Decline and fall watch

Rod, I'm in 100% agreement with you. This sort of crude name-calling is a symptom of the anti-intellectualism that has taken over so much of conservatism since the end of the Cold War. The professional "movement" activists can't agree on the basic principles of a governing philosophy or desired social order (to the extent they ever even think about such things). So they are united only by hatred of common enemies.
Time for a reboot.

I'm glad you noted this Rod. I wrote an entry on my blog this morning (in far less "appropriate" terms) about the whole Coulter/Marcotte thing. Nobody gets to have it both ways, so if the same people who are offended by Marcotte's statements (which were not attacks on any one person, as filthy as they may have been) are then sitting and cheering for Coulter calling Edwards a "faggot" (mind you, a very personal attack), then those very people lose their credibility. I find it disgusting that she was received with applause for comments like that. I used to like reading her column because I found it to be witty and funny at times, but I don't get how a room full of prominent conservatives is supposed to maintain ANY credibility when they cheer for her after dropping a totally uncalled for bomb like that. Oh well, can I say that I'm not surprised one bit by the whole thing?

There has to be a lot of discontent with the popular American right, but it needs a highly visible locus. In the Fifties, National Review was launched as a voice for conservatism, but it seems more a voice for neoconservatism now. The American Conservative is the closest thing today to a conservative magazine dealing in fresh ideas, even though it's a bit too eclectic -- and tilts way too far toward the Arab side on Middle Eastern issues -- for my tastes. By the way, paleocon Pat Buchanan has been demonized for years as some sort of closet bigot. But can anyone seriously imagine Buchanan standing up at CPAC and crudely calling one of his opponents a "faggot"? Such crude invective, whether of the Coulter or Marcotte variety, is a substitute for the ability to reason intelligently.

As long as people keep giving Coulter publicity, he/she/it will keep on making those sorts of remarks.

Is The American Conservative at all Crunchy? Did they review Rod's book, by the way, & if so what was the tone of the review?

As far as the half hour news hour, I heard it has been cancelled. I watched the first episode, and the show was one of the worst I have ever seen. It was not funny, and it did not make humor of the issues--it made fun of people for the sake of bullying (Barak Obama=BO! Ha Ha! Bill O'Reilly does too, but you don't see SNL or Daily Show making such amateur jokes). The overdone laugh track suggested it was not that funny either.

I have no idea why anyone is shocked by her behavior. Read the hate and venom spewed by some of the Right and you can only hang your head in shame at the amount of attention and play they get. The conservatism movement has been hijacked by hate. Hatred of the ideas that go contrary to their views, and most sadly, hatred of the people who hold those views. I'm Libertarian, and I can promise you I will never ever vote for a republican again unless and until the identity of the party changes to something that isn't based on hate, closed minded dogma, and evil.

While MODERN AGE isn't exactly 'crunchy,' the journal does have a very healthy respect for agrarian ideas and Jeffersonian democracy. For example, there was an extremely positive review there not too long ago of Arthur Versluis's excellent agrarian book ISLAND FARM. The articles can be quite cerebral at times, sometimes even bordering on the arcane, IMO, but I always come away from reading it thinking about the "permanent things" and better for it.

"I will say this, though: It's hard to imagine anybody but Ann Coulter saying something as offensive and stupid. Would any of the other bad mainstream conservatives say it? Charles Krauthammer? John Podhoretz? Jonah Goldberg? Paul Wolfowitz? Bill Kristol?" That's why she gets any work at all, and why she was invited to CPAC in the first place. Trust me, if Coulter hadn't said that about Edwards, the crowd would have been disappointed.

Jon, That's the problem exactly...is how the crowd reacted. Nobody on the left takes Ann Coulter seriously in any way, we all understand that she's an attention-craving stooge. The thing that does matter though, is that there is a crowd of people at a big-time conservative convention, and they CHEER for her when she says that. I suppose, at least she has the guts to say what many in the room wish they could.

Nice to see the lack of conservative rationalization on this blog that we saw from the left on this blog when Marcotte spewed out her bile.

I agree with Rod that what Ann Coulter said was indefensible. However, we must not forget that conservatives who have offered thoughtful critiques of race-based affirmative action, defenses of the family as a normative and vital institution for civil society, and cases for the full humanity and personhood of the unborn have received a torrent of vitriol from the Left accusing them of racism, homophobia (a silly, made-up slur), intolerance, sexism, and trying to establish a theocracy. Coulter's comments are a story because they are an oddity. But from the Left, we have grown so accustomed to the slurs that we don't see them as slurs anymore. The case of Edwards' bloggers was so over-the-top that caught our attention. But the hate-speech that emanates from Andrew Sullivan ("Christianist"), Chris Hedges ("theocrat"), Daniel Dennett (suggesting that Baptists should be put in cages in zoos), and Michele Goldberg has become as common today as was the rhetorical excesses of the 19th Century's "Know-Nothings." This is the real scandal. Coulter is a joke, to be sure. But what's scary is that Sullivan, Hedges, Dennett and Goldberg are taken seriously by the cognitive elite.
See you article, "None Dare Call it Bigotry," here: http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/Bigotry.htm

Armchair Pessimist, No, Ann Coulter can't brawl at' all. She's of the idiots, by the idiots, and for the idiots. I have a great deal of repect for some of the conservative commenters here. So reading Rod's "her columns were sometimes witty" note jarred me greatly. I can't believe that anyone with any sense could possibly have ever, ever found any wit, grace or insight in Ann Coulter's 'work.'

And, no again, Francis. She's not a joke. Not funny. People read/hear her (and her old boyfriend Limbaugh, et.al) and form opinions based on such crap.

