ANN COULTER has repeatedly argued that liberals more often than not use something like, I am paraphrasing here, the wailing woman defense.  Rush Limbaugh has argued that liberals pundits and politicians rarely ever exam the substance of the conservative message; rather, liberal pundits make a fuss about the method of delivery.  Recently, both Limbaugh and Coulter were "interviewed" by liberal pundits Alan Colmes and Donnie Deutsch, respectively.

HIGHLY LAUGHABLE was that in both interviews, both Colmes and Deutsch demonstrated both Coulter's and Limbaugh's theses painfully true.

* * *

We will start with Deutsch's interview with Ann Coulter.  On Donny Deutsch's "The Big Idea," Ann Coulter was promoting her newest book If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans.  I must admit that I only caught part of the interview online, but what I caught demonstrated that liberals use the screaming woman defense, essentially a reverse ad hominem attack, whenever they cannot address the substance conservative ideas.

During the course of the interview, Deutsch asks Coulter (I did not edit the question to be as discombobulated as it is): "If you had your way, and all of your — forget that any of them — are calculated marketing teases, and your dreams, which are genuine, came true having to do with immigration, having to do with women's — with abortion — what would this country look like?" (FOX News.com).  Coulter, naturally, replies that the necessary and sufficient criteria for her vision of a "perfect" America include: "[h]appy, joyful Republicans," "everyone [rooting] for America," Democrats like Joe Lieberman, and Republicans like Duncan Hunter (FOX News.com).

Seemingly unsatisfied that Coulter answers y referencing politics, Deutsch says this would create a country with income disparity and "divisiveness."  Though Coulter tries to clarify her point, Deutsch suggests that Christians should also be included in Coulter's necessary and sufficient characteristics for a perfect America.  Here's the most pertinent part of the transcript.  Notice how Coulter continually attempts to return to the issue - distinctions between the two religions - and Deutsch returns to how her language is offensive  – the reverse ad hominem attack.

DEUTSCH: That there would be a bigger difference between the rich and the poor, a lot of other — tell me what — why this would be a better world? Let's give you — I'm going to give you — say this is your show.

COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they —

DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?

COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?

DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?

COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not.

DEUTSCH: I actually am. That's not true. I really am. But — so we would be better if we were —if people — if there were no Jews, no Buddhists —

COULTER: Whenever I'm harangued by —

DEUTSCH: — in this country? You can't believe that.

COULTER: — you know, liberals on diversity —

DEUTSCH: Here you go again.

COULTER: No, it's true. I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that's really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely unself-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it's like they have a chip on their shoulder. They're just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would. And —

DEUTSCH: I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that at all. Maybe you have the chip looking at them. I see a lot of interracial couples, and I don't see any more or less chips there either way. That's erroneous.

COULTER: No. In fact, there was an entire "Seinfeld" episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple, so you're lying.

DEUTSCH: Oh, because of some "Seinfeld" episode? OK.

COULTER: But yeah, I think that's reflective of what's going on in the culture, but it is completely striking that at these huge megachurches — the idea that, you know, the more Christian you are, the less tolerant you would be is preposterous.

DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not — we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or —

COULTER: Yeah.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.

DEUTSCH: You can't possibly believe that.

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: You can't possibly — you're too educated, you can't — you're like my friend in —

COULTER: Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey.

DEUTSCH: No, no, no, but I mean —

COULTER: We have the fast-track program.

DEUTSCH: Why don't I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can't believe that.

COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.

DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, "Let's wipe Israel" —

COULTER: I don't know if you've been paying attention.

DEUTSCH: "Let's wipe Israel off the earth." I mean, what, no Jews?

COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.

DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?

COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners —

DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued — when you say something absurd like that, there's no —

COULTER: What's absurd?

DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself —

COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.

DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans," and if Ann Coulter had any brains, she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I'm offended by that personally. And we'll have more "Big Idea" when we come back.

We can see this tension between Coulter's attempt to define common terms for debate and Deutsch's attention to his feelings most clearly in the back and forth after Coulter’s “we just want Jews to be perfected” remark.  Coulter refers to a distinction between the two religions – Christ as the Son of God being sacrificed for the sins of all mankind as well as the ending of judgment by law in the Old Testament; though brazen and too the point, Coulter defines her terms for argument.  When she claims, “you have to obey laws” but Christians “know we’re all sinners,” she refers to this difference between Christianity and Judaism.  When Deutsch calls her argument “absurd,” and Coulter asks for him to define absurd, Deutsch cannot reply.  Not only does Deutsch miss this point, but he attacks what he finds offensive about the claim, rather than the claim itself.  And further, with this attack he attribute viciousness as Coulter’s motives for her claims.

