July 19, 2003
Treason
There is a new meme coming from the right, a dangerous meme. It’s dangerous to those who spout it but also very dangerous to the very idea of democracy.
The meme is treason.
Ann Coulter started it. The Eva Braun of the wacked-out right (I wonder if she has any Clue what her fans would really like to do to her, when they imagine her from between their sweat-stained sheets?) published a slander called “Treason” (after a treasonable book called “Slander”) and made a fortune from it.
Although she was thoroughly discredited (sometimes to her face) she opened a door many other, less-talented and less-shapely demagogues have since rushed through.
Exhibit A. I saw this one today. I wrote the “author,” a child (apparently) named Ryan Thompson, who took great umbrage. This was part of his response. “Whats so bad about using the word treason? If I think someone is committing treason, I have the right to say it.”
Yes, Ryan, you have the right to say any foolishness you like. But you also have a responsibility to face the consequences of your speech. You don’t get one without the other.
The word treason comes from a Latin root, to betray, through the Old French traison. Merriam-Webster’s definition is “the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance.”
Treason is a crime punishable by death. If you are a traitor the government should hunt you down and execute you. It is a final verdict from which nothing (even the truth) can absolve you. Not only that but the traitor’s name should become a curse, as is the word quisling, so your children and childrens’ childrens’ children are dishonored to their graves.
Treason is not a word to be casually bandied-about in polite conversation unless, of course, you mean it. And if Howard Dean is a traitor, if in fact all Democrats are traitors, what then is the test of loyalty?
It is, of course, absolute obedience, which is everything America was created to fight against. It is what Hitler demanded, what Stalin demanded, it is the force that created Pol Pot. It is, in the end, what Timothy McVeigh was demanding when he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995.
Now that was treason.
There are a host of these Coulter wannabes out there, writing (usually badly) at sites with names like AmericanDaily, Newsmax, Chronwatch, Cybercast, and WorldNetDaily. Not everything at these sites is hatred and venom, but enough of it is. I don’t know who reads this stuff. It is, at heart, political pornography.
But it is also propaganda, the kind that poisons young minds far more thoroughly than an overdose of beaver shots ever could. (I wonder what these writers would think of Ann Coulter pictured….never mind.) Enough of this and a young, impressionable boy who loves his parents can turn into a monster.
Let’s be fair. Let me give you the entire message I got from Ryan Thompson. “Don't give me that tax crap, my father makes 65,000 a year and I understand what taxes are. We need to cut spending so the tax rates are lower. Whats so bad about using the word treason? If I think someone is committing treason, I have the right to say it. WHAT IS YOUR IDEA OF MIDDLE CLASS IF YOU DO NOT THINK I AM MIDDLE CLASS?”
Want to know where the real terrorists come from, the Timothy McVeighs and the Eric Rudolphs? That’s where. We’re so worried about Osama Bin Laden raising terrorists against us and yet we mass produce terrorism on our own soil.
Rights come with responsibilities. With your right to speak freely comes responsibility for the consequences.
It is past time America’s far right learned that lesson. There in its rhetoric is the real treason we have to fear. Call them on it. Keep calling them on it. Shame them back into their holes. That is how you can best contribute to the real War On Terrorism.
Teach peace.
Oh my, what a warped little mind this kid has. I think somebody needs to move out of his parent’s basement and start learning some of life’s lessons, and then we’ll see how he reacts to the critics of the Bush administration.
Dissent is not treason. Preventing free speech is.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward at July 19, 2003 11:05 PMwhat these fools don’t realize is that treason has a precise legal meaning and their use of it could be construed as slander. ann coulter avoided this problem by not accusing anyone living in her book.
Posted by: gideon at July 20, 2003 12:30 AMI’m not sure it’s appropriate to blame the entire right for the “treason” meme. Even folks right of center recognize that Ann Coulter’s about as unbiased as Michael Moore.
Posted by: Greg at July 20, 2003 01:16 AMThat’s funny… it’s a post about how the word treason is being used inappropriately, and one of the comments says:
“Dissent is not treason. Preventing free speech is.”
Is that irony?
Posted by: CJ at July 20, 2003 01:18 PMAh, name calling, a last resort for eight year olds. (But in calling these slandering opinion-heads eight year olds, aren’t I resorting to name calling? Ooh, a viscious cycle.)