I can't agree with tarring the attendees as "haters". I wouldn't go so far as to tar the attendees with anything as much as the orgainizers. Why did they see Coulter as an attraction? That's more to the point.

After I ran this commentary of Dallas area NPR affiliate KERA (Commentary: Ann Coulter Has The Right (2006.06.30)) I heard from a huge number of primarily 30 something angry types who somehow saw Coulter as being their champion. I heard over and over how she speaks for those who are effectively muffled by (their words) political correctness. To me these people all seemed to have one thing in common; they did not read or listen outside their primary sources, relied heavily uopn internet blogs and emails that proliferate this kind of unattribulatable crap that is free of normal accountability evaluation.
I was discouraged by their ignorance more than angered by their 'positions' because, when push comes to shove, these were lockstep young Repubican faithful who, when pressed, saw Coulter as a savior and a roll model, and Democrats as weak girl enemies. On several levels, how scary is that? To make this even more disgusting, Coulter now routinely uses being Gay as the lowest form of condescention.......from the Clintons to these latest attacks. It's like school kids these days, who dismiss anyone in a conflict by ridiculing their opponent as a 'fag'.
If you call yourself a Conservative, now that it's safe to recognize that President Bush is the worst 'leader' in our nation's history, cannot you step up and denounce this woman? Because, make no mistake. A 'secular progressive' cannot. You see, they are the 'enemy'. Anyone remember that old adage? "All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing"?
PS: Question for today: Where was Coulter when Ted Haggard left rehab? Probably getting a touchup paid for with that conservative personal appearance honorarium; applauded before she aired by presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. Quoting this budding national 'leader', anticipating what Couter would be saying to his audience; "You're about to hear from Ann Coulter. Thats's a good thing. Oh yes."

I could weep! Do we have to trade links to left/right diatribes to somehow "prove" to each other which side's invective has been the most cynical, scurrilious, and inflammatory? The posters above who claim that the Ann Coulter wing of the right isn't as guilty as unnamed- or thinly-justified- 'left-wing' opinionistas just make me want to cry. Read! For God's sake!!!

Francis is right about the double standard that exists in the media with regard to offensive speech by the left, versus that coming from the right. Don't misunderstand: I think that "but the other side is worse" is no excuse at all. But I gotta say, when I heard the vulgar Coulter's remark -- and if you haven't followed the link I provided, do, because it shows you the video of her saying it, and the cheers that followed -- I thought of how that one juvenile, idiotic remark of hers undermines conservatives like me who work hard to overcome liberal hostility and prejudice in the workplace. I have never hidden in my writing my philosophical and political opposition to gay marriage, but I also want nothing to do with people who hate gays, or who speak of them inhumanely. I have gay friends who know of my opinion on this issue, but who (I hope) can tell by my honest esteem and affection for them that I regard them as brothers and sisters. I mean that. The stereotypes many of them have about conservatives, especially conservative Christians, are powerful. Now, I think of all the work I've done to build bridges to these folks, to show to them that they are my opponents on this issue, not my mortal enemy -- and how easy it will be for them and other liberals to say, "See, Ann Coulter and those who cheered her, that's who you really are!" It's not true. But in a culture in which people on the left and the right are primed for "truthiness," it's very difficult to overcome the desire to believe what you want to believe, rather than accept that reality is a lot more complex.
Coulter's remarks were wrong because they were wrong, period. But I also lament the effect they will have on the possibility for civil discourse, just as I lament Marcottism. Anyway...

You know how tiring it is to hear how everything someone on the Right does wrong is the fault of the Left and their apparent monopoly on 'the culture', even when dealing with people and groups who specifically decry and act against, and even separate themselves from that culture.
The priests molesting kids is due to the Left and Secular Humanists, and the Sexual Revolution, even though they chose a field that separates themselves from, and repudiates that very culture.
Ann Coulter does 'one liners' (and that wasn't a one liner. That was just an insult. That'd never be something you'd hear from an 'anti-hero' on a sitcom), and this is due to 'products of the Left's culture, style, and tactics'. Well, you'd better hope not. First off, I thought arguments like 'Its not my fault, I'm a product of my environment/culture/society' was something Conservatives derided. Secondly, if you can take on the 'ways' of what you say is the 'Left', and methods and become a leader in the Right, immerse yourself in the beliefs, be a spokesman.. Then it doesn't say much for the influence, power and endurance of the culture, ideas and influence of the philosophy they are SUPPOSED to represent.
In other words, Ann is Ann. She says what she says for her OWN reasons. Not as some brainwashed puppet of the 'secular humanist Leftist culture' who can't help but use those tools even when in the service of their opposition.
Oh, and 'So-and-so is a faggot' is hardly the level of humor you'd hear from George Carlin. And last I heard, none of the people listed tended to even talk about specific groups of people, much less people by name. Usually humans as a whole. You know.. 'People are..'
Called 'observational humor'.

Oh, and given her previous books were called things like 'Godless- The Church of Liberalism' (The entire other side is hostile to religion, aren't religious at all, except to the extent that Liberalism is, itself, 'a religion'). Or a personal favorite, 'Treason'. That.. And this is a quote from the beginning of the book... ""Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason.." And then to hear how, no matter how much they don't like what she said, they 'I usually find myself in agreement with her POV,'. Of course, I also hear alot how Ann is only paid attention to BY the Left, who, somehow, by their objections to her make her famous. (All without buying her books, or putting them in the bestseller list. And I doubt they were in that audience, applauding.) I want to hear. What POV's of Ann's were you usually agreeing with, specifically? Because this is not exactly an anomaly, or even an off the cuff one-liner that likely just indicates lack of forethought. She's written entire books based on this sort of insult.

