liberty punk
"the irony of the information age is that it's given new respectability to uninformed opinion."

Tuesday, July 08, 2003  

What Is the Deal?

So Ann Coulter's got a new book out. Treason, it's called. Apparently she defends Joe McCarthy in it. Apparently she says he was largely right in doing what he did, outing the Communists from the upper echelons of our government, etc. Apparently she even makes the case that the reason the term "McCarthyism" is heavily laden with negative connotations these days is because liberals have convinced people over the years that what he did was bad. Granted, though my opinon of Ms. Coulter these days swings like a pendulum between "yeahyeahyeah!" and "what the hell are you on about, madam," I've got to admit that if she were walking down the street and suddenly slipped on a banana peel, it seems likely that once she picked herself up and dusted the gravel from her palms, she'd clench her fists, throw her fiery gaze to the sky, and scream "LIBERALS!!!" before stomping off to find a way to connect all banana-peel-slippings to a sneaky plan being concocted by the Left.

Anyway. So, her new book makes a case for the defense of what McCarthy did, in the sense that what he did was mostly a good thing and that modern culture's general demonization of him is a bad thing. I think I can understand this.

What I don't understand at this point, is why Oliver Kamm (for one) refers to Coulter's position as "destructive apologetics for McCarthyism." (it's in the post that begins, "'Neoconservatism' has, for some reason...") Basically, I fail to see why her position is "destructive."

Of course, if I really wanted to know more, I'd actually read Treason, and then I'd read It's Swell That McCarthy Is Dead Now Because He Sure Was An Asshole by Johnny Communist, or whomever, and then I'd have a better idea of what the hell I'm trying to say.

What do y'all think about McCarthy?

posted by geoff | 1:00 PM |
hehe, etc.
Site Meter