Posted by: Prez in 2020 at July 20, 2003 01:25 PMCJ: Defending what this country stands for is defending the nation. Attacking what it stands for — free speech, is attacking it.
To say that attacking free speech is treason is not a contradiction. It is a tautology.
Posted by: Dana Blankenhorn at July 21, 2003 08:53 AMThe San Francisco Chronicle’s book review section featured a front-page review of Coulter’s _Treason_. An excerpt:
Ms. Coulter, in light of the insipid invective, appalling ignorance, slipshod scholarship and egregious dishonesty oozing from your new book, ‘Treason,’ I’m not surprised. You richly deserve the title of pseudo-intellectual and give real meaning to Jacques Barzun’s complaint about ‘the menace of the untaught — the menace to themselves and to us.’See: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/07/20/RV153961.DTL Posted by: matt m at July 21, 2003 10:27 AM
WOW a link to the SF gate. Now there is an unbiased paper. sheesh. that is funny….Ann Coulter is a byatch but she has a right to her opinion. It seems the same people who talk about the first ammendment want to limit someone elses speech. Is that the case? It worked when they attacked DR LAURA and MIKE SAVAGE. Does that make it right? Or should these pressure groups continue to limit others peoples rights by threatening them? Sounds like the same tactic as the christian coalition to me. hmmph hipocracy? Yep.
Posted by: pete at July 21, 2003 10:10 PMPete:
I don’t see anyone actively trying to curtail Coulter’s free speech. I see people trying to counter the horribly wrong-headed aproach she is taking in her free-speech.
Coulter is a dead-wrong, plain and simple. I have seen enough out-and-out lies in her book to know that she plays fast and loose with the truth. She is also accusing an *entire group of people* of a crime that is punishable by death. Think about that.
It is one thing to say that one disagrees with liberals, and that their plains will harm the nation. It is quite another to say that liberals are deliberately aiding and abetting the enemy. And it crosses the line. This is Nazi Germany thinking. And it needs to be pointed out that it crosses the line.
What we need to do is relegate Ann Coulter’s free speech to the dust bin of America where it belongs. She is no better than an eco-terrorist, Timothy McVeigh, or any other blinded-by-hatred nutjob. But she is treated like a mainstream voice. If Ann Coulter’s opinions are truly mainstream, then the USA is in trouble. Because her kind of thinking leads to death camps. If we lived in Coulter’s vision of America, I don’t think any of us would like it.
Posted by: Timothy Klein at July 22, 2003 03:28 PMlies? Tell me of one…be specific please and dont waste my time with accusations. Im waiting.
The truth is that you have not read her book. Is that not true? If you havent read it how can you comment as to its “lies” ?
Go check out:
For a nice start.
But hey, I am just one of those treasonous liberals. Maybe it would be easier for you to just execute me, rather than listen to what I say.
Posted by: Timothy Klein at July 23, 2003 02:05 AMTypical of neoconservatives, pete is screaming “oh but what about Coulter’s right to Freedom of Speech” and at the same time criticizing those who choose to use THEIR right to free speech to point out her factual innaccuracies (to phrase it incredibly politely). They want one set of standards applied to conservatives and another to liberals.
Posted by: rev_matt at July 23, 2003 12:38 PMHA! here are 2 quotes from you in the SAME post..
“I don’t see anyone actively trying to curtail Coulter’s free speech. I see people trying to counter the horribly wrong-headed aproach she is taking in her free-speech.”
Then you said…
“What we need to do is relegate Ann Coulter’s free speech to the dust bin of America where it belongs.”
what you said is so telling. You havent even READ the book and you are trying to tell me you know anything about it? You just admitted you think her right to free speech should be taken away. Who is the nazi now?
Posted by: pete at July 23, 2003 02:04 PMOh and by the way You need to stop putting words into my mouth. I never said anything about executing you. You are so twisted.
Posted by: pete at July 23, 2003 02:05 PMI didn’t say anything about taking away. Learn to read, Pete. To relegate, to assign to a lower position.
I am saying her speech should be just like the blathering of Neo-Nazis.
And no, I have not read her book. I have read quotes from her book, and reviews of her book, and I have watched her on TV many times. There are only so many hours in the day, and all indications are that Coulter’s ideas are not worth time.
But I was talking about what I take as the *centeral premise* of her book, as I have *heard Coulter herself state on television.* If I have made a mistake, point it out.
Have you read the articles on spinsanity? Or the *conservative* criticisms of her book? Have you read the book? Do you agree with her?
