"A Drag Queen Impersonating a Fascist"
I've never been exactly sure how to react to the lunacy of Ann Coulter. By getting angry at her, by letting her hurt my liberal "feelings", I seemed to grant her some credibility, grant her the possibility that her position actually merited a response. But how can such a widely-known and widely-read figure simply be ignored? And if Coulter does merit a response, how does one react to a bully without becoming a bully oneself? I like Andrew Sullivan's approach:
"The minute you take her seriously, you lose grip on her reality. She's not a social or political commentator. She's a drag queen impersonating a fascist. I don't even begin to believe she actually believes this stuff. It's post-modern performance-art."
Perfect. Anne Coulter the post-modernist. She is post-rationality. Post-humanism. She calls us back to a time before the evils of liberalism destroyed the sanctity of religious dogma and the surety of power and force as modes of human interaction. She is an existential artist, a Schmittian decisionist.
Maybe. But she probably doesn’t even know what existentialism is.
Coulter embodies the sickness of America today: tough-skinned, jingoistic patriotism that blends a militaristic ideology with religious dogma to defend a country whose very advent was intended to counter such ideals. The defenders of America today should read and re-read the classics of liberal political theory that informed the thought and writings of this country's founders before staking so much political capital on religion, public morality, and attacking the "Godless church" of contemporary, American liberalism. Sullivan's approach to Coulter remains my approach, for lack of better option. But it is a dangerous one. If people actually listen to such megalomaniacal, self-made demi-god, than dismissal of her public game as meaningless "performance art"--as accurate as this characterization may be--is not sufficient.
"The minute you take her seriously, you lose grip on her reality. She's not a social or political commentator. She's a drag queen impersonating a fascist. I don't even begin to believe she actually believes this stuff. It's post-modern performance-art."
Perfect. Anne Coulter the post-modernist. She is post-rationality. Post-humanism. She calls us back to a time before the evils of liberalism destroyed the sanctity of religious dogma and the surety of power and force as modes of human interaction. She is an existential artist, a Schmittian decisionist.
Maybe. But she probably doesn’t even know what existentialism is.
Coulter embodies the sickness of America today: tough-skinned, jingoistic patriotism that blends a militaristic ideology with religious dogma to defend a country whose very advent was intended to counter such ideals. The defenders of America today should read and re-read the classics of liberal political theory that informed the thought and writings of this country's founders before staking so much political capital on religion, public morality, and attacking the "Godless church" of contemporary, American liberalism. Sullivan's approach to Coulter remains my approach, for lack of better option. But it is a dangerous one. If people actually listen to such megalomaniacal, self-made demi-god, than dismissal of her public game as meaningless "performance art"--as accurate as this characterization may be--is not sufficient.
posted by James at 12:05 PM
3 Comments:
Ann Coulter a drag queen? The truth is out there:
Strap-on Veterans for Truth
Jamie! Jamie! Jamie! How are you? As to your first question: What am I doing? I think man has pondered that for centuries, but I, a lowly intellect, will try to answer it anyway. I graduated last May. I used the proceeding months to soul search, read a lot of things, which I had felt more useful than many of the books assigned in my classes. Initially, I intended to apply to the University of London for a master's in International Relations. Then, at the last minute, I realized that I enjoy IR but not enough to study it for a year. I reassessed my interests and goals; ultimately, reverting to law. I started studying for the LSATs in October, then took a Kaplan course. Then, rescheduled my Feb. LSAT exam date to June. I took the LSATs this past Monday, June 12th. I am not sure how I did. I hate those standardized tests. Everything about them screams measurement with which I have never been comfortable. Anyhow, my current dilemma is to see how well I performed...if not well enough for the schools of my interest, then I must retake it. I performed very well on preptests. We'll see. In short, this past year has been part study, part waiting game for the LSAT exam date to arrive, and part self-education about both American history and myself.
As to your second inquiry, I am conservative on many issues more than I am liberal. However, I agree with the general assertion of your well written blog regarding Anne Coulter. She's ridiculous. As you know, I didn't agree with going to war in Iraq. But not necessarily for the same reasons as so-called liberals argued. I don't believe in the president's underlying assumption of policy: namely, that democratization in Iraq will a) bring peace and stability to the region, or b) and more importantly, that it will solve the terrorism epiphenomenon in the region. Your response on my facebook wall was interesting. "Since when are you conservative" It was almost as if since when have you betrayed yourself..haha...well, conservative, liberal,..those have taken on semantic proportions in our political discourse. Like pro-life and pro-choice. They really mean things separate or apart from how the public interprets them. Anyhow, I'd really like to see you whenever you're back at Yale. It sure would be nice to sit around and intellectualize things with you. I miss that. I miss you too.. Take care in China. Be safe. I will do a better job of keeping in touch with you on a more frequent basis.
Chris Khatami
My name's Chris Khatami, who are you?
Post a Comment
<< Home