I guess I don't take her as seriously as you do, chicagoliz. She is outrageous on purpose. That is her schtick. If I had to guess, she uses the same kind of outrageous rant that she feels the left uses to make points. I'd say that in her mind she is throwing it right back. In any event, people are angry about politics these days and that means business is probably doing well for her. She plays to that. I can't believe anyone who buys a Coulter book is looking for a calm, well thought out argument as much as they want to read what she'll write next. She's funny sometimes and she sure doesn't care what others think about her. As to her books being harmful, are we really taking this conversation toward the idea that she shouldn't be allowed to publish because someone feels she is harmful? I think a harmful book would be one on how to kill yourself. Not a book I would buy, but I still stand by the right for it to be published. Bill Krystol, Kenneth Pollack, David Frum have a different way of doing things and I agree with your take on how they present ideas. They want to be taken seriously and it shows.
I don't take her seriously at all. There is no one comparable on the Left to her, either. And yes, the people who buy her books are those who already have a certain mindset. I never said that she should not be allowed to be published. What I do think, however, is that she should be ignored. The media plays into her whole thing by replaying the ridiculous things she says and giving her publicity. The news programs play out these sideshows as if they were "news," whey they are anything but. That, however, is a problem with our news media, which is a different issue. We can have a discussion about whether something is harmful or untrue without resorting to the straw man argument of restraint or prohibition from publishing. The idea underlying our theory of free speech in this country is that the remedy for incorrect or false speech is more speech. There's a practical problem that often the loudest voices get all the play, so unfortunately, there's a lot of bad information out there. It's just something we have to live with. But, ideally, what should happen is that people like Coulter should be called out for her falsehoods, and people should ignore her speech. That's something that would have to be done collectively, and not something that we can impose through some sort of law. As a result of the system we have, I think it's important to point out that people like Coulter are not reliable sources, and their writings should not be taken seriously or placed on par with serious, scholarly, intellectual writings that rely on facts, scientifically valid studies, and a desire to analyze various issues, taking into consideration all of the positives and negatives of any particular action or proposed solution. Every important issue is nuanced, and it is important to take these nuances into consideration.
Personally, I think the market should decide what happens to Coulter and her opinions. If people want to join together to boycott her, fine with me. If they want to keep her on the best seller list, fine with me too. I think people can decide for themselves what is harmful to them. I trust that. I guess my past influences have given me an appreciation of the written word in all its forms. Perhaps it comes from the publisher in me from when I had my own company, or being a pressman at the Key West Citizen, or working my first job at Paine Publishing, a turn of the century company my father purchased in the seventies. As a writer and lover of the printed word, I encourage any kind of writing, no matter if I agree or not with the message it contains. I celebrate the gumption of anyone who would make themselves known through the written word. And I take pride in knowing I live in a country where such a thing is possible.
I agree, but they need information about the facts to be informed. The marketplace argument works only insofar as people have access to and utilize all available factual information. This is why they're susceptible to propaganda. Unfortunately, we can't force people to become well-informed. Again, I distinguish between writing that I think should be allowed to exist (which is essentially, just about anything) and writing that I'd want to encourage, celebrate, and publicize. Although I don't distinguish between writing that I think should be allowed, there are certain types that are harmful or distasteful, that I don't think are deserving of adulation, simply because someone managed to string a few sentences together. I don't see them as all equally worthy of appreciation. This is another straw man argument. The only response I have to this, as it relates to Coulter, is that she doesn't rely solely on her writing. She primarily thrives on the publicity she receives through talk shows, and speaking.
You seem to misunderstand, because no one here is discouraging her from writing. She can write all she wants, but I do not think that all written words should be cherished equally. We can appreciate Coulter for what she is, and we can cherish the right to freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean we should cherish her work. Some books have greater literary and intellectual value. The book I'm writing now has more value of that sort than the one I wrote in 6th grade. Carl Sagan once said, "We are, each of us, largely responsible for what gets put into our brains." To get back to the nutritional metaphor, that's like saying, "We are, each of us, responsible for what gets put into our bodies." I'm glad I live in a country where people can make the choice to eat pounds of fried chicken, drink gallons of soda each day, and smoke packs of cigarettes, but there are better foods for our bodies that are harder to cook and take more effort to swallow. Such things will keep our bodies healthy. So it is with what we read. If you want to read a book or two by Coulter, fine, but I'd not recommend reading all 20+ of them when you COULD be reading great literature or non-fiction that is based off facts.
