We’ve been hearing ad nauseam about what a cad Rush Limbaugh was to call Sandra Fluke a “slut”. (I certainly agree that he would have been far wiser not to, for assorted good reasons, not least of which being that it was ungentlemanly.) President Obama was shocked — shocked! — to hear such language, and made an ostentatious display of calling Ms. Fluke (which rhymes with, um, “luck”) to commiserate.
When it comes to calling the kettle black in this wise, however, the Left is a very, very sooty pot — and they reserve a special place in their hearts, and their foul mouths, for black and female conservatives. Michelle Malkin is a prominent member of the latter group, and has been a target, over the years, of some of Liberal America’s vilest imprecations.
She reminisces here.
37 Comments
Oh please. Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter, and Sarah Palin have built their careers on vilifying those who disagree with them in the most vile, incendiary, and outrageous terms. While I’m not here to endorse incivility, for them to play the self-victimization card when they are on the receiving end of the sort of bile they spew on a daily basis is risible and fatuous.
Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter, and Sarah Palin have built their careers on vilifying those who disagree with them in the most vile, incendiary, and outrageous terms.
“Pot calling the kettle black” gives you far too much credit.
You can’t actually cite Malkin fantasizing about “those who disagree with her” having big hairy balls in their mouth, so you don’t.
Instead the casual imbecile on the left (you yourself are a good example) is invited to just assume that Malkin herself is guilty of all the things she documents leftists saying to her in the link, and much worse besides. No actual thought is required. Indeed, actual thought is discouraged.
Take away your stupidity and dishonesty and you’d just wink out of existence.
I think you have it wrong. The question isn’t “Why does Michelle Markin complain about being villified, when she villifies others”. The question is, “Why is there such a fuss over Rush Limbaugh’s comment about Fluke (“slut”) which actually got the President himself involved, and nothing over Bill Maher’s comment about Palin (“c**t”)”.
I’m starting to think that certain liberals believe they are given a special dispensation to act this way. Here’s an example:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/101434/what-about-the-democrats-rush-limbaughs
Quite right, gentlemen. Michelle Malkin et al. all have strong partisan opinions, but never descend to the sort of vulgarity on exhibit here.
Ms. Malkin (like some other conservative commentators; the late Andrew Breitbart was another) regularly retweets the filth that comes her way on Twitter. It is truly vile stuff, and never lets up.
I defy you, Peter, to find a single instance of Sarah Palin, or even Ann Coulter, speaking in such coarse personal terms as, for example, the things that Mr. Maher said.
Ugh, can’t we all agree that the level of discurse is sullied by personal attacks and that figures on both the Left and the Right are guilty of such disgusting behavior. Neither side has a monopoly on vulgar talking-heads that do nothing to raise the national discusion on any conversation. Our nation as a whole would be better off is the Rush Limbaughs AND Bill Maher’s of the world just shut up.
More to Malcolm’s point (that minority conservatives are especially targeted with bile from the Left) it seems to me that the reason behind this is some feeling of betrayal. As if the Democrats had some right to every minority’s allegiance and those that are conservative have somehow offended their “tribe.” Obviously this type of thinking is boneheaded and perpetuates racial/Identity politics.
That’s right. It always startles and offends the Left when members of traditionally liberal identity-groups — blacks, females, homosexuals, etc. — slip the leash and begin expressing conservative opinions. It’s bad enough that there have to be so many white, racist (but I repeat myself here), flag-waving, gun-clinging, heartland tea-bagger Christian moron yokels out there getting in the way of the Program (don’t these idiots know it’s all for their own good?) — but a woman! a black!! It’s just outrageous, and will not be tolerated.
I have been on both sides of our socio-political divide. Prior to 9/11, I was basically a liberal, and beginning with Lyndon Johnson, I always voted for the Democrat in Presidential elections (yes, including Al Gore!).
During Lewinsky-gate, I was incensed by what I then perceived to be the outrageous treatment of Bill Clinton by the Republicans in Congress. I swore to myself I would never even consider voting for any Republican, unless Abraham Lincoln miraculously came back to life.
After 9/11 I gradually came to appreciate the socio-political distinctions between liberals and conservatives. I eventually came to realize that the liberal movement has progressed into the realm of insanity. It is not that I am so enamored with the complete package of conservative thought. I am simply revolted by the liberal mindset.
I have read about a number of high profile defections from the liberal cause, most notably David Mamet, but do not recall hearing or reading about any such high-profile changes of hearts and minds in the reverse direction.
I conclude that neither side is without blame for the vile behavior by elements of their cohort. Nevertheless, I am inclined to believe that the left is far more vicious and single-minded about their enmity toward their political opponents.
