"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant"
About this Quote
Coulter’s line isn’t trying to win an argument; it’s trying to end one. The sentence is built like a trapdoor: two lurid examples (“defending the Soviet Union” and “bleating for Saddam Hussein”) yank the reader into a cold-war/post-9/11 moral theater, then the conclusion slams shut: “liberals are always against America.” It’s absolutism dressed as clarity, a deliberate refusal to grant good faith. Once you accept her framing, disagreement becomes evidence of disloyalty.
The intent is sorting. Not persuading fence-sitters, but consolidating an “us” defined by permanent emergency and a “them” defined by contamination. “America’s self-preservation” is the magic phrase: it elevates policy disputes into survival stakes, the oldest rhetorical trick for making dissent feel unsafe. In that climate, nuance reads like weakness, and skepticism becomes sabotage.
The subtext is that liberal critique of U.S. power must be pathological - either malicious (“traitors”) or cognitively defective (“idiots”). The line “the difference is irrelevant” is doing heavy lifting: it erases motives, context, and the basic democratic premise that opposition can be principled. It also launders a moral accusation into a pragmatic one: even if you’re not evil, you’re still functionally dangerous, so you can be treated the same.
Context matters: this is a post-Vietnam, post-Cold War conservative style sharpened by the culture-war media ecosystem, where provocation is a business model and polarization is content. The cruelty is the point, because the cruelty signals certainty.
The intent is sorting. Not persuading fence-sitters, but consolidating an “us” defined by permanent emergency and a “them” defined by contamination. “America’s self-preservation” is the magic phrase: it elevates policy disputes into survival stakes, the oldest rhetorical trick for making dissent feel unsafe. In that climate, nuance reads like weakness, and skepticism becomes sabotage.
The subtext is that liberal critique of U.S. power must be pathological - either malicious (“traitors”) or cognitively defective (“idiots”). The line “the difference is irrelevant” is doing heavy lifting: it erases motives, context, and the basic democratic premise that opposition can be principled. It also launders a moral accusation into a pragmatic one: even if you’re not evil, you’re still functionally dangerous, so you can be treated the same.
Context matters: this is a post-Vietnam, post-Cold War conservative style sharpened by the culture-war media ecosystem, where provocation is a business model and polarization is content. The cruelty is the point, because the cruelty signals certainty.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by Ann
Add to List
