You are here

Anne Coulter, Conservative?

I wonder what Russell Kirk would think about Anne Coulter’s articulation of the Conservative Cause?

To be taken seriously conservatives should disown this kind of support.


Here’s a Wikipedia article about Shannon’s paper, which includes links about thermodynamic treatments of information and the relationship between information and entropy. Clearly there’s a deep relationship between what we know as information on the one hand, and what we know as meaning on the other. Leftism takes us away from meaning, toward meaninglessness. That was my fundamental point.

Long live Flanders!


And thinking in your strange monarchists leanings review it,I imagine you can love it:

“During the last three centuries the Western world has seen the growth of a damaging division in the way in which we see and understand the world around us…
We are only now beginning to understand the disastrous results of this outlook. The Western world has lost a sense of the wholeness of our environment, and of our inalienable responsibility for the whole of creation. This has led to an increasing failure to appreciate or understand tradition and the wisdom of our forebears accumulated over the centuries…
It is as if tradition represented the enemy of man’s lofty ambition; the “primitive” force which acts as an unwelcome reminder - deep in our subconscious - of the ultimate folly of believing that the purpose and meaning of life on this Earth lie in creating a material form of Utopia - a world in which Technology becomes a “virtual reality” God; the arbiter of virtual reality ethics - and thus the eventual murderer of the Soul of Mankind.
To my mind, tradition is not a man-made element in our lives - it is a God-given awareness of the natural rhythms and of the fundamental harmony engendered by a union of the paradoxical opposites in every aspect of nature.
Tradition reflects the timeless order, and yet disorder, of the cosmos and anchors us into a harmonious relationship with the great mysteries of the Universe…”

H.R.H. Prince Charles, “The Sacred in Modern Life”

Blindness to the existence of an enemy,
makes it impossible to conquer him.

Coulter, Noonan, Crowley, Ingraham on the right knee jerk pavlovian. They dont have the excuse of Hannity.He is a blithering idiot. Unfortunate that intelligent people pon the left Pelosi, van Den Heuvel are also knee jerk party liners. Seee the 2 books on Willy Munzenberg Double Lives by Stephen Koch ,Red Millionair by Sean MacMeekin. Also Theory and Practice of Communism by R.N.Carew -Hunt and Carl Boggs the Marxism of Antonio Gramsci. Lenin as quoted by Huffington uses the term strategic minority. Itis no accident that Eu and the erstwhile neocon US are not friendly to Christianity. See how Zapatwero is reopening the Spanish Civil war. It is shameful how they gop after senile old men like Pinochet but not Castro, Murdoch, Soros, the China Commissars. How come no trials for gerntocracy of the former USSR. Putin was KGB commander in the DDR. The age of antiChrist post Vat II.Merry CHristmas. John Morrison

Coulter has the capacity to capture the humor and absurdity inherent in liberalism. This infuriates liberals, who take themselves (and their worldview) very seriously. Coulter is to contemporary liberals as Voltaire was to the eccliastics of the 18th century. She pricks their pious, little bubbles of self-delusion.

From different angles, both Kierkegaard and Nietszche saw the absurdities of liberalism, and both made fun with it in their own distinctive ways (and of course each had very different prescriptions to cure the disease of liberalism). I can’t think of any serious writer in the 20th century who has carried on this tradition.

As for Russell Kirk, he was an apologist. Coulter is a polemicist. They do different things, and serve different purposes. Coulter may cause someone to question and think about the premises of liberalism; Kirk offers an alternative to liberalism.

Please, Ann bashers. You are speaking of the woman I love.

Look — Ann Coulter is an agent provocoteuse who has developed her own polemic style, every bit as much as H.L. Mencken or Hemingway had their own writing styles.

Now it’s natural that when someone develops a distinctive and very personal, if not eccentric, style, some people will like it and some won’t. Fine.

In Ann’s case, I think that many of the conservatives whose grain she goes against (we won’t bother discussing why leftists hate her) have a stereotyped idea of what a conservative writer should be. In this view, he or she should be a classicist or historicist, frequently quoting Cato, Aristotle, Burke, Chesterton, et al.; should be heavily influenced by established religion; should advance subtle and scholarly arguments.

All that is a perfectly valid brand of conservative commentary, if it suits the personality of the commentator, but it is not the only one. Ann’s modus operandi is the rapier, not the fencing sword. She sarcastic, over-the-top, sassy, outrageous, colorful — a combination that could be too much of a good thing (or bad thing, depending on your taste) were it not held together by a rare wit and feeling for the mot juste.

But! But! It’s not her style we object to, it’s her opinions, some will say. To which I reply: First, is she really that far beyond the pale? I would suspect that if each of her columns was translated into conventional arguments, most traditional conservatives (not country club Republicans) would sign off on at least 75 percent of them. How many writers have a higher batting average than that?

Second, her “arguments” are not to be taken at face value; they are not academic propositions; they are ideological bunker busters, arguably the only kind of high-explosive rhetoric capable of penetrating the armor that establishment liberalism has surrounded itself with, namely, the mass media, the government bureaucracies, academia, and the urban chattering classes. When the other side owns the culture’s commanding heights and places there the opinion-making machinery, you don’t send the cavalry against it. You call in an air strike.

Sorry about the over-extended military metaphor there, but this is war, a war against a large number of opponents who want to turn the country into a quasi-Marxist, anti-individualist, centrally governed, politically correct, terrorist-appeasing state. On our side we need quiet thinkers, and we also need shrewd hysterics. Prince Hamlet, you will recall, was only mad when the wind was blowing north-northeast. When it blew southerly, he could tell a hawk from a handsaw.

I agree. I think she’s looking for a way to turn up the intensity to compete with the constant barrage of sardonic humor, twee emotions, and righteous rage from the left.

Rick Darby is right. Let’s not jump on Ann. A calm critique followed by constructive criticism is all that is in order, with I might add, a thankful comment or two for her strength and smarts. The chief fault inherent in heresy is a drive towards ultra-purity in too many things. We can get along with Ann, as long as she doesn’t blast traditional conservatism, like committed neocons do.
Let’s keep the drive towards purity for the things that matter, like promoting a Leitkulture rooted in Western Christendom.