Mickey Kaus tries to compare the obnoxious, offensive and reprehensible comments of Daily Kos creator Markos Moulitsas to the obnoxious, offensive and reprehensible comments of Ann Coulter.

 

To me, it’s like watching a match between Iran and Saudi Arabia in the World Cup tournament. You can root for the refs, or for injuries.

 

Look – there’s a perfectly legitimate objection to be made to the 9/11 widows who used their tragic status as a platform to opine on national policy, particularly the “Jersey Girls.” A forthcoming work does that for a few pages, focusing at what these widows actually said. But that point is completely obscured by acidic bile like:

"These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation, and acted as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. . . . These broads are millionaires lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities. . . . I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much. . . .

"And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."

When Coulter uses language like that, any legitimate point she had gets lost in the resulting controversy. The great Noemie Emery wrote a brilliant Weekly Standard essay on the insidious emotional blackmail of grief-centered politics. Because she’s civil, clear, and articulates her point without insults, her words will have a much smaller audience than Coulter’s.

 

Shortly after the election on Cam’s show, we were discussing a (white) liberal radio talk show host who had instantly gained national notoriety for calling Condoleeza Rice an “Uncle Tom.” We observed that either of us could easily have achieved the same national notoriety if we had done something truly tasteless, such as mocking Elizabeth Edwards’ recent cancer diagnosis. We wouldn’t, of course. National fame isn’t worth sacrificing your decency and dignity – or at least it’s not supposed to be.

 

Forget building a better mousetrap — if you say something stunningly offensive, rude, and obnoxious, the world will beat a pathway to your door. If you make a brilliant argument, maybe the world will pay attention; maybe not. But it’s easier and more immediately rewarding to shock and appall people — and it seems like more and more folks have decided they would rather be infamous than not famous.

 

Howard Kurtz is beginning to ask hard questions about the media’s enabling of Coulter. Bloggers are asking similar questions about other masters of the Don Rickles and Triumph style of debate - Michael Savage, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan. Think about how many sideshow controversy-courting gasbags have sprung up to occupy our national debate in recent years: Ward Churchill. Ted Rall. Why do Harry Belafonte's opinions on politics generate headlines? Why are Charlie Sheen's theories about vast conspiracies organizing 9/11 not treated like the ravings of a guy on a street corner yelling about alien mind control?

 

Would you have heard of Randi Rhodes if she hadn't joked about assassinating President Bush? 

 

In almost all of these cases, the media has seen fit, time and again, to bring them back in front of the cameras — knowing beforehand that they're going to say something outrageous. (And more than likely, factually inaccurate.)

 

Think about it – the only reason you’ve heard of these people is because they say things that are offensive to a vast chunk of the public at large. (Belafonte and Sheen would just be musicians and actors.)

 

I know, I know, they get ratings. So would naked executions.

 

I wondered about this when we were discussing the state of the blogosphere a few months back - does "bad" commentary squeeze out the "good"? Are we "defining deviancy down" in terms of our political discourse? Think about it - when Rush Limbaugh appeared on the scene, he was extremely controversial (probably to many folks who had never heard the conservative viewpoint articulated before). But today, compared to the Coulters and Savages of the world, isn't Rush comparably genteel and mild? An elder statesman?

 

Is this trend reversable? Or is there a limitless appetite for "shock jock" political commentary?

 

UPDATE: I took a stab at emulating Coulter here.