(Thanks, Kannbrown65. I couldn't bring myself to start quoting Coulter's books.) Please do compare "Godless" with Andrew Sullivan's latest. And ask Harvey Lacey about nearly dying for America as a "liberal." Re-read Ann Coulter. Explain again about the POV you agreed with?

Kannbrown65, thanks for posting those quotes, they are truly embarrassing and shameful. I am conservative and I want no part of anything she has to say. A long time ago I realized she is unwatchable on television and brings virtually nothing substantive to the debate. Rod's excerpt from The American Conservative in the initial post makes the point: Coulter does not represent the intellectual heritage of conservatism (nor does right-wing radio). Today's conservatives would be much better served by reading Ideas Have Consequences or Russell Kirk than anything Coulter has written. I would also like to echo Rod's most recent comment. People like Coulter undermine conservatives who are really interested in intellectual engagement and not juvenile name-calling. I hope that she is roundly denounced by conservative leaders. And I don't mean half-baked statements that express disappointment in the remarks with a tinge of "well, that's just Ann being Ann" mixed in. She is damaging to conservatism and to our political discourse.

I'm glad that Rod mentioned in this combox what he did. There were a few posters who were quick to say, "sure it was unfortunate," but the left is worse, what about the left? What about the liberals? Take it for what it is. It shouldn't be an opportunity to place blame on the other side or for comparison. Saying it was wrong is quite enough.
I don't think that every person opposed to gay marriage is homophobic or a gay hater, but as long as Coulter and others are out there representing the position and speaking like this, the good ones like Rod will continue to be marginalized in the conversation because the homophobic (not a made-up term, in response to a poster above), gay-haters are out there, and comments like this from Coulter certainly blur the lines for many people who don't follow all of the intricate discourse that occurs in places like this.

Would any of the other bad mainstream conservatives say it? Charles Krauthammer? John Podhoretz? Jonah Goldberg? Paul Wolfowitz? Bill Kristol? No, they would all be busy kissing Olmert's butt and selling America out to Israel. The right wing has given itself over totally to the Christiban. Even Bill Buckley has now started pushing creationism. Rudolph Guiliani should do well in the Republican primaries. One of his wives was a first cousin. Kim Margosein

"Now exaggeration, it should be realized, is essentially a form of ignorance, one that allows and seems to justify distortion. And the psychopathic mind of war has greatly increased our addiction to this vice; indeed during the struggle distortion became virtually the technique of reporting. A course of action, when taken by our side was "courageous"; when taken by the enemy, "desperate"; a policy instituted by our command was "stern," or in a delectable euphemism which became popular, "rugged"; the same thing instituted by the enemy was "brutal." Seizure by military might when committed by the enemy was "conquest"; but if committed by our side, it was "occupation" or even "liberation," so transposed did the poles become. Unity of spirit among our people was a sign of virtue; among the enemy it was a proof of incorrigible devotion to crime. The list could be prolonged indefinitely. And such always happens when men surrender to irrationality." -Ideas Have Consequences, p.163 I found this passage striking in light of some of the Coulter quotes cited above. Conservatism ought to reject exaggeration, not adopt it.
And, Francis, I would submit to you that this is precisely the problem with Coulter: cultural forces do not have to influence our conduct to such a point that it descends to this level. Rather, conservatives should seek to preserve and maintain a level of discourse that is civil and rational, regardless of whether "the other side" engages in that or not.

I thought we were talking about Ann Coulter. Where did Israel come from? What does any of this have to do with Israel? Or is it just that some of those conservatives who were mentioned are Jews.

"That tells you something about the state of the Right today." Well since the bible prescribes harsh treatment for homosexuals, calling someone a faggot is not that bad. Mr. Dreher will just have to get over the fact that people like Coulter are part of the conservative movement. Anything short of actually changing biblical text, coulter types are card carrying repubs with their interpretation of "authoritative" bible beliefs. In fact, old maid coulter could accuse the 'crunchy one' of being to moderate on the whole 'gay thing'. But one cant wonder if this blog entry would have seen the light of day if edwards hadnt fired marcotte?

First, Disraeli was responding TO an insult, not originating it. Secondly, if Annie had nearly the wit of Disraeli, maybe there'd be fewer complaints. This is closer to Disraeli responding with, "Well.. so's yer old man.'

I might agree.. if anyone said she couldn't say what she did.
The supposed evils of 'PC' (most of which deal simply with things like common courtesy) is not about avoiding the consequences of our speech.
But it is very.. intriguing that on one hand.. the evil secular society (and those godless liberals who apparently run it) is being berated for its license, its 'anything goes' mentality and the coarsening of public discourse and civility that apparently inevitably follow.. even by a pundit of that society's opposition. Now, on the other hand, she's a champion of 'free speech', fighting that same culture's strait jacket of 'PC'ness'. So, which is this 'evil culture' we live in? A wild, wide open, free love, free speech and darn those who are offended.. or a rigid construct of mental fascism where all speech is confined in a tight cocoon of 'PC'? It really can't be both.
As long as she isn't being legally constrained from speaking her mind, and haven't heard of anyone arresting her, then Free Speech is served. Free speech does NOT mean you don't experience the consequences of that speech. (And I wonder if Franklin is just as accepting of the necessity for the that blogger that was fired from Edward's campaign in the name of 'ridding us of PC' too.. Or does that only apply when insulting the other side? Which, by the way, its hardly such a sacrifice to have to 'tolerate' hearing your opposition insulted.) She wasn't arrested. She was denounced by those who have just as much free speech to disagree with her as she has to say what she did.
Free speech doesn't mean you are agreed with, it doesn't mean that people have to listen to you, like you, or that you automatically get a free public platform for your speech. It doesn't mean even that you get to keep your job, if your speech is impacting said business's.. well, business. That's called Capitalism.

