August 22, 2010

The Empress Wears an LBD No Clothes

Always worth a look, VFR discusses Ann Coulter's surprising decision to speak at a political convention for openly gay Republicans, Homocon 2010. One reader suggests that "female conservatives" like Coulter (or Sarah Palin) ought to be called "Republican Feminists", because "(t)hese type of women have, through some accident of circumstance, discovered that liberalism does not benefit them... But, they are not really conservatives. They just want to banish those parts of liberalism or feminism that do not benefit them." And: "This is why Ann Coulter has no problems with homosexuality. Women, in general, like gay men because it allows them to interface with men on a level they understand and in the absence of any sexual tension. Ann Coulter is like any other woman in this respect. Her conservatism goes out the window as soon as her status is under no real threat. The same thing with Sarah Palin." To which Lawrence Auster replied: "This needs to be fleshed out more. What are the parts of liberalism that do not benefit Coulter, or Palin?" Well, good question. What about: private property and a somewhat understandable aversion to the thought that in order to achieve "social justice" the government ought to own their revenues from book sales or speaking events?

By the way, the great mutual empathy between women and homosexual men is a myth by which only, somewhat endearingly, straight men are taken in, and to say that Ann Coulter might be (no matter the context) "like any other woman" is so mind-bogglingly insensitive that it defies belief.

Why would Coulter speak at such an event? Money? Hardly. She knows quite well that attention like that will alienate a lot of her core audience and that she'll lose more than she'll win. Does she think then that those homosexual Republicans have a legitimate cause? Good joke. My money is still on Coulter being homosexual herself. Should her shrivelled little black, well, heart really be in this, that would be an explanation of her utterly over-the-top reaction to Joseph Farah's criticism, a reaction which came across for once not as coldly calculating, but as genuinely deranged. But whatever.

At my German blog I commented in January 2008 that the punditesse was receiving lately some, albeit scant, notoriety in Germany, namely by the small and disorientated wannabe-neocon-faction, because she is so deliciously "different" and Germans like it masterful.


I wrote:
The problem is that we are satisfied with attacking an undefined Left, the more vocal the better, to be considered a "conservative". Any content, positive goals, commonsensical arguments or even a basic ethical consensus are superfluous, which guarantees somebody like Ann Coulter a secure, warm little place at the humble hearth of a "conservative" movement that is as free from perception as from shame.
I think that is still a pretty apt description of Coulter and those who will fall for her.


beakerkin said...


Big city Republicans are well acquainted with Gay Conservatives who face more bigotry for their politics than orientation.

Much focus has been on Coulter calling John Edwards a faggot, something I disagreed with. The comment was aimed at his hiding behind his wife and excessive grooming habits. He is clearly not like John Wayne.

Coulter has written extensively on the left smearing the private life of Roy Cohn and on the cult of charges with J Edgar Hoover. She does have a good line that the only cop liberals like is the one in the Village People.

Gay issues are no big deal to big city Republicans.

Anonymous said...

I've read a couple books by Coulter, though I don't follow her articles, but from what I've seen from her she's more of a social conservative, not complaining about keeping her royalties from the government. I could be wrong. She probably touches on everything. I think that Coulter disliked the idea of having a metro-sexual running for president, but no HomoCon person has such ambitions, so she fine with that.

I think many Americans could agree that the govt shouldn't tax too much, but not taxing the rich
has become a national security issue. The rich have so much money now (see the GINI Index) that they've killed off manufacturing and other decent, honest jobs in the US, and turned America into a giant service economy for the rich. For example, a fast growing occupation for women is massage therapy, if you get my drift. Now the Mexicans and Chinese make everything and Americans making $8 an hour sell it to the rich. Also, we barely tax German import cars just so the rich don't have to pay taxes for that pleasure and added safety:


Abstract: The USA used to have an economy (say in 1940). Now it has a plutonomy led by a plutocracy, and it has not been good for the majority of people on the planet, including average US citizens, who are hurt and mystified. In particular the plutonomy created HMOs, making money from people’s lives. The most extraordinary con job may have been the Clintons’ presidency, supposedly a democratic twin headed monster president, who prepared, helped and instigated many of the errancies the G. W. Bush presidency would soon more thoroughly implement. To bring change to the USA means to get back to a real economy, and industry, away from just restricting the concept of economy to a strict plutonomy, a transfer of wealth from the poor to the likes of the Clintons and their friends.