March 05, 2007
We need a new batch of political commentators
It all started about twenty years ago with Rush Limbaugh. Before the mid-1980s, there was an unwritten rule that political commentary had to be dry and deadpan. Limbaugh pioneered a new variety of political commentary that mixed political observations with biting satire.
Limbaugh was known for routines like “The Homeless Update” and his references to gushing media praise of Mikhail Gorbachev as “Gorbasms.” He referred to his listeners as “Dittoheads.”
Just for the record, I was never much of a Rush Limbaugh fan; but I understood what he was trying to accomplish. He wanted to transform political commentary---previously something that only eggheads were interested in----into a new form of popular culture. Limbaugh’s lampoons were often insensitive---and he often sacrificed substance for the joke. But he did make political commentary popular. In its heyday, Limbaugh’s radio show was one of the top-rated programs in the nation.
Limbaugh, however, set a precedent that has since spiraled out of control. We have gone from arch plays on language (like the aforementioned “Gorbasm”) to an environment in which political commentators feel compelled to insult our intelligence with ever falling standards of lowbrow humor. Ad hominem attacks designed to demonize the opposition are also popular.
Consider two of the best-selling titles in political commentary section of the bookstore:
Stupid White Men by Michael Moore
Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions by Michael Savage
(Notice that liberal commentators---who are just as eager to sell books as their conservative counterparts---have picked up on the routine.)
Out of curiosity, I have read both Michael Moore and Michael Savage. They both play for maximum shock value. And in so doing, they undermine the legitimate positions of both the Right and the Left.
For example, Michael Moore has raised some legitimate questions about gun violence in the United States. But when he comes out with a title like Stupid White Men--- well, Mr. Moore looks like a pretty stupid Caucasian male himself. If you read a Michael Moore book, you get the impression that all liberals are race-baiting Trotskyites ---which of course isn’t true.
Similarly, I agree with some of Michael Savage’s comments about Islamic terrorists. But I just can’t convince myself that liberals are afflicted with some sort of a mental disorder. And I find myself unable to take Michael Savage seriously---even if I agree with him once in a great while.
But no one is as proficient at slimeball political commentary as Ann Coulter. Her book titles speak for themselves: Godless: The Church of Liberalism, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), etc., etc.
And now Miss Coulter has stooped to the kind of language that I used to hear in the locker room after tenth-grade gym class. Here is Ms. Coulter speaking at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference last Friday:
"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I _ so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards ---Ann Coulter
This kind of drivel makes conservatives look stupid, bigoted, and eager to outlaw everything but guns. As a conservative-leaning moderate, I long for the days when conservatism was represented by more dignified voices, like William F. Buckley and Jeane Kirkpatrick. I can’t imagine either of them wallowing in the mud with Ann Coulter; and both were immeasurably more effective as spokespersons for conservative issues.
Our country is facing some very complex issues today. But we have allowed the realm of political commentary to be taken over by the class clowns. Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Michael Savage, and company might be amusing fodder for an MTV reality show. But they do not deserve serious consideration as political analysts.