See, that's the problem.
First off, I'm atheist. So appeals to CS Lewis and Chesterton aren't always going to be accepted as valid. I've seen the arguments both use, and I rarely agree. Secondly, I think BOTH sides contain 'generally decent folk who love their country and do not recognize themselves or their friends in these false labels'.
But, before I go any further, you're going to have to clarify which 'institutions' you claim are being removed from society. Last I heard.. government, schools, and churches are all still out there, and all still in operation. Especially during the time of Lewis and Chesterton. (Even that savior of society and social discourse, school prayer, and public government displays of civic piety were all functioning must fine.. remember, we're talking about what most harken back to as the 'good old days'.)
So, which institutions are the 'heart' of society and that we can't expect civil discourse without?

I thought the point of her joke was that PC means having to go to rehab if you say certain words. It was a nod to that actor who recently did just that. The public reaction to her seems to validate the point.

Sorry about jumping into this late, but I just got back from CPAC. First of all, Ann Coulter is not representative of the young conservative movement. Yes, she has supporters, but the John Edwards comment was hardly the high point of the event. No one is mentioning Newt Gingrich's call for candidates to have a regular weekly dialogue about issues for the 9 weeks leading up to the election. That got a much more positive response than anything Coulter said. But more to the point, why is Kirk the sole intellectual father of the conservative movement? If you don't quote from The Conservative Mind, you don't get it? Speakers this weekend pulled ideas from all over the spectrum. There were many libertarians at CPAC, hoping to find someone who articulates their views. The room was packed for a discussion of individual rights vs. national security. Adams, Jefferson, and Ayn Rand were all quoted. Conservatism, after all, gained momentum when the libertarians joined to fight communism. But I'm sure you don't consider them a part of the movement, even though they played a huge role in conservatism's resurgence following WWII. I'm rambling, so I'll stop now. But it seems that people forget how diverse the conservative movement is. Just because you elevate Kirk over all others doesn't mean his ideas are the only ones allowed to flourish.

Rod, I love your final metaphor, and I promise that there is at least one "liberationist" out here who is not complaining about the poop or the snarling, at least not just in this case.

Once you tear down a fence without asking why it was put up in the first place... Having lived through the 50's and 60's, I really must object to the conclusion that the figurative fence was torn down (deliberately?) while ignoring how the fence had simply fallen down in places. I know that's one widely accepted viewpoint and it meshes well with Rod's view that the world is going to hell in a handbasket (that's my take on what he has been writing), but it really ignores many societal and technological events that made the fence a much less effective barrier in the first place. I guess in the end I do not share what I take to be a fear of the future expressed by Rod and some others. I see many challenges and concerns, but I think the best we can do is use our learned compassion to grow in understanding of others unlike us, and deliberately live and work alongside them. And be open to the possibility that we may learn something of value from those-unlike-us. That to me is an important element of building a world that maximizes the well-being of all humans that share this planet -- which is more or less what we all want, isn't it? I simply find nostalgia for some ideal American decade (the 50's ?) of very, very limited usefulness. IMHO.

I think most of us were not even surprised by Ann's speech anyway. This isn't about 'Shouldn't someone shut her up? Put her in jail? Listen to what she said?' It is more about (and yes, it is the Freedom of Speech, and the fact that people ARE allowed to hire, and listen, and nod and laugh and agree that makes this point legitimate. I certainly will not say that those things shouldn't happen) the mindset and the beliefs of those who hired her, those who were in the audience, laughing. Those who nod, and clap and, yes, agree with some of her POV's, and think her comments are funny. That is very revealing, and it is Free Speech which allows that revelation. And, by the way, in case someone is saying that this sort of thing didn't happen before. Its an anomaly, and therefore shouldn't be taken as indicative.. That comment I posted from Ann, the one that goes.. "When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty.We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors." -- Ann Coulter, CPAC convention, February 2002 Note when, and more importantly, WHERE she said it.

Now, what makes something PC? What powers does it have? If I think what Ann said is wrong (not that its wrong for her to be allowed to say it, which you will note, I haven't heard ANYONE say), and say so, is that acting as a force of PC? if I hired Ann and she said that, and I fire her because, oh, she doesn't represent my company's views well, or she's driving away business, is that PC? Do I have to let her comment stand, unanswered to not be PC? If not, then what sorts of responses am I allowed and not be considered to be acting PC?

I'm nostalgic for the 50s, the 1150s. :-)

Kann, at the risk of looking annoyed (which I'm not): where have you been the last 30 years or so? PC is when we can't use the "n word"* in a contextually accurate and topically pertinent sentence. Indeed, it extends to the firing of a person for correctly using "niggardly" in a sentence with ignorant African Americans present. (And yes, I'm aware that he was rehired later. That is not the point.) PC is when an obscene pundit like Coulter can make a joke by alluding to calling an obviously heterosexual male a faggot. PC sets up the joke, and defines how it is delivered. I live in one of the most densely LGBT areas of the country, and I can't think of a friend or neighbor who would be offended for the word instead of on behalf of Edwards... and would likely laugh at Coulter for using a word that they've long since reclaimed. (Of course, I cannot speak for all members of the LGBT community, just those I know.) There is a natural evolution to language. Lexicon changes with the times. Culture, terminology, slang, colloquialisms, they all interact in a natural, dare I say organic way. PC is an arbitrary, artificial imposition on it all. I'm about to start repeating myself, so I'll start there. * I'd use the full word, but it risks proving my point in a graphic way that Bnet would not appreciate.

