Liberal Flacks

by digby

In all the hoopla last week about TNR writer Elspeth Reeve’s tribute to Ann Coulter, I missed this very interesting debate among Ezra, Shakespeare’s Sister and Echidne about why there aren’t any firebreathing liberal female hacks. It’s an interesting topic and I urge you to check out all the arguments. (Echidne’s title alone is worth it.)

I’m not going to delve into all the socio-political implications of the Coulter argument. These fine writers cover the topic better than I can. I will just say that my view is that the right chooses certain figures for two very particular reasons — the first is camera friendliness and the second is counter-intuitiveness.

They promote good looking women because sex sells, the networks prefer it, the world is run by horny men, blah, blah blah. Whatever the reasons, that’s a fact. In the media, (except for the pooh-bahs of the male DC punditocrisy) looks matter.

It’s the second that’s interesting and both Shakes and Echidne hit upon it in their posts. The right puts forth attractive female snakes like Coulter and Malkin because they can carry the white, male conservative message without the baggage of being a white male. They know their repulsive rhetoric just doesn’t sound as objectionable coming from the mouth of a nice looking young woman. If you can mix in race too, as Malkin does, you’ve got a winner.

It worked very well during the Clinton years when you’d be blinded by the reflections off the platinum locks of the Barbizon School of former Prosecutors alumni who populated every shout fest. These rightwing women would go on the cable shows and wave their painted talons in front of their faces like lace fans decrying the president for sexualizing the culture with his allegedly crooked genitalia. The whole country sat riveted in a way they never would have if it had been nothing but hairy middle aged men talking about sex on television every night. These ladies could both moralize and sizzle and poor Lanny Davis just sat there like a bowl of overcooked macaroni while they ran circles around him.

The right understands what media wants and they give it to them. And while they are giving it to them, they go against type to innoculate themselves against attacks and soften the message by having it delivered by an unexpected source.

I think the Democrats should do the same thing in reverse. They need to toughen their message and innoculate themselves against attacks that they are too soft. They should find and train attractive males (preferably with military or sports experience) to make the case for liberal politics. Go against type and you flummox the other side.

This should not be taken as a slam on any liberal female spokespeople. I think there should be many more of them out there arguing politics with passion and fire. But since the Democratic party is already considered women friendly — and because strong liberal rhetoric coming from a female’s mouth is not counterintuitive — I think the Ann Coulter positions on the left are better filled by handsome, big-mouthed, funny liberal guys to be effective.

Think Paul Hackett.

Update: Speaking of Hackett, here’s some lefty firebreathing for yah:

Along with similarly concerned friends, neighbors and colleagues, I am starting a new project called Operation Ohio to sound the alarm to the threat of the theocratic political movement here in Ohio.

This concerns all Americans not only because this movement has roots in all states across America, but because Ohio will determine the direction of our country in 2008.

I need your help to get the project started.

Here is the problem as I see it.

In Ohio and across the country, leaders of a political movement opposed to basic principles of American democracy seek to create a “Christian nation.” While claiming up and down they do not want a theocracy, their acts, associations and the words used among themselves prove otherwise. They have spent the past thirty years developing an elaborate grassroots infrastructure while the rest of us moderate Ohioans and Americans have functioned in a “business as usual” manner. Some call those who propel the movement “religious extremists”, or “religious radicals”, others call them the “Religious Right”, “theocrats” or “Christian supremacists” but whatever we call them, we must in the end agree on the threat they pose to our constitutional republic as we know it. We know, for example, that they oppose the constitutional separation of church and state and support religiously-motivated government intervention into our private lives — think Terri Schiavo — while championing the diversion of taxpayer funds to advance their theocratic goals.

I like it.

.