Monetary value is different to the "value" that's in question here. I believe by "value", the users on this thread means whether the book serves some good purpose, was it factual and informative, was it reliable, did it enrich anyone and help people think more openly, understand another perspective, does it further say, human goodness and kindness towards one another, does it really add anything to society and individuals, would you have "missed out" if you had not read it, etc. And to be sure, just because masses buy it doesn't prove that it is valuable in those ways. The public has always been suckers for media that basically tell them what they wanna hear. I've never read Coulter's books and not being American, I had actually never heard of her - judging from the reviews on amazon and the people on this thread, I'm gonna go with the presumption that Coulter probably caused more damage than she did good with her book. Damage on the issue of racism, what it is and who it affects (and apparently whether it was real??) is a serious thing. Too many have been oppressed and murdered because of racism and social oppression that to dismiss the existence of racism or to make light of the matter, siding in any way with the perpetrators of the crime, is disgusting and most certainly not "valuable". Sweet and soothing to hear for the racist or white supremacist, to be sure, but not "valuable".
I guess you are assuming people who read Coulter, or authors like her, have no way to discern for themselves what is what. Alternate views are readily available for purchase. It is up to each person to be informed about whatever they choose to be informed about. You would prefer to force people to become your version of well-informed? That is interesting. I would agree to a point. We all have different tastes and interests, so one size does not fit all. Not all things are equally worthy, each to their own. I applaud the act of the creative effort. I simply appreciate it having so much of my life dedicated to such things. I wasn't arguing, I was stating my position that it takes a certain amount of courage to put yourself out there, no matter what your message. It takes gumption. I can separate the effort from the message, even if I don't agree with it.
Perhaps you misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting you cherish her work or all work should be cherished equally. I merely said I appreciate her efforts, no matter if I agree with her or not. That is a separate issue.
I don't appreciate her efforts, because her intent is to mislead. I agree with the very astute sentiment by the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." If Coulter's writings were merely differing opinion, I would have some appreciation of her efforts. But because she falsifies, distorts, and hides facts, I don't appreciate them. Misinformation campaigns can be dangerous.
While what you say here has value, it is also subjective. It depends on what one would derive from what is written given their interests, reasons for reading and such to determine for themselves what constitutes value. That's how I see it. As for other people's statements about her work are concerned, wouldn't it be prudent, as others suggest in this thread, that you should not seek one-sided opinions, but rather investigate for yourself what the facts are?
chicagoliz, this is getting a bit heated, I can see that. I respect your view on this even if I don't agree with everything you say.
Given that you perceive that the discussion is getting heated, I was going to refrain from additional comment. However, I did want to clarify something I just noticed in a post, above. With respect to: It's not really *my* version of well-informed that concerns me. It's more that of Thomas Jefferson. In order to participate meaningfully in a democracy, it is a prerequisite that the people be knowledgable of the issues and informed of the relevant facts. Two of his quotes with respect to this issue are: "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;... whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." and "A nation's best defense is an educated citizenry." So, I just wanted to clarify that I'm not saying everyone must agree with me on every issue. What I'm saying is that it is an important goal (not an achievable one, but one for which we should strive, nonetheless) that everyone who participates in our democracy (even by voting, which is perhaps the most common and most important way to participate), should be informed of the issues we face and of the underlying facts relevant to those issues. There can exist differences of opinion with respect to the weighing of different facts, and with respect to how differing policies would affect those facts. Those are the valid issues for debate. But to have a meaningful debate, we have to be talking about reality, and the established underlying facts, as they actually exist. My concern is that pundits such as Coulter thwart this goal. That's why I don't applaud her efforts, no matter how much gumption she might possess.
I was worried that perhaps you were getting angry as I know how Coulter's views can really piss off some people. I don't want to fuel that if such was the case. You are certainly no fan. I respect that. I won't defend her words because that is her job to do. But I will always defend what has a place in the free market, even if I hate it. I'm glad you clarified what it means to be well-informed. I agree and wish I had the gift you display in the writing of it. You captured the heart of it. When people write about our duty to be present with our form of government the way you just did here, well, it gets me every time. Your last comment I disagree with because even her input is the mark of democracy as well, even as one sided as it is. But I do understand why you think that way.
