Advocating having other people fight isn’t bravery. Advocating not sending them to fight isn’t cowardice.
UPDATE: This in response to Coulter, at SFL, calling libertarians [bleep! cowards] for advocating peace.
In the absence of a link or an excerpt, this post read as if it’s responding purely to Coulter’s crazy-eyed stare.
Does anyone else not enjoy the tone implicit in posting unflattering photos of ideological opponents?
In this case that is a flattering picture of her. She does indeed possess crazy eyes.
One might even say “she is possessed of crazy eyes”, or perhaps more perfectly, “she is possessed by crazy eyes.”
Are you implying there is a flattering photo of Ann Coulter?
Coulter is very easy to understand. If you watch what she does you will see that she puts out an insulting or controversial comment in a public forum (usually a talking head TV show) to coincide with the release of a new book. Watch it, it is like clockwork. She understands that infamy sells.
I think I’ve heard this tune before:
“But in wildly over-arguing a fallible case, [Harvard President Larry] Summers seems to have fallen prey to self-flattery’s ugly twin: Because what I say offends the liberal dogmatist, it must be true. (And not only true, but courageous.)” Stephen Metcalf. (“Harvard Inc.” Slate Magazine, 28 Feb., 2005)
This is one of the deleterious effects of echo chambers – they allow people to pat themselves on the back for “outraging” their political opposition, imagine that “outrage” as proof of the truthfulness of their message (since, if the truth hurts, anything that can be construed as having hurt someone must be true) and pretend that their opponent’s “outrage” is so dangerous that the act of (effortlessly) provoking it carries real and present risk.
And Ms. Coulter, her moment of broader mainstream relevance having passed, exists primarily in an echo chamber
In her case I believe it is a 100% calculated act.
Except don’t forget…the outrage also originates from an echo chamber.
Whatever you think of Ann Coulter, it’s fairly pathetic that there are a bunch of people whose chief claim to moral accomplishment is pointing out the flaws in her heavy-handed provocations.
For every twit who follows her, there is an equal and opposite twit who thinks that a point scored against the likes of Ann Coulter is a successful refutation of anyone who might ever disagree with him.
Just visit one of the web’s progressive playgrounds, and you’ll see what I mean. The original post will report and describe a recent Coulterism. The top comment, with 282 up-votes, will say “We can’t start healing, until she stops hurting America.”, and there will be a couple dozen responses like “This! A thousand times this!”, and “You have won the internets!!!”, etc.
She couldn’t survive without such easy and ridiculous targets, and her targets couldn’t thrive without her. Make sure to blame everyone. It’s the only way to be sure.
Ann “It rubs the lotion on its skin” Coulter is just jealous that Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn “Dollar Store Riefenstahl” Bigelow has eclipsed her as the go to cover for the increasingly influential American Fascist Today.
Great. Now I have Goodbye Horses stuck in my head. On a Monday morning.
I am sorry. I know of no antidote. Time, is a healer….
Gawd, now I have that song in my head. Peeewww peeeww
Calling Kathryn Bigelow a fascist is not a little overstated? I haven’t studied the dispute over the film’s depiction of torture in relation to the killing of OBL but it seems to me that there’s nothing fascist about saying that, in extraordinary circumstances, one would employ torture. Note that this assertion is consistent with the NAP since it permits the use of force against those who have violated individual rights though suppose you could argue that torture is an impermissible form of force.
Ha, yes and no.
Yes, I am flinging it like an obnoxious tree simian.
Yes, if fascism is an identifiable ideology with historical precedence. Fascism proper is associated historically with weaker states confronted by the international movement of communism/socialism. The classic case is Mussolini’s Italy and Bolshevism. Another is Dollfuss’s Austria and socialism. The USA, on the other hand, is the king of states, the chief instigator of an international domination movement– via central banking, neoliberalism, “democratic” militarism, etc. Fascism is only part of this new Leviathan.
No, if one sees through Bigelow’s thoughtless romanticism of the CIA, special forces, etc. The nationalism, flag waving, militarism, scapegoating of minorities (those damn ragheads). This is Fascism 101.
No, if one interprets the economic side of fascism as meaning the continuation of private property under executive rule, but increasingly in name only. No, when one looks at the ingredients– the massive military industrial complex and (let’s add) the security state–making it possible for parasite bureaucrats to steal individuals and lawlessly hold them in secret, bomb the crap out of civilians, and assassinate on a whim.
Torture is merely a symptom. Only air-heads would make that the key issue. It’s like debating whether a rapist should wear a condom.
To the extent that Bigelow is not a classic fascist– makes little difference. She is still an apologist for evil.
I’m not wholly unsympathetic to your arguments. Are you familiar with George Kateb’s “Patriotism and Other Mistakes.” He argues against patriotism, which he essentially views as being nationalism with maybe some faux principle behind the flag waving to add some non-existent high-mindedness to the affair, and makes the case for individualism instead. But I don’t think of the film as scapegoating minorities however. There is no “Dang Muzlams are gonna get it” vibe and I would challenge anyone to identify the evidence for that. I agree with many of your critiques of our policy- despite being a neocon in your eyes- but I think fascist is a term we have to reserve for a very particular period. Still, I do find the atttitudes and measures you point out to be deeply troublesome.