Or are you just a frothing-at-the-mouth troll, pete?
Posted by: Timothy Klein at July 23, 2003 02:38 PMI have read almost all of her book and most of the things she says are bitchy, bitter, tirades. Do i agree with her on what point? Be specific. There is a lot to the book. To call her a nazi and insinuate that i am stupid really isnt making any sense to me. Those that disagree with this bitch have a right to thier opinion. To assign to a lower position huh. Well you go ahead and assign her freedom of speech to a lower position and tell me you are not a sellout to your own beliefs. Sad. Please be specific about what you want to know i agree or disagree with.
Posted by: pete at July 23, 2003 02:44 PMoh so you just want to lower her freedom of speech not take it away completely i get it. Hmm well that sounds reasonable i guess. Fascist.
Posted by: pete at July 23, 2003 02:48 PMPete, are you unable to understand me at all?
Do agree that all liberals are treasonous traitors? That is the central premise of this book, “Treason.”
Yeah, I guess I am a ‘fascist’ if I don’t believe in moral equivalency when it comes to ideas. The average Neo-Nazi has every right to express their opinions. The day we have said neo-nazi on national TV and have a lot of folk find nothing wrong with their ideas, is a day we are in trouble.
Coulter accuses *an entire class of people* of being traitors, of treason. That is a crime that is perhaps worse that murder, rape, pedophilia. If one believes that *extreme* viewpont, it is time for him or her to put up or shut up.
She *must* if she has any conscience, begin calling for trials and executions, if she truly believes that all liberals are traitors. That would mean a large portion of our govenmnet is populated by traitors; if Coulter does nothing, she is complicit.
If she doesn’t believe it, she should retract the blanket statement, and apologize. She will, of course, do neither.
So we, as tolerant individuals who value an open discourse, must call her bluff. Disagreement is fine. Thinking one’s political opponents are harming the country is fine. Calling all oponents , en masse, traitors, is not fine. Coulter is trying to redefine what it means to be American. She is trying to say ‘I am a good American’. The rest of you ‘liberals’ are not only no good Americans, you are not even Americans, you are criminal.
To stand by and allow a national public figure get by saying this, unchecked, would be moraly wrong.
That is what I mean by relegating her to the dustbin of American discourse. She is so extreme, that her ideas are dangerous. Even if they aren’t seriously held beliefs by her, others do take them to heart. And if enough do, this country will be in for a world of hurt. We must challenge this bizzare belief of hers at all oppurtunities. She has every right to utter them, and I have every right to point out how monumentally dumb, and dangerous, they are.
So, I ask again, Pete, are all liberals traitors?
Posted by: Timothy Klein at July 23, 2003 03:23 PMNo Tim they are not all traitors. You are a traitor to yourself though. I am not going to sit here and let you weasel your way out and change your quote. You said…
“What we need to do is relegate Ann Coulter’s free speech to the dust bin of America where it belongs.”
then you extrapolated and stated that to relegate means to lower. Now you are saying her ideas are dangerous?
You just ried to change what you said Tim, this quote is not what you originally said…
“That is what I mean by relegating her to the dustbin of American discourse.”
You cant go back and change what you said to try to make your argument. The original quote was…
“What we need to do is relegate Ann Coulter’s free speech to the dust bin of America where it belongs.”
You are falling on your own sword. I have exposed you but you helped me do it. Thank you Tim for this opportunity.
Posted by: pete at July 23, 2003 03:34 PM“What we need to do is relegate Ann Coulter’s free speech to the dust bin of America where it belongs.”
That is exactly what I said. You did not understand it, I expounded.
This traitor is tired of arguing with idiocy.
Posted by: Timothy Klein at July 23, 2003 03:44 PMYou are only a traitor to yourself Tim. I will continue to defend your right to free speech. There is no way to misunderstand what you said. If i would have said it to you you would have jumped all over me. So would all of your attack dogs. I disagree with the byatch coulter and i think she is wrong on many points. I also disagree with Al Franken. I would NEVER say what you have said here today.
Posted by: pete at July 23, 2003 03:49 PMWell you’re wrong on one count, pete, I don’t attack unless attacked. I won’t attack you if I disagree with you. That whole combat idea when it comes to discourse is, I think, the root of what is going on here. Put down the weapons, we are just talking.
How’s about you start posting some stuff that is on topic, rather than keep attacking me.
