wells, in case I couldn’t take it.
Well, basically, I couldn’t take it. I did make it through one tape of each one on the way up there before it just got to be too much, though, so I’ll say a bit about the first couple of chapters of these books and what it was like to listen to them “side-by-side” like that.
Oh, and before the start, in case it’s not obvious, I’m aware that I’m biased in this review, so if you’re tempted to write and tell me that I’m biased, don’t expect a reply.
The first chapter of Coulter’s book was certainly more annoying than what followed. I think the most troublesome thing about it to me is that she talked about liberals as if they are all exactly the same, so if Ted Kennedy did something wrong, then so did I, because she would consider me a liberal. Some of her assertions made me laugh out loud, like that liberals won’t engage in a real argument but instead will only focus on a catch phrase like “Bush Lied”. I can’t help but wonder if she can’t tell if a liberal will argue or not because she wouldn’t give them time to speak. I imagined myself on a talk show with her, and had trouble imagining how I’d be allowed to get a word in edgewise. The official amazon.com review summarizes some of her advice as “don’t be defensive, always outrage the enemy, and never apologize to, compliment, or show graciousness to a Democrat” and while I can’t say that’s an exact quote, I bet she’d think it was at least a fair summation. She offered a few examples of how some Democrats had been rude to Republicans who had shown graciousness. I agree that some of those were rude, but I was not at all convinced that this was the rule rather than the exception.
What’s certainly more striking — and, I must say, more interesting — about her writing is her actual positions on some of the issues of the day. It’s a bit hard to tell her position sometimes, because she is mixing humor with political commentary, which doesn’t bother me, but it’s sometimes hard to tell what’s hyperbole and what’s her actual position (turns out there doesn’t appear to be a website called “ihateanncoulterwithahothothate.com” (I tried google and several variations in case I was remembering it wrong, but I certainly couldn’t find it. If someone can correct me, I’d be most appreciative), but if there was, I’m sure she wouldn’t be seriously believe that the author was trying to present something unbiased).
So, for instance, I bet she doesn’t really think that the US should invade France… Like, I don’t *think* she’d support sending actual American troops to France and actually trying to topple their government. But, it doesn’t matter, because this is a good lead-in to what I have to say that’s positive about her: she presented a nice, thorough argument for why France is not a good friend to the US. I don’t agree with her, but I do respect her for presenting a historical account of all the ways that she thinks that France has hurt the US. During the whole “Freedom Fries” thing, with right-wing Americans pouring french wine down sewers and stuff, I took it as very simplistic frustration with France opposing the Bush administration’s intent to invade Iraq. Coulter’s presentation certainly made more sense than anything I heard anyone say at the time. I could say the same thing, actually, about the case for invading Iraq: I listened to most of Colin Powell’s speech before the UN, to all of Bush’s “Cincinnati” speech talking of the urgency of going into Iraq, and read/heard countless essays advocating that position. None of those made as much sense as Coulter’s presentations. So, nice work, Ann.
But, at the end of the day, I do not feel bad about not ascribing to her feelings about how to deal with Islamic nations: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” I don’t recall any lip service in what I heard to respecting Islam, or that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists. Her case really seems to be that we should irradicate the religion, not by killing all Muslims, but I guess by killing enough of them to control Islamic countries, and then deliberately converting them to Christianity. No, I don’t see that as good. I believe in the freedom of religion, not just for Americans, but for everyone. Furthermore, I do not see the survival or prosperity of the United States as being fundamentally threatened by this religion. And, I guess I just need a really good reason to think that we should be risking American troops and overthrowing other nations. So, I guess I’m definitely a liberal to her. For this, according to her, I hate my country (I even hate homosexuals!) and I don’t want to engage in reasoned debate. I don’t know, maybe she’d make an exception for me. *chuckle*
Ok, after finishing the first tape of Coulter’s book, I put in Michael Moore. It’s a difficult comparison. I think Moore is probably just as set in his ways as is Coulter, I’m not sure I could say which one is more fundamentally biased. But, the parts of Moore’s book that I heard were much more about bashing the Bush administration specifically, not conservatives in general.
I liked both books best when they were being specific, and the least when they were generalizing. So, Moore went into detail about his understanding of how the Bush team won the 2000 election illegitimately. I don’t know if all of his facts are true or not (I suspect that at least some of them aren’t). But as with Coulter’s France presentation, I appreciated that he was at least presenting a thorough case. And, what can I say, I do think there’s real reason to question the legitimacy of that election. But, hey, that’s ancient history at this point.
I admit that I listened to more of Moore than of Coulter… it is really difficult to listen to someone insult and belittle you for your beliefs and those of people who you associate with. I’d be much more inclined to hear people like Coulter out if I didn’t have to feel like I was being whipped at the same time. But, she’s not writing to me, she’s writing to people who already hate liberals. Perhaps this is why it doesn’t feel like real political discourse.
And, of course, that exact same criticism is true of Moore. I don’t know how many conservatives actually sat through *Farenheit 9/11*, but if they did, they knew that this movie was not made to get them to defect from the GOP… it is an opinion piece, created for people who are already inclined to agree with the author. *Stupid White Men* is the same way. So is *How to talk to a Liberal*.
My favorite part of what I head in *Stupid White Men* was Moore’s talk about black Americans. It was definitely not the standard Democratic party line, or any other standard line. It was quite a bit different than any treatment of the issue I’ve ever heard. Thought-provoking.
Well, anyway, the end of the story is that as I entered Chicago it was time to turn on the radio to hear the results of Patrick Fitzgerald’s news conference, which turned out to be the indictment of Libby, who subsequently resigned. I actually got to hear a good deal of the actual news conference, which totally triggered my “CSPAN Syndrome” (the feeling I get when I’m seeing original political sources live). I loved it. Compared with what I’d just been hearing, it sounded so… calm, so rational, so predictable in its reason. I didn’t feel like I was trying to be convinced to believe something, I felt like I was hearing a report on something. Patrick Fitzgerald did a great job dealing with the press, I thought, giving very consistent answers and refusals to answer all of their questions. I also thought the press did a great job of probing him, trying to get a sense of the things he didn’t want to tell them about.
So, what can I say? I prefer to learn about politics in less venomous ways. I don’t think many people are stupid. I don’t like being called stupid, nor do I like people calling people I disagree with stupid. I do like the American political process. I like it when the press *presses* politicians for information, and I like watching politicians handle these encounters with grace. I like hearing political opinion, too, but I definitely prefer it when it’s presented civily rather than with lots of belittlement of others in the public debate. But, I guess, in the abstract, I’m glad that it all exists. I just know what I prefer.