C’mon guys. Let’s all meet up somewhere and have ourselves a beer[s] summit.
Henry, I’ve noticed that also. (And 9/11 was a watershed event in my own transition from liberal to conservative, too — I watched from my rooftop as the towers fell, and for the whole day didn’t know if my daughter, who was in school two blocks from the WTC, was dead or alive.)
There are lots and lots of conservatives who used to be liberals, but I only know of one — David Brock — who has gone the other way.
I think that’s because the change from liberal to conservative is essentially a process of disillusionment: a loss of optimism and idealism about the malleability and perfectibility of human nature. As people get older and wiser they may shed these illusions, but they rarely acquire them.
It is also that history itself teaches us the recurring folly of utopianism — and studying history takes time. But its lessons can’t be unlearned.
Henry, you wrote:
Yes, it has. Just today, listening to accounts of the witch-hunt trial of Dharun Ravi, in which he faces ten years in prison for a trivial college prank, I remarked to myself that the world had gone mad. I have occasion to do so daily, as I watch Western civilization willfully destroy itself for the sake of this reality-denying ideology.
I hope and trust that your daughter survived 9/11.
I was in my office at Los Alamos when my younger son called from the East coast on 9/11. I usually listened to a CD during my 2-mile commute from home, so I hadn’t heard yet. But I knew instantly from the tone of his voice that something awful had occurred. After the Lab was shut down and we were advised to be careful on our way home, I remained glued to my TV for what seemed like days, watching the nightmarish videos of the infamous catastrophe.
The age-related disillusionment you mention is very familiar. The wonder is how anyone can possibly lead such a sheltered and/or charmed life into middle age or later without experiencing it to some degree.
Thanks, Henry, my daughter is fine. I should have made that clear.
Winston Churchill yet again showing himself to wrong on everything other than Hitler. The quote attributed to him is being described as personal relationships by Henry & Malcolm “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” Whether you agree with this sentiment is one thing but the idea that it is a natural progression happens to be a myth.
http://news.discovery.com/human/voter-conservative-aging-liberal-120119.html
Similarly, this NYTimes article deals with the idea that colleges are some liberal indoctrination houses. Surprise, surprise also false.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/opinion/sunday/college-doesnt-make-you-liberal.html?scp=9&sq=college&st=cse
You’re kidding, right?
From Ann Coulter:
“If you wanted to teach people about the great things about America, a college campus is the last place you’d send them. Even fanatical Muslim terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do.”
“On the bright side, and in conclusion, at least college campuses serve as sort of internment camp for useless leftists in wartime. We know where they are, this way. And, as General Patton said, ‘I love it when they come out and shoot at me because then I know where they are and I can shoot the bastards.'”
“In 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 could be killed, too. Otherwise they will turn out into outright traitors.”
Sarah Palin famously put legislators in crosshairs and urged her supporters “don’t retreat, reload.” Say what you will about Bill Maher, but he never urged excitable followers to commit violence as Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter do.
Michelle Malkin rose to fame by writing a book supporting the internment of Japanese in WWII and the internment of Arabs today. If she is going to vilify other ethnicities, then I’m uninterested in her crocodile tears about her Filipina ethnicity.
The fact is that Malkin, Palin, and Coulter — along with their male colleagues Limbaugh, Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity, and Gingrich — are bomb throwers. For them to play the self-victimization card is akin to Don Rickels crying foul because he was insulted, or Andrew Dice Clay complaining because he was described with a vulgarity. There is a world of difference between someone like Peggy Noonan — who, incidentally, is not vilified even though she is a woman who “slipped the leash” — and Ann Coulter, just as there is a world of difference between George Will and Michael Savage. The bomb throwers I mentioned have had more to do with the coarsening of political dialogue and the incessant politics of personal destruction than anyone else on the planet, and for them to whine that others may imitate their bellicosity and calumny is laughable.
None of the comments you’ve cited, Peter, come close in vulgarity or personal hatred to the vile remarks cited in Malkin’s article.
And nobody thinks Sarah Palin was calling for her followers to go out and shoot Democrats, any more than “battleground states” in an election “campaign” are assumed to be fought over with guns and bombs. These are what grownups call “metaphors“, Peter.
Can reasonable people disagree about the deterrent effect of capital punishment on would-be traitors, or whether it was right to intern the Japanese during WWII, or whether we should be wary of mass Muslim immigration and a growing Islamic presence in the West? Absolutely. That’s a far cry from calling a woman running for office a cunt.
Strangelove, you are going to have to work very hard indeed to make the case that college campuses aren’t among the most liberal environments to be found anywhere. I haven’t heard anyone suggesting that they successfully convert all students into little Noam Chomskys.