This finding the offensive in an argument as the basis for rejection of an argument is what I mean by reverse ad hominem.  

An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy in which the claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author.  (For example, one could say Rush Limbaugh is bald so his endorsement of X hair care product is invalid.)  In a reverse ad hominem attack, however, one takes offense to the other’s definition, regardless of the merits of the definition, and further, attributes to the “definer” malice as his motive for definition.  The person who defines the term has said nothing offensive – he has not directed any antagonistic remarks to the other person; however, the other party takes offense based on how he feels about the definition or what he thinks he heard.  For example, you could claim that statistically more homosexuals engaging in promiscuous activity than heterosexuals get HIV.  You would open yourself up for the reverse ad hominem attack: “These are the kinds of homophobic remarks that make it impossible for a climate of compassion towards victims of AIDS.”

In my analysis it is tempting to label a reverse ad hominem as a non sequitor or “it does not follow.”  With a non sequitor, though, one makes a misstep in logic.  Neither party assumes malice as the intent of the other party and so any missteps in logic can be clarified and debate can continue after clarification of category or definition.  For this particular exchange between Coulter and Deutsch, a non sequitor would have been something like:  COULTER: Jews need to be perfected, as they say.  DEUTSCH:   That can’t be true – Christians are just as imperfect as Jews.

Note that in this example, Deutsch’s response does not logically follow, but his response also assumes “good will” on the part of Coulter.  This is a non-sequitor.  What makes the reverse ad hominem is when a claim engages only with feeling and sentiment and also assumes malevolence on the part of the speaker.  Not only does this end any possibility of debate, but the most insidious move is that the reverse ad hominem also attacks the character and credibility of the speaker. 

And so, Deutsch rejects Coulter’s argument on an irrelevant state of his feelings in relation to her claim.  His righteous indignation evidences his offense: “Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?”.  He closes this part of the interview with terse shrugs and summarily ends the debate with “I’m offended by that personally.”  You will notice that at no point does Deutsch attempt to understand, clarify, or engage with Coulter’s definitions.  He merely ends any of her attempts to clarify with by relating her claims to his feelings.

After the commercial break, Deutsch returns to the discussion, and we see the insidious nature of the reverse ad hominem.  For a proper debate to continue, both Coulter and Deutsch need to agree upon certain terms.  Coulter attempts to define the terms objectively while citing the Old and New Testaments, while Deutsch attempts to define his feeling in relation to God only know what.  He further, though, suggests that Coulter’s definitions are born of anti-Semitism.  Again, I refer to the Fox transcript to draw your attention to this “debate” between a conservative and a liberal:

COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe — this is just a statement of what the New Testament is — is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.

DEUTSCH: You said — your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.

COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.

DEUTSCH: But that's what you said — don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic —

COULTER: No!

DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?

COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.

This is the most sinister move of the reverse ad hominem.  Namely, responding merely to what the liberal feels in the tone of the message rather than the actual message.  This liberal response to tone rather than substance is clear when Deutsch claims that Coulter’s message is “anti-Semitic.”  He cannot see that definitions are not in any way pejorative.  In order to define and categorize one thing, you must exclude all others that are not that thing.  Feeling do not enter into categories.  

It might be interesting to note, that Deutsch will not move forward in the analysis.  Coulter has repeatedly (and quite elegantly) articulated the distinctions between Judaism and Christianity.  That’s all she has done in the “debate.”  Deutsch is still stuck on how he feels and how he feels others will respond to her definitions.

I think that this is what makes liberals drive conservatives crazy.  Feelings are non-disconfirm-able but for a liberal they can enter the realm of debate which should center on the realm of the confirmable. 

* * *

I will return to this idea in relation to Rush Limbaugh and Alan Colmes in a future post.  For now, laugh at my analysis of ad hominem attacks because this post followed a series of ad hominem attacked that I emailed to Democrat senators.

As always, this post is dedicated to Howard Roark and Winston Smith.  Most especially to Howard Roark this time.

DO/AO

PS – Dear husband and I are ruminating on the idea of absolute, categories, sentiment, and “double think.”