Thursday, July 31, 2003

 
SCREECHING TO THE CONVERTED?

-not sure that late is always better than never but here goes:
Charles Murray's Corner Post, "The Coulter Problem" seems to have "risen without trace," but seems worth comment. He cites his own "Losing Ground" as "..an example of a book that was effective in large part because it granted the good intentions of the Left.." and asserts that "Writing books for the choir is, to my way of thinking, a waste of time." Leaving aside, for the moment, issues of the effectiveness of welfare reforms passed during the Clinton years and the importance of Murray's work in their genesis(a good many readers would, no doubt, appreciate any comments or links provided by CM in these matters)it can be argued that Ann Coulter did not waste her time penning the polemics of "Treason." Somewhere around here lies a copy of "Commentary" containing Owen Harries' "A Primer For Polemicists." The libertarian Murray and others can easily find the article by Googling to the (heh-heh)Libertarian Alliance website:
"Rule 1: Forget about trying to covert your adversary....On the very rare occasions when it does happen, it will be because the person converted has already and independently come to harbor serious doubts and is teetering on the edge of ideological defection..." -Perhaps the pathologies engendered by the domestic welfare state have at last had something of the effect on some Liberals something like the "effects on members of the Communists of the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939 and the Khrushchev speech of 1956."
"Rule 3: Preaching to the converted, far from being a superfluous activity, is vital. Preachers do it every Sunday. The strengthening of the commitment, intellectual performance, and morale of those already on your side is an essential task, both in order to bind them more securely to the cause and to make them more effective exponents of it..." - Murray asks, "Who would you rather have over for a drink and a chat? A civil liberal or a rude conservative?" The that "civility" of many liberals can vanish quickly could be inferred from the many "rude" reviews of CMs books. And wouldn't many conservatives rather hear an AC rant than say, sit through a sermon or tea from the vicar or whathaveyou of John Derbyshire's church?
Harries does go on to caution in Rule 3 that, "On the negative side, one of the most embarrassing experiences in a polemical exchange is to have one's case misrepresented and mangled by one's own supporters....witness the innumerable free polemical gifts which have presented over the years to Communists and anti-anti-Communists by crude and uninformed anti-Communists." -I, for one, immensely enjoyed AC's rage-turner, "Treason." Serious writers, such as FrontPage's David Horowitz, and the WSJ's Dorothy Rabinowitz have, however, leveled serious criticisms at ACs er, anti-anti-McCarthyism. -a subject for another post, belaboring in the Vineyards O' Truth(or Vanity) perhaps after bringing in the sheaves of weeds in the backyard on this fine afternoon.

REACTIONRY