From your own cited article:
As for people becoming conservatives as they get older, my point was only that while it is common to see public intellectuals reject liberal politics to embrace conservatism, it is very rare indeed to see the process go the other way.
The article mentioned the tendency to become less certain about things as we age, but revealed its author’s bias by citing that as a move toward liberalism! I think that has it backward: my own embrace of conservatism — and this is a theme I see repeated by conservative writers everywhere — is based on exactly the kind of doubts that trouble us more as we get older: doubt that utopian schemers actually know enough to foresee unintended consequences, doubt that we can change human nature by fiat, doubt that people understand history well enough to accept its lessons, and so on. Conservatism is far less hubristic than liberalism, far less convinced that it can take the world and change it and bend it to its will, far less certain that it knows enough to redesign a living society without damaging it in unforeseeable ways. And all those doubts do indeed increase with age and wisdom, as they should.
Dr. S,
Whether or not the quote attributed to Clemenceau is factual is of little consequence in this context. Someone said it (or at least thought it). For me it rings true, which is tantamount to my opinion. That can not be a myth because, you know, it’s an opinion.
As far as anything written in the Grey Hag, it is about as consequential to anything I care about as Haggis to an orthodox Jew (sorry, Malcolm).
I can’t believe I’ve engaged in such tedium. Better to endure a 2-day migraine, while sitting in traffic, naked, eating glass.
Consider it done.
The point: Rush Limbaugh calls a liberal a “slut”, and the Left swoons. The president calls the “victim” to express his dismay, and to strengthen her against such barbarism.
Meanwhile Bill Maher calls a vice-presidential candidate a “cunt”, Matt Taibbi writes in Rolling Stone about imagining Ms. Malkin with “a big hairy set of balls in her mouth”, and it’s all just good fun.
Perhaps I was too hard on our Henry earlier.
Good point, Malcolm. You’ve summed it up nicely.
One more point — not everyone turns to conservatism out of a sense of dismay of disappointment. In my case, I turned to Libertarianism out of hopefulness and a sincere conviction that those below the poverty line are best served by a free market.
I recommend, along these lines, anything that Matt Ridley wrote, especially The Rational Optimist.
Saying that liberals are “America hating” “outright traitors” who ought to be “physically intimidated” if nobody is around to “shoot the bastards” is somehow more benign than calling a politican a four letter word? Putting politicians from the opposing party in gunsights is a “metaphor?”
Really?
Thanks, Dom.
I didn’t mean to give the impression that it was all about disillusionment, though that is a common trigger. In my own case, having been a child of the 60’s and 70’s, I also came, in middle age, to realize the tremendous richness, wisdom, and cultural value of everything we had so carelessly and ignorantly discarded. It was like being reborn.
Peter, the Patton quote is clearly used metaphorically; using crosshairs to indicate “battleground” congressional districts is obviously a metaphor also. Etc. Is Ann Coulter a provocateur? Sure. And are there provocateurs on the Left also? You betcha.
Anyway, you are completely missing the point here, which is not Ms. Malkin et al. crying to the teacher about something that one of the other kids said during recess. It is merely to point out the hypocrisy of the Left fainting as one over Rush’s little barb when they routinely give their own team a free pass on commentary far viler than Rush’s.
Dom,
You might also enjoy What It Means to Be a Libertarian by Charles Murray. I recommend it.
Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter, and Sarah Palin
Michelle Malkin – Somewhat conservative
Anne Coulter – Not a conservative
Sarah Palin – Not a conservative
I don’t know why mainstream conservatives worship at the altar of Anne Coulter and Sarah Palin. They are right-liberals and don’t differ much from liberals except in finances. It’s even more funny to see liberals get angry at suppodesly “conservative” women like Palin and Coulter. They don’t differ much from liberal women you know. Wake up and stop believing the lies of the MSM. Anything an inch from the far-left is considered far-right and that is a travesty.
We have:
Far-Right -> Right -> Mainstream Right -> Moderates -> Mainstream Left -> Left -> Far-Left
Creatures like Palin are somewhere between moderate and mainstream right LOL.
I will defend Malkin but not Palin. Palin is a narcissist, an idiot and doesn’t deserve sympathy nor respect. She’s pretty much a social moderate and fond of cultural liberalism but the far-left would have you believe that she’s part of the big boogeyman religious far-right that is out to get you. LOL! She has more in common with libertarians, classical liberals and the entire mainstream right than most people realize. The far-left would have you believe that she’s a racist, sexist and homophobe! LOL! Everything, and I mean everything, has been misinterpreted by the MSM. She’s not the goddess of conservatism and too many people, both on the right and on the left, are obsessed with either opposing or supporting Palin Derangement Syndrome (it used to be Bush Derangement Syndrome).