I really need to either go to bed or drink more coffee... and that must be a classic Freudian slip up there; I should have written: I'm about to start repeating myself, so I'll stop there. :)

First, M_David, she didn't just show up at the CPAC Convention. She was invited , and her speech was paid for by them. So yes, she can be just as much said to represent their views as the private blog of someone on the payroll of a candidate.
Secondly, it isn't an issue of what positions can be seen as PC. It is an issue of HOW is PC chilling dialog? By being offended, or bothered? People on both sides get offended and bothered. Both sides lodge objections. Both sides have words that will set them off, and have ways of showing their displeasure. So, why is the liberal side inevitably viewed as 'PC' and the other side is not? Language evolves, yes. And that means what is offensive changes from one time to another. And ALL eras, and certainly not just our own, have expressed their displeasure for use of what is viewed as 'inappropriate'. Especially if they think it will impact their bottom line.
That is hardly something just from the 'last 30 years'. I've been around that long, and longer, and I can tell you, the idea that someone can get fired for saying something inappropriate in public while representing someone else is NOT a current phenomena.
Talk to the Smothers Brothers about that, for example.
If anything, its gotten looser. Go back a few decades, you couldn't say bathroom or pregnant on television. We're going to go ballistic because its now 'faggot' and racial epithets that they would NOT have allowed you to say in public 40 years ago in a professional venue? Do you honestly think that 'faggot' jokes would've been considered acceptable at a public political conference in the 50's?

Well, and again, I don't see a single person trying to stop her from saying it. Again, saying it isn't your view, saying that you don't like what she said is NOT the same as saying she can't say it. And I seriously doubt that places like FOX or CPAC is going to make their hiring and firing decisions based on liberals being offended. But, it wasn't liberals denouncing her. It was all the Republican candidates. But it wasn't the candidates who were applauding her, it was the attendees at the conference. A conference she was invited to attend, and where she was PAID to give the speech she gave. This wasn't some op ed she gave, unasked and uninvited, on her own dime. Quite unlike another person's publically vieweable, but clearly stated to be their private opinions on a blog. If Marcotte had given those opinions while doing a speech intro for Edwards at an event, where she was invited and paid as part of her job, then you might have a more accurate comparison. But hey, keep Ann talking. And keep defending her. And keep laughing, and applauding. Because yes, it is a good thing to know how people REALLY feel. Just don't get upset when people call you on it.
That's 'Free Speech' too.

Franklin, I'm talking about, and only about, Ann Coulter. If you want to bring up all the reasons people can get fired.. we could be here for days.
Nobody is saying Ann Coulter should be fired. Indeed, that man who got fired for 'niggardly' might very well have been pre-emptively, rather than from public pressure. That's plain old Capitalism, which says that you err on the side of not alienating your customer base, period.
So, other than standing up and telling her that what she said was wrong, and we don't agree, and being accused of being PC FOR that, or descending to her level with an insult fest, exactly what kind of 'standing up' would work, without bringing an accusation of being PC? Again, given that I haven't heard one person here say she has to lose her job (again, in direct contrast to other people) and mostly are bringing her words up in context WITH those who were sitting there (though she's supposedly not representing anyone) and laughing and applauding.
So, how does the PC issue apply to Ann, and what response would stand up and NOT be 'pc'?

Perhaps because I don't watch Bill Maher?
Maybe because here is exactly what he DID say. Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn t be dying needlessly tomorrow. (applause)
Scarborough: If someone on this panel said that they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn t say
Frank: I think he did.
Scarborough: Okay. Did you say
Maher: No, no. I quoted that.
Frank: You don t believe that?
Maher: I m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That s a fact. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zcP2W4XC3c Now, saying that if he had died, more people would live is not the same as 'I wish he were dead' or 'I'm glad someone tried to assassinate him.' Or that he regrets that the bomber didn't kill Cheney. So, maybe people aren't upset because he didn't actually say that? Unlike Coulter, who did, and even her explanation was a further insult. Which included.. Coulter said the comment was a joke and on her Web site she carried the speech with the comment, I m so ashamed, I can t stop laughing. She then said Edwards campaign chairman s main job was fronting for Arab terrorists. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17458248?GT1=9145

Maybe Rod and the rest of you haven't noticed Ann Coulter being lambasted by the conservative blogosphere. See Hugh Hewitt, the Corner and others. Geez.

A bit of irony, commenting on Bill Maher at this point: he has shown himself to be weak in analysis, shoddy in research, and to make an obviously false assertion as he did ending with "That's a fact" in a live broadcast (it was live, wasn't it?) only reinforces my impression of him as someone who wishes he could go the Coulter route and keep his lucrative TV contracts.

Maybe Rod and the rest of you haven't noticed Ann Coulter being lambasted by the conservative blogosphere. See Hugh Hewitt, the Corner and others. Fair point. I generally detest Coulter and the other conservative commentators who yak on cable TV and write "books" targeted at people with 4th grade reading levels. That said, Coulter was famously sacked by National Review for her convert-or-kill-them-all column after 9/11. And the rightwing blogosphere has widely condemned her for this little CPAC crudity. Marcotte, by contrast, became some sort of free speech hero to large swaths of the left wing blog world. And that's really pathetic.

