Comments on: A Modest Proposal

By: Daryl McCullough

Daryl McCullough — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:10:08 +0000

I think that a lot of conservative "satirists" don't understand the nature of satire. Satire is about ridiculing pernicious ideas through exaggeration, not celebrating them.

By: Jill

Jill — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:32:07 +0000

You know who else loves to invoke Jonathan Swift and A Modest Proposal? Dawn Eden. Except her point is more along the lines of “feminists eat babies.”

By: zuzu

zuzu — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:25:05 +0000

yeah, I kind of thought that the LA Times op-ed was itself satire; it’s so brazen and over-the-top. Plus, there are a few clues: things like calling small breasts a “physical deformity” and “Not just anyone gets endorsed by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture” – that’s got to be downright sarcastic, right? right?

Yes, but sarcasm is not satire, and if that’s the extent of one’s satire, one should not presume to mention Swift in the same breath with one’s own name.

By: kate

kate — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 02:32:42 +0000

I agree with little light and think the comparison to Swift is over the top. Her comments stroke conservatives by directing attacking liberals. I don’t necessarily see where the great talent and satire comes in for that.

And the writer’s ‘satire’ isn’t all that brilliant either.

Coulter’s words and messages are hyperolic yes, but her popularity I think, like Rush’s are based on deep hatreds and a real repressed rage that is brewing in this country. They are tapping in and enjoying the fruit. Unfortunately, consuming serves to spread its seeds as well.

By: little light

little light — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 23:59:31 +0000

I think part of the difference is, I dunno, Swift thought that eating Irish babies was actually, in the end, sort of a bad idea, and that maybe by, say, tossing it out as a logical end to certain arguments made by his contemporaries, I don’t know, people would maybe see those arguments as equally horrifying.
Swift-style satire on her part would be more like pretending to advocate straw-liberal views in the extreme to make liberals look bad, right? And we’ve got good evidence that she’s not doing the same for conservative views, if this law-school stuff is spot-on.
She’s just…well…not sophisticated enough to compare to Swift.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 23:16:44 +0000

Either Coulter is a.) a genuine whackjob who really, really thinks (like she says) that women probably shouldn’t vote despite having and evidently exercising her OWN right to vote

or
b.) someone whose primary goal is to maintain notoriety by being famously irreverent, insensitive, and often cruel. Like Howard Stern, shocking is her schtick, and it’s making her millions.

Either way, Coulter’s vitriol is almost not worth responding to. The way she sees it, her job is to infuriate liberals. I’m reminded of a quote, and I don’t know who said it originally, but’s something like, “Use caution when debating an idiot. It’s often difficult for observers to tell who is who.” There’s another one that says, “When arguing with an idiot, make sure that the other person isn’t doing the same thing.”

Personally, though, I’m torn. Should we keep responding to Coulter or should we try deflate her ego by refusing to give her the reaction she so obviously wants? I’ve been trying to get Coulter off my radar for years–she’s not easy to ignore.

By: Dreamweasel

Dreamweasel — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:57:13 +0000

Does it really matter if Coulter isn’t as vitriolic as she appears to be? What do her rants actually “prove”, apart from the fact that if you poke liberals with a stick long enough, they’ll eventually fight back?

By: Jenny

Jenny — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:24:49 +0000

I’ve known people like Coulter, too, who are given to saying outrageous things and for whom earnestly held beliefs are sidenote to celebrity. I’m not suggesting that she’s actually a liberal any more than I could suggest that Stone Cold Steve Austin is actually an “actor” depicting a wrestler.

Apparently, she used to date Bill Maher, not that it matters. I think it sort of indicates that she’s not as vitriolic as she appears to be since she had an intimate relationship with someone with whom she disagrees.

By: e.nolan

e.nolan — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:16:10 +0000

yeah, I kind of thought that the LA Times op-ed was itself satire; it’s so brazen and over-the-top. Plus, there are a few clues: things like calling small breasts a “physical deformity” and “Not just anyone gets endorsed by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture” – that’s got to be downright sarcastic, right? right?

By: Chicklet

Chicklet — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:43:24 +0000

Here’s what columnist Paul Campos said about her:

I can attest that when she was an unknown law student, Coulter said outrageous things all the time, in class, in conversation, and in print. Was she merely laying the groundwork for selling her honor dear? It seems doubtful.

For what it’s worth, Coulter’s views have always seemed to me to be sincerely held, to the extent that narcissistic borderline personalities can be sincere. Not all writers are prostitutes, but all writers are narcissists, and Coulter appears to represent an especially acute case of someone who writes in order to be at the center of attention (hence the glossy locks and little black dress).

BTW, I’m in favor of dragging her through flaming walls of rabid rattlesnakes (tm Milo Bloom).