Mainstream Right -> Palin! We must protect her.
Left & Far-Left -> PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! BRISTOL!
Right & Far-Right -> What on earth? What is wrong with you all? Palin is nothing more than a superficial creature and caricature. She ain’t a conservative btw. Stop wasting your energy on her.
Ditto about the Mainstream Left.
While you are happy to excuse Sarah Palin’s gunsights as metaphors – hey, it’s all good fun – I doubt you have considered whether someone who actually is in those crosshairs might feel threatened. Gabby Gifford did, and she expressed her fear on CNN before she was shot.
Whether there is a straight line, a dotted line, or no line at all between Palin’s website and the nine dead people in Tucson is something we will probably never know. But to claim that gunslinging talk and the use of martial images is harmless metaphor is ludicrous. I’m not here to defend the excesses of Bill Maher, but there is simply no equivalence between using four letter words and using language and imagery which is deliberately violent and incendiary.
I’m confused. Shouldn’t it be
Far-Left -> Left -> Mainstream Left -> Moderates -> Mainstream Right -> Right -> Far-Right
?
The comparison that prompted this discussion is between the four-letter word used by Limbaugh (which engendered a presidential phone call and a large boycott), and the four-letter word used by Maher (which engendered nothing). It is easy to ratchet up the example on either side (eg, that comedian’s wish to see Palin gang-raped by large black men), but it really won’t do to ratchet up one side only.
The line from the cross-hairs to Gifford’s assailant? Pretty much non-existent.
While you are happy to excuse Sarah Palin’s gunsights as metaphors …
Changing the subject already? You were asked to cite Malkin saying the same – and worse! – about her political opponents as they have said about her. This was in response to an early allegation you made.
Get to it, you pathetic jackass.
Severn, please be civil. We ought to be able to have a discussion about intemperate speech without resorting to it ourselves.
I am civilly telling “one eyed man” that he is a pathetic jackass. Which he is. He is also a very stupid person, and a very dishonest one.
I’m still waiting for him to document his initial claim – “Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter, and Sarah Palin have built their careers on vilifying those who disagree with them in the most vile, incendiary, and outrageous terms” – and you really ought to spend as much effort in trying to get an answer out of him as you do defending his delicate sensibilities.
Severn, I agree that the statement you quote is false (well, as regards Ms. Malkin and Ms. Palin, at least; Ann Coulter has made deliberately provocative commentary her stock in trade). If the person who made the claim won’t back it up, then your point is won.
As you have seen, I generally agree with the opinions you express here. But name-calling serves no civilized purpose, and I ask commenters here to try to defend their views without resorting to it. It’s not much to ask, and it shouldn’t be difficult.
Malcolm,
Two (maybe subtle) points need to be made here. First, “jackass” is a more semantically rich term than, say, “cunt”. “Jackass” carries the meaning of “person exhibiting unintelligent behavior”, whereas “cunt” signals mostly that the speaker has contempt for the person who is being labeled a “cunt”. So, calling someone a “jackass” when that person is exhibiting behavior one believes to be unintelligent is a valid remark. Severn could have changed it to something like “donkey”, but does it really mean the same thing?
Second, propagating unsubstantiated and unsupported claims about other people is a worse offense than calling other people bad names. Name-calling may serve no civil purpose, but making claims about other people’s malicious behavior without providing evidence of such malicious behavior itself serves a malicious purpose, a purpose which you seem to be willing to abide as long as it’s perpetrated by your old buddy one-eyed.
Fair points, Henry. Nevertheless, I consider myself fortunate that I’ve been able to host discussions here since 2005 without the conversation descending into hurling of personal insults back and forth, and I’d like to keep it that way.
Severn was quite right to call Peter out on his falsehoods, and the fact that I’ve known Peter for a long time counts for nothing in this arena.
I have nothing whatsoever against vigorous dispute; I enjoy and encourage it, and I love a good fight. But I’m not interested in hosting flame wars. So I would prefer — and I don’t think it’s a lot to ask — that commenters refrain from insulting each other.
Malcolm,
You are well within your prerogatives to moderate your blog-discussions as you see fit. You are not at liberty, however, to retro-fit your request “that commenters refrain from insulting each other” after so many insults, from all the disputants, have passed unremarked.
Quite so. I’ve been remiss lately, and of course what’s done is done. I simply thought it was time to ask, as I do periodically, that commenters remain civil.
I have never moderated comments here, nor do I wish to. (I quite understand that we all get pretty het up when discussing these high-stakes political topics.) Generally an occasional reminder has been sufficient, and that’s all I’m doing here. We’re all grown-ups.
I need reminding myself, sometimes, as much as anyone else.