FB, "It is merely to point out that the great irony in the Left's offense over Couler's stupid utterance is that she and her minions are the products of the Left's culture, style, and tactics." Ms Coulter is her own creation. Don't go trying to blame the Left for having produced her and her bile. Nothing we on the left have ever said, done or blogged could possibly make anyone as deranged as she is. "Remember when Rosie O'Donnell compared Christian Conservatives with the Al-Qaeda?" No, I don't remember it (and you link didn't work, either), but it sure sounds accurate - both groups have as their goal a theocracy.
"Apparently, this means that conservative Christians are not fit for liberal democracy." Conservative Christians have demonstrated that they're not INTERESTED in liberal democracy, let alone "fit" for it. "A generation of Leftists that have made it their project to dismantle civil society and its institutions" We HAVE?? Gee, an dhere all along I thought our "project" was enforcing the "promise" that ALL men (and presumably women too) are created equal, not 'all except the faggots'. I thought our aim was liberty and justice for ALL, not all except the queers. Tell us, when did that change to your mythological 'dismantling of civil [that was a joke, shurely] society'?

FB, "This is the Left's culture" Sorry, but it wasn't the "left" who draped clothes over a STATUE of "Justice" so a s nto to offend the "right's" sensibilities. It was not the "Left" who was outraged at the half-second flash of a bare breast, so much so that millions of dollars in fines have been levied. It is not the "Left" who control society and its "culture". Not under George W(armonger) Bush (and his theological, 'faith-based' advisers like Ted Haggart, Jerry Foulwell, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, James Dobson, et al) it ain't. Try again.

FB, "I was condemning Coulter" You WERE??? Please point that out to us again, 'cuz we sure as shootin' missed it.

""Christianist" is an ACCURATE description of soi-disants "christians" to impose their religious tenets on others not of their faith, hence an "-ism" meaning 'our faith is BETTER than yours'." Are you actually suggesting that it is wrong for someone to believe their beliefs are true? If that is the case, then your claim is self-refuting, since you no doubt believe that your belief that no belief is better than any other is better than the belief held by those who don't accept your belief that no belief is better than any other. Here's your conundrum: either your belief about beliefs is true or it isn't. If it isn't, then we need not worry. But if it is, and it is wrong for me to not believe the truth, then you have a right (perhaps an obligation) to correct my false belief about beliefs. But in that case, you are in precisely the same position as the so-called "Christianist": you think you're right and everyone else is wrong and you seek to correct wrong people about their mistaken beliefs. Passive-aggressive imposition is still imposition. Why don't you just admit you embrace a cluster of beliefs you think is right and those who deny that cluster are mistaken? We can then have a intelligent discussion about such matters. But to pretend as if your beliefs are not really beliefs--that they are somehow the sin quo non of liberal democracy--is cheating. Nobody wins when one accepts the advantages of theft over honest toil (to paraphrase a common phrase).

CC: Here you go: "I agree with Rod that what Ann Coulter said was indefensible." (FB, see above) "It is merely to point out that the great irony in the Left's offense over Couler's stupid utterance." (ibid) "I agree with Rod that the wrongness of an utterance is not contingent on whether there are other wrongs by which we can compare it." (ibid) "So, why is everyone so surprised at Coulter's incivility?"
"This is the Left's culture and Ann Coulter is one of its unintended consequences. When you've had the monopoly on foul-mouthed, smart-alec, uncivil popular culture icons for forty years,it's too late in the game to pull the civility card when the foul-mouthed, smart-alec, uncivil icon happens to offend you." (ibid). I don't know if I could be any stronger in condemning Coulter without offending the tender-hearted who read this blog.
It is a shame that you can't do the same when it comes to those on the Left who hurl slurs of equal offense to conservative Christians. If civility is what you want (perhaps it isn't), then by all means lead by example and stop using words that label and don't illuminate. Language is supposed to be part of an argument; it is not supposed be a replacement for an argument

Rod is right that I have not blamed liberalism for Coulter's comments. What I have said is that the Left's assault on cultural civility (starting over 40 years ago) has made it more difficult to sustain the institutions of civil society that made civility possible. Just as the one defending moral relativism should not be surprised that no one takes seriously his complaints about "past injustices" (since there are really no injustices at all, according to the relativist), the cultural deconstructors of the 1960s should not shocked at the culture their ideas have produced. Back then they were living off the borrowed capital of the "Greatest Generation" but didn't know it. Now the inheritance is almost spent and they can't pay the cultural mortgage.
Liberalism is not identical to "the Left's culture." The liberalism of Locke, Jefferson, Madison, FDR, Truman, JFK, and Arthur Schleshinger is as much a bullwark against the Left's project of cultural decay as is the conservatism of Burke, Kirk, Goldwater, Thatcher, and Reagan.
So, Rod is absolutely correct in his reading of my posts.

Rod, Without delving into trollish screeching, I wonder if you'd clarify a bit based on the last comment. While I know that you really dislike a comparison between gay rights and the rights of African-Americans just a short while back, isn't the comparison apt? In addressing the issue of "homophobia," which I find to be a very real term that has evidenced itself in any homosexual's life hundreds of times, I hate to say it, but C&C's comment seems worth addressing. The same arguments were seen in the civil rights movement. African-Americans were compared to animals and animal behavior in explaining why they shouldn't have equal rights. So when people try to show that giving homosexual partners rights will somehow force us to give rights to pedophiles and their child lovers, those who engage in beastiality and their animal lovers, etc so on and so forth, these people are doing the exact same thing. They are equating homosexuals and homosexual behavior to the behavior of animals.
Shouldn't we be condemning that kind of comparison across the board? Or are we just happier using it because it conjures up grotesque images of forty-eight year old men marrying eight year old girls and women marrying their horse lovers, thereby making it objectionable to everyone? If we just lump everyone in together without addressing the very real differences between these comparisons, then we can scare people into believing that homosexual unions will make all of these images a reality in their neighborhood. Using those sorts of comparisons is a scare tactic, that frankly doesn't surprise me. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, maybe I've missed something on your views on the topic, but while most of C&C's ten or so consecutive posts seems trollish, is there not some substance to ripping this argument apart for what it is? -dub