I don’t know what quote Jason Brennan had in mind, but here is one.
Given that there have been many atheist and agnostic libertarian thinkers (most
notably Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand), do you think there is necessarily a
contradiction between being a nonbeliever and a libertarian?
Ann Coulter’s response:
A lot of libertarians are Godless (laughs) and although I can’t say that in the
particular cases of Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand that they were cowards, that
is generally my complaint with libertarians. What have libertarians
accomplished politically? Not that much. It’s usually a way to avoid the hot
button issues. I’m always telling libertarians that I’m more libertarian than
they are. They just want to legalize pot. If they would stop talking about
legalizing pot all the time, I would have more sympathy for them. But they
bring up legalizing pot to get liberals to like them. And so perhaps it isn’t a
coincidence that so many of your rank and file libertarians are Godless because
they’re cowards. And believing in God does not allow you to be a coward. (more
Since no one reading this blog is likely to take Ms Coulter seriously, I’m not sure why it was necessary to point out her error, although as a liberal, I’m always happy for libertarians to see how far their beliefs lie from the right-wing radicals who have taken over the Republican party.
Good lord that woman is crazy.
PS: I’m an igtheist.
I have as much respect for Coulter as the next guy (none) and the “coward” smear is just that but I do think critics of libertarianism have a point when they point to the non-interventionist support of “peace” as problematic. For example, when brutal slaughter was occuring in the Balkans and the U.S. got involved and ended it at minimal cost a lot of libertarians opposed it. Of course it made the world more peaceful and saved innocent lives yet I haven’t seen, say, anybody who studies foreign policy at CATO say they were maybe wrong on that one. So I think libertarians often confuse the abscence of U.S. involvement as the existence of peace and what they really value is non-intervention rather than peace per se. For example, Ron Paul said that he would never send troops in any sort of humanitarian war no matter how grave the slaughter was.
For what it’s worth, I doubt Coulter would find quite the rampant peacenikery she expects, if she ever bothered to sample a range of actual libertarians.
To begin with, Randians support her own foreign policy even more consistently than she does. Some of the stuff they advocate would put a blush on the cold, dead face of Curtis LeMay.
Consequentialist libertarians very often favor intervening in situations like Bosnia, Darfur, Rwanda, Libya, Afghanistan, etc, not to mention aid to countries like Israel and South Korea.
Okay, so the LvMI-Ron Paul crowd definitely does want to party like it’s 1823. But apart from supplying America’s most currently visible libertarian public officeholder, their branch is not even close to forming a plurality of libertarians.
If you asked our hosts here at BHL, I’m sure you’d get 13 different opinions (spread out over as many months, given the posting frequency of some authors) about when, how, where, and why to use military power.
Also – and this is probably significant – if we ever got down to what someone like Coulter semi-instinctively dislikes about the leftist anti-war movement, I bet she’d find many libertarians who share some of her complaints. I, for example, was dead set against the Iraq war from the moment when it was first proposed, but when Code Pink appeared I thought: “The enemies of my enemy are NOT my friends. These self-righteous clowns may be right, but only by accident.”
Wants to party like it’s 1823. That was funny. Yeah I think there is a lot of truth to what you say though I think the anti-interventionist position is more dominant than you seem to. Sure there are Randians who dream of nuking Iran but even they are non-interventionist in some important ways. For example, Yaron Brook has said we should only intervene when we are threatened and considers humanitarian wars to be abominable. So the only difference between him and the Paulites is a difference over whether country X really threatens us or not rather than a principled difference over when to use force as both say only when America is imperiled.
There are many consequentialists who oppose intervention as well though (from my experiences they are by far the larger group) and while Paulites are perhaps even a minority among libertarians softer forms of non-interventionism are pretty hegemonic. If you look at organized libertarianism (Reason Magazine, CATO) you never see an essay defended any sort of interventionism even in low cost/ high benefit cases like Libya. All remotely libertarian politicians from Rand Paul to Justin Amash to Mike Lee are non-interventionist. And that’s only dealing with the minimal state crowd. When you move to anarcho-capitalists the anti-interventionist sentiment becomes far stronger. I had one anarcho-capitalist basically call me a Mossad agent when I said that I supported aid to Iranian dissidents and thought that the U.S. should defend Israel’s right to exist.
I completely agree. Code Pink make Chomsky look measured.
I wonder why someone gave you a down-vote there. Perhaps it was a Justin Amash staffer, objecting to the “remotely” you put in front of “libertarian”.
Hahaha yes. Amash has got some pretty fervent fans.
Laying down arms and attempting to peacefully build bridges with people we’ve been shoving around for decades takes incredible courage.
“Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
Bullies call people cowards. Welcome to Bullying 101. Your professor is Ms. Coulter.