|
That's correct, Dr G, it isn't slander, it is the use of political invective. Look at the definitions again. Coulter uses the terms to make a point in the debate, not as an attempt to replace a substantive argument. She explains it in the article I just linked to a couple posts back.
Slander and ad hominem attacks aren't just rough treatment by my opponent in a debate. They are when I make a valid argument and their only response is "you are a thief!"
Invective would be, "you are a half-wit, you didn't even think that argument through, don't you realize if we did what you suggested we'd be ignoring 4 amendments in the bill of rights?"
This thread and several others in this forum on the war have survived scrutiny because we have been civil and polite (no invective here) and our arguments have been substantive. But it does violence to the English language if we blur the distinction invective and slander.
The left by and large slanders, that is why they can't write NY Times bestsellers, the American mainstream is tired of their empty, offensive propaganda. They like Miss Coulter's invective though, like bees on honey, because of her invective's intelligence, it's accuracy and the substantive things she uses to back up her creative, intelligent harsh words.
And you must admit when you look at the national debate that conservatives are optimistic in general and liberals are pessimistic in general. It boils down to the premise of their political positions. Conservatives are positive that the individual and the million-decisions-a-day free market can overcome all obstacles and fashion a well ordered and powerful beautiful nation. Liberals are pessimistic about the strength of the individual, seeing them as too weak to make their own decisions and life to be too hard and therefore must have help, a boost up from larger institutions and a centralized government to achieve any kind of worthy lifestyle.
|