Santorum said that if your two principles of sexual morality are (1) adult consent and (2) no one out of the circle of consenters gets hurt, then there is no principled reason for the state not to lift its restrictions on less chic sexual unions. I offer nearly the same argument in an article I published in the journal, Philosphia Christi, "Legal Neutrality and Same-Sex Marriage," which you can find here: http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/neutrality.pdf

Still waiting, by the way, to find out how the 'Left' destroyed civil discourse. While, simultnaeously, acting as a censoring force based on their own vision of what uncivil discourse is.(Having members not use it, which happens on BOTH sides, is not the same as removing it from society). And what institutions they have destroyed that promoted such discourse. Again, last I heard, churches, schools and the government are still in full operation.

Not necessarily. Just because one buys one part of that package doesn't mean one has to buy it all.
Especially since childhood is a temporary state. Children have been the exception in a great many things. Its not 'connected to their nature as human beings', or we wouldn't make the exception for animals.
It has to do with their mental capacity. And that is a condition that is expected to change. Especially since that also applies to people who are drunk, drugged, or have mental conditions that render them incapable of informed judgement. And I don't think anyone's making arguments that drugs, drinking, or insanity are parts of our 'nature as human beings'.

What is it about children that requires the sort of protection you and agree they should have? I think it is because we realize that in order for children to become free adults they must be disciplined by those who have an obligation to protect them. But this is because we know something about human beings and what their good is. We know that children left unsupervised--those who exercise their "liberty"unbridled--have a more likely chance to turn into adults held in bondage to their desires, pathologies, etc. And we consider the parents, or those to which the parents' custody is turned over, as the ones responsible. But the responsibility, even if once or twice removed (in the case of adoption) is rooted in nature, the wedding of male and female that results in a being to which they have a special obligation.
Just as ignorance is bad because human beings ought to know, children should be cared for by their parents because that is their natural purpose.

Umm.. that argument would be based on the idea that children have sex due to their 'desires'. Frankly, the reason that rule is in place is because children are often coerced or forced into sex by those in authority over them. Believe me, I speak from experience. And no, it doesn't always lead to 'adults held in bondage by their desires', though it can lead to pathologies because the children were coerced, were not capable of informed consent, and were doing something that was outside of their capacity to process or control. Geez, you make it sound like children having sex leads to them growing up to become a bunch of sluts, since they were not controlled to prevent their having sex. Like children are out there wanting to have sex and only our laws, and our parents stop us from doing so at that age. It isn't to stop children from getting the sex they want. It is to stop ADULTS from taking the sex they want FROM children. (Which is why two children having sex with each other is not covered under the consent laws. If your scenario were correct, it would be.)
Has nothing to do with general human nature. Has to do with the capacity of the ones involved.

Howso? First off, beliefs aren't controlled by our laws. Only actions. So, unless your beliefs in what does and does not constitute a marriage translates into some kind of action or inaction, there is nothing ANY law can do to you. So, what actions or inactions are you allowed to take now in reference to same sex couples, married or not, that you would not if they were allowed to get married?
If the worst thing you are concerned about is some gay activist calling you a homophobe, then I fail to be suitably worried.
What are you going to think you are going to be prevented from doing if gay marriage were legal that you can do now?

Franklin. I disagree a lot, but not entirely. First, free markets divorced from civil society get you exactly the bad situation you are talking about. Have you ever read Kirk, Gilder, or Novak on free markets? They offer a fuller understanding of how free markets work to solidify rather than unravel civil society. Second, and ironically, your ideas of marriage--one that sees it as an instance of wealth maximization--exemplifies the problem of the free market model when applied to institutions such as marriage. Third, I understand why you think my argument is a straw man, but I still stand by it. Here's why: in order to thwart its force you need more than an empirical observation, you need a normative principle. If I say, "given X, you can't reject Y," it is not a response to say, "but I reject Y" or "people don't want Y.' It's a matter of principle. So, the way you reject my case is to show that X in fact does not entail Y or that there is a second principle, Z, that is consistent with X that prevents the entailment to Y.

Kannbrown65. Read my article, I give several illustrations. The being called a "homophobe" comment was an off the cuff example of how geography does not matter to injustice. It wasn't meant to be any part of a big case I was making.
You write: "If the worst thing you are concerned about is some gay activist calling you a homophobe, then I fail to be suitably worried." But if homophobe is equivalent to "racist," then I better be worried, since it will result in possible loss of income, job prospects, etc. Remember that those economic considerations are the very things that are suggested as justifying same-sex marriage. So, if economic deprivation is the test, then same-sex marriage can be rejected on precisely the same grounds.

Last I heard, even racists have rights to their beliefs. If someone is firing a racist simply for holding racist beliefs, they are just as much doing something against the law as a racist firing someone due to race. However, we aren't talking about what people think. We are talking about what they do. What were you planning on doing that would make you lose income if people were allowed to get married that you think shouldn't be allowed?
Worries about people behaving badly or illegally is not a basis to stop a law. It is a reason to bring THEM up on charges if they do so. Otherwise, ironically, you are worried about potentially experiencing consequences that they are experiencing NOW, and that ARE enshrined in the law.

