There's a provocative piece in Salon today on the intellectual sterility of contemporary conservatism. Using the latest bit of hate mongering from Ann Coulter as a jumping off spot, the essay suggests that Coulter is simply one of the more high-profile examples of what the right wing in general has to offer: hatred and resentment (hence the fact that she can say anything, no matter how hateful, and not be abandoned by conservatives).
While the essay doesn't use terms like "rhetoric" or "discourse," that's essentially exactly what it's about. It's a short but good read. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.
A few questions I've started to mull over and would like to hear thoughts on:
Is the piece overly simplistic? Does it engage in the kind of characterization that it accuses conservative rhetoric of using?
What is the appropriate liberal/progressive rhetorical response to conservatives? Is it enough to let it eventually crumble on its own (as the author suggests it will), or are there positive, rhetorical moves Democrats can make to dismantle it? Is any progressive on the political scene doing that?
To the extent that Americans have fallen for this, why is that?
To any conservatives who might stop by, how do you feel about folks like Coulter, Limbaugh, Savage, et. al. being the most visible faces of your movement? Do you tend to agree with them? Are the necessary embarassments? Or are they simply embarassments that are beneath the dignity of a party that lays claim to a distinctive intellectual history? In short, do you think conservatism *has* made a "deal with the devil?"
1 comment:
To be honest, I think people like Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al are popular with some people not because they're mean or vulgar, but because the world-- as they describe it-- is a very simple place where one doesn't have to worry about nuance or shades of gray. Bill O'Reilly's entire career, it seems to me, is based on the notion that the "right thing to do" is always clear and obvious; one's intuition is always right, and any complicating factor is simply "spin" from godless secular progressives who are out to undermine the forces of traditional morality (to what end, I still haven't figured out).
If you're inclined to accept the idea that the world is a simple place and that intuition is more useful than education (indeed, that ignorance can actually be virtuous), then I don't think it's too much of a stretch to start embracing the hateful diction of the Ann Coulters and the Michael Savages of the world. After all, if I'm not offended by the words "faggot" or "whore," and my intuition tells me everything I need to know, then it therefore follows that there is nothing offensive about those words. Hell, it can even seem funny to see the secular progressives get all red in the face over hateful language.
I don't worry so much about the Ann Coulters and the Michael Savages, though-- I think they appeal to a very small demographic within the conservative movement; it's not the soccer moms or the NASCAR dads, but, rather, the sneering 22-year-old guys who high-five each other, call each other "dawg," do shots of Jagermeister, and don't understand SOUTH PARK's satirical edge but instead find the show funny because they say the words "fag" and "jungle bunny" too. These guys are obnoxious, but they're not that significant.
I'm much more worried about the O'Reillys and the Hymans and the Gingriches and the Karl Roves, though-- these are people who REALLY know how to stay on message and appeal to average viewers who are not particularly hateful themselves. They keep things simple, manipulating people by manipulating language (as Gingrich's organization GOPAC delineated in a memo from the 90s titled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control"). They don't use words like "faggot," but they do use words like "freedom" or "terror" to much more destructive ends, in my opinion.
I actually wrote about this a few years ago, in an editorial published on THE MISSOURI REVIEW'S website ( http://www.missourireview.com/content-index.php?genre=Editorials&title=On+Personal+Essays+and+Political+Discourse ). The editorial itself is primarily concerned with creative nonfiction writing, but some of the observations that occured to me then remain relevant, I think.
Post a Comment