Posted by: Timothy Klein at July 23, 2003 04:00 PMEducation usually guarantees a person’s ability to write. It never guarantees that what is written will be either truthful or wise. In this case, however, if money from book sales is a measure of success, the lady was very, very successful. Perhaps, that is what the book was really about.
Posted by: DRRemer at July 23, 2003 11:10 PMPete,
I’ve got to agree with Timothy, here.
Either you don’t understand what the word relegate means, or you are choosing to ignore what it means. Go look it up, specifically the second definiiton: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=relegate
2. To assign to a particular class or category; classify.
Relegate doesn’t mean regulate. The two words are very different. Ann Coulter should be allowed to say whatever she wants to say, as should every single other person in this country. However, it is up to the audience for these comments to weigh them, and to classify them for themselves. Her comments are trash, and as Timothy pointed out, ought to be in the dustbin. She has taken up a position that is incredibly outrageous, and literally indefensible. (Witness her interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press) John Kennedy was a traitor? Every liberal in this country is a traitor? Please.
The issue I have with Coulter and her ilk (and by that I mean other shock-jock political figures, regardless of their socio-political leanings) is that if you are an American, there is about one chance in two that she hates you and blames any and all of the countries troubles on you. Not only that, lots and lots of folks will gladly shell out for her book to find out for themselves reasons to hate you. Then these same folks will turn to you, and ask you why you hate America, why you are such a dirty, slanderous, treasonous person?
For me, I’m proud of my liberal viewpoints. I’m not ashamed of them. I’m somewhat dumbfounded that there are portions of this country that consider things like upholding the Bill of Rights to be a liberal viewpoint, but there you go. I’m proud to be an American. I’m proud of the principles this country was founded on, though I’m sure that you might disagree with my take on what some of those principles are.
I don’t agree with the direction our leadership is taking us in. I express dissent. I actively try to change the minds of people in this country, to convince them of my point of view. I do not attempt to stop them from trying to convince me of theirs.
Those things don’t make me treasonous. Having a difference of opinion, of religion, of skin color, of standing, those are not things that make a person a traitor. Those are things which make that person an American.
Posted by: crutan at July 24, 2003 12:00 PMCrutan:
I agree with you 100% that dissent is what makes us American. It is our ability to say whatever we want about our government that makes this country great. Nuff said. You said…
“I’m somewhat dumbfounded that there are portions of this country that consider things like upholding the Bill of Rights to be a liberal viewpoint”
Nobody is saying that. What i am saying is this. Liberals only support the bill of rights and the constitution when it is following a liberal agenda and conservatives sometimes (lately) ignore men like John Ashcroft because he is “thier guy”. When was the last time you stood up for the second amendment? This is a major problem. When somebody attacks the first amendment i get very upset and liberals take notice. When someone attacks the 2nd amendment i get equally upset because as i have said before i am an American fundamentalist. In my view if you are not standing up for all rights and freedoms equally you are just a pundit and have no moral guidance or integrity. I want to see more of the left stand up for whats right on 2nd amendment issues and i want to see the people on the right trash this man Ashcroft and admit that he is a power grabbing weasel of the Janet Reno variety. Which i believe is treasonous and un-American.
Posted by: pete at July 28, 2003 02:34 PMI read Coulter’s book and was greatly impressed by it. Although I speak well I was unable to put together the truth as she has. I lived through the later 1960’s. McGovern was running. I learned alot over the years. I have never ready anything so completely accurate as Coulters book. Try reading it. Freedom of speach is followed by consequence. Therefore I remember their treason. I can remember much of what coulter talks about by watching Nixon, Ford, Carter, REAGAN, Bush, clinton, (china, north vietnam) and Bush. I say it is true that the longer the democrats hold office the greater a republican is needed to fix the mess the democrats left behind. The constitution protects rights that are now threatened by the left. Oh, are they the democrats? Well that’s not my fault. Treason is Treason. Thanks to Coulter and Thanks to President Bush for doing the right things to clean up clinton’s mess.
Posted by: Frank at September 23, 2003 05:55 PMDown with alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, FDR, for his unwilliness to can the creeps he surrounded himself with. Oh by the way it is true that when Hitler attacked Poland, France and England got upset, then after all the fighting was over FDR hands Poland to the Soviets. What do you call that but absolute stupidity or something else? I’d like to hear the democrats defend FDR’s move
Posted by: Frank at September 23, 2003 05:59 PM