One more time, before I have to go. When I say "X," I mean the two premises I used in one of my above posts. Having said that, however, it seems to me that defenders of same-sex marriage in fact have to have a view of human nature that is outside the law in order to make their case. For example, if I say that law B is unjust, I do so on the basis of some extra-legal principle. For if there is no law above the law so to speak, then I have no way to judge law B as unjust. Now, here's the problem for SSM proponents: if the current law is unjust, then there must be an idea of just marriage to which it does not presently conform. But if marriage is merely a social construction, then SSM opponent is not "wrong" since there is no higher law than positive law. The problem with opting for the first is that it commits the SSM proponent to an understanding of marriage that others may find constraining. For example, suppose one says that marriage is only between two adults not related regardless of gender. Would not the polygamist object, or the two brothers who believe their union ought not to be marginalized? Once marriage is defined by choice and divorced from our nature as men and women, the train has left the station.

"Not being able to get a job based on an innate characteristic regardless of qualification is a "wrong," and that is happening right now." Technically, that's not true. People born blind cannot work as bus drivers, for example. Also, you can fire someone for being blonde or walking funny, both of which may be innate but not protected under the law. Folks, I am way over time here. I need to get school and shape young minds.
Take care, Frank

And where are you allowed to fire someone for being blonde, or walking funny?
Unless it makes you incapable of doing your job. And then it is the fact that you can't perform the duties of your job, not specifically being blind, that justifies the firing. If a blind person found some way to do their job and could prove so (and don't ask me how), then they should be retained.
And you agree with people being fired for their natural hair color?

Human rights, and 'the nature of humans' are two different things. So, basing their argument upon Human Rights (and rights aren't conferred by law, and laws can definitely violate rights. That's how Constitutional challenges are made, so its not contradictory) does not mean they hold the same view of human nature, and certainly not that they are basing their legal justification upon it. The 'law' they are basing their argument upon is the basis OF our law, the Constitution, not individual legislation. And the rights involved are the ones that are in there.
Beyond that, you'll have to do some deeper reading into their legal briefs, I can't speak for them.

Umm.. because its illegal to be hired for an 'intimate relationship'? I didn't propose arbitrariness. Indeed, I disagreed with it from BOTH sides. That it would be just as wrong to fire YOU for holding the view that SSM is wrong as it would be to fire that gay couple. You are the one who claim you should be able to fire that couple, while objecting to making it legal on the basis that someone, legally or not, might use it as a basis to fire you. Which is not only legally illogical (its either illegal to fire people on those basis or not), but more than a bit hypocritical.

Doesn't need to say anything about human 'nature' other than having rights.
Your premise went much father than 'people have rights'. And since you never attached that argument to any legal brief being presented in support of SSM, then there is no X, and Y, and any connection between the two is moot, outside of some philosophy class.
And yes, both individual laws, and the Constitution are both laws, but on different levels. But they can contradict, which is the whole point of having Constitutional challenges to laws. So they do have a legal basis in one level of the law (Constitution) for the rights they are using to change the lesser level of the law (individual legislation).
It does the trick enough that we have an entire legal discipline dedicated to that very form of suit. (Constitutional law.)

Hope you see this on your way out, Francis: I just skimmed most of this thread but have to say "culture that slept with Larry Flynt" is brilliant.

I agree that what Ann Coulter said was wrong, however I find what Bill Maher said about Dick Cheney was worse!

In the hopes that Mr. Beckwith will return at some point... I know you were rushed, and I hold to the principle that silence just means silence, but so far there has been no substantive answer to the challenge: what liberal actions and/or policies have caused the decline/demise of "cultural civility"? I accept your analysis without needing to read the sources you cite, but it seems to me that conservative business policies are more likely to be responsible for any divorce of civility from free market society. Civility and courtesy, by definition, slow things down. One cannot give due consideration to the tenets of either one without due investment of time and energy. It is in fact the conservatives of the day that gave us the impersonal and faceless bureaucracy, so happily debunked and decomposed by liberal pundits for at least 100 years. Indeed, by your request to follow your logic trail, I have just proven that the criticism we are questioning is in fact false. In the end, we need to go beyond logic and look at real life. Logic's efficacy ends when practical application and results are seen. The easiest and most direct rebuttal to Santorum's gloomy prediction is that bestiality, pedophilia, incest and whatever else he cares to claim already take place. Society has spoken on these things since we had a structure of law: those things are crimes, and the passage of a same-sex permission law has no rational connection to any of them. If, for example, we were attempting to legalize one of those crimes, I'd concede the point immediately. So, the proof is not mine to provide, but yours: demonstrate a rational connection in the Santorum logic. You must do so without resorting to Biblical quotes, "it's always been that way", or any other non-rational approach. If you dislike my restriction, do please say so and offer me a reason why I should abandon it in this issue.

Francis, I just read your article on bigotry, and I intend to accept your challenge: I shall read the authors you cited, and offer a reasoned rebuttal to their claims, assertions, and/or opinions. One thing: Smiley's quip about dogma is ironic, because it is equally true about both sides. I join you in hoping for a more thoughtful discourse on these and other issues of the day. I'll send you an email or notice through your website when I've posted to my blog. Your interest and commentary would be most welcome, and I'll assume more important claims on your time if you decline to post to it. In the end, blogging is self-indulgence. Right, Rod? ;)

When we're calling people names rather than calling people out on their policies I think there is something wrong with the politics in this country. Not to say that it's just the conservatives - but rather I think it is indicative of soundbyte politics and polemicists we've made our spokespeople.

I'm glad I checked out this combox. Francis Beckwith is a national treasure, thank you, sir.

at http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/: Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: "C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean." :-) OK, I laughed. I repent, I repent!

Although I don't usually agree with Coulter and, indeed, often wince when she speaks, she DOES prove what I believe her shtick attempts to prove: that the Left can dish it out but can't take it. They can be as mean and nasty as they wannabe, but when a conservative is mean to them it's the end of the freakin' world.