Infighting: Anna NiCoulter

Should progressives take Ann Coulter seriously?

By Sam Berger and Ben Adler

The Case Against
By Sam Berger, Center for American Progress

Ann Coulter’s latest outburst, in which she referred to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as a “faggot,” demonstrates beyond a doubt that she is no longer a political pundit. Rather than using derogatory and outrageous remarks to advance a conservative political agenda, a la Rush Limbaugh, John Gibson, or Glenn Beck, Coulter does so only to advance her own career and notoriety. In this sense, she has become more akin to B-list celebrities such as Tom Green, Tara Reid, or the late Anna Nicole Smith, constantly attempting to shock us in an effort to attract attention.

Campus Progress Editor Ben Adler recently stated in The New Republic that high-minded liberal commentators “are wrong to pretend [Coulter] doesn’t exist.” Adler argues that highlighting Coulter’s crazy comments is politically beneficial to progressives. While he may be right on the level of political strategy, his suggestion that progressives should react to Coulter’s comments as serious discourse risks legitimizing them by taking her seriously. We need to treat Ann Coulter less like Brit Hume and more like Britney Spears.

At first glance, Ann Coulter’s homosexual slur against John Edwards might appear no different than the myriad of insults, slanders, and conjectures one hears almost constantly from political pundits. It might even be lost among the recent attacks on Barack Obama, Michael J. Fox, Muslims, and immigrants that seem to have become the nightly staple of many conservative talk shows. But her comments actually are something different—a trumping of the political by her personal agenda.

While conservative shock jocks may frequently make obscene comments, they usually do so to advance conservative political ideas in a “provocative” manner. Take Rush Limbaugh’s recent attacks on Obama and Fox. While it is tasteless to suggest Obama should “renounce his race,” it represents a clear attempt to weaken support for a strong progressive candidate, in part by playing off ambivalence among members of the African American community as to whether Obama is truly “black.” And Limbaugh’s claim that Fox was faking the effects of Parkinson’s disease to advance support for stem cell research was part of a larger conservative strategy of attacking scientists and advocates, instead of discussing the life-saving research itself.

Similarly, Gibson and Beck’s efforts to drum up anti-immigrant or anti-Muslim sentiments play to conservative themes and policies. Hell, elected officials like Tom Tancredo (R-CO) have been using equally inflammatory rhetoric about immigrants, and conservative politicians from here to Australia have been trying to link progressives and Muslims to terrorists.

What makes Coulter’s comments so strange is that they could only possibly serve to hurt the conservative movement. While carefully calibrated anti-gay rhetoric has been useful for conservatives in the past, this was nothing of the sort. Coulter was simply engaging in homophobic name-calling at one of the conservative movement’s largest gatherings, making the movement look hateful and backwards.

Most telling was the response of other conservatives, many of whom disavowed Coulter and questioned her commitment to the cause. Of course, her comments were immediately denounced by the three major Republican presidential candidates, a thoroughly predictable response.

Far more unexpected, and interesting, was the negative response from conservative pundits, bloggers and activists. Michelle Malkin, who was at the Conservative Political Action Conference when Coulter made her remarks, criticized her for “treat[ing] the communication of conservative ideals and ideas as 24/7 performance art.” And a group of conservative bloggers wrote an open letter to the conference organizers asking that she not be invited back because “Coulter’s fearlessness has become an addiction to shock value. She draws attention to herself, rather than placing the spotlight on conservative ideas.”

But there was no more telling comment than Amy Ridenour’s, President of the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research and co-sponsor of the conference, who said, ““I’m sorry to see that Ann Coulter once again made certain news coverage of CPAC would be focused upon her instead of upon the conservative movement’s goals and principles.”

Coulter’s goal appears to have been to create news coverage for herself in order to generate more speaking engagements and attention. In this sense, she was actually quite effective, as her comments became the story from the conference.

The real issue is that the conservative movement continues to treat her as a legitimate political commentator, giving her a large platform with which to sell the Coulter brand. But we should all stop listening to her remarks as if they reflect any political analysis or insight, even at the basest level.

This is not to say that her derogatory and hurtful comments should be ignored, any more than we would ignore the rants of Tim Hardaway or Mel Gibson, but it does suggest that everyone—including the media, bloggers, and pundits—should stop treating her as a contributor to the political discourse. As with most attention seekers, we should feel comfortable giving no credence to her comments, knowing we won’t be missing much in doing so. And even if conservatives decide to stop treating her as the spokesperson for their movement, Anna NiCoulter could always get her own show on E!

The Case for
By Ben Adler

Until very recently the left has succumbed to a temptation to try to “elevate the public discourse” by refusing to engage in bare knuckled political battles in media. The results were clear: total domination of extreme right wingers on the radio airwaves, on the book shelves and on cable news. Finally, progressives have woken up to the need to not simply dismiss or ignore the base attacks or scurrilous arguments of the right. For one thing, you can’t win if you don’t fight. For another, it reinforces precisely the caricature that conservative pundits draw of liberals—effete intellectuals who don’t respect the ideas that half the country hold.

Although pugnacious pundits like Al Franken, Eric Alterman, Joe Conason, and others have begun to lead the left in fighting back, the temptation to take the high road—and lose—still plagues progressives. For instance, John Kerry’s refusal to “dignify” the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attack ads by responding to them cost him dearly at the polls. So it sends a shudder down my spine when I hear Alterman argue that we should ignore Coulter, or when Sam says we should not take her seriously.

Unfortunately, what Coulter represents is a very serious matter indeed. Every one of her books has sold hundreds of thousands of copies. She has had columns on prominent conservative websites like National Review Online and Frontpage magazine. Major conservative organizations pay her handsomely to speak at their events, where she is warmly welcomed. Conservative foundations pay for her to speak at college campuses. And on March 29, 2007, she spoke alongside Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ward Connerly, Mary Matalin, and Michael Steele, at a gala sponsored by Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center. While Coulter’s specific spiteful comment about John Edwards might have drawn criticism from major conservative pundits, she remains a member in good standing of their movement. Yes, a handful of conservatives have sought to distance themselves from some of her more egregious comments, but that does not mean she is just a sideshow attraction.

On the contrary, the depth of her fan base demonstrates that she is quite serious—not serious in the sense that her ideas are well-considered, but because a significant portion of the conservative base subscribes to them. If Joe McCarthy was serious—and the threat to liberal democracy that he presented certainly was—then so is Ann Coulter. Like McCarthy, Coulter thrives on playing a populist, impugning the patriotism of her opponents. Although she does not command as wide a following, or wield as much power, as Sen. McCarthy did in his heyday, Coulter represents the same strain of right wing anger that has the potential to prove fearfully resonant among Americans. (Perhaps that is why she has defended McCarthy’s legacy in her books.) We might prefer to only debate the likes of the genial William Kristol, but Coulter commands a much wider following.

It is important for progressives not to ignore the menace that Coulter represents, but to confront it. Rather than discrediting Ann Coulter by emphasizing the instances where even mainstream conservatives don’t support her, we should discredit conservatives by emphasizing the fact that most of the time they embrace her. Progressives must show moderate Americans that the right might put a friendly face on its xenophobic, homophobic base, but Ann Coulter is its ugly head.

Related Stories

• Gender-Neutral Housing Comes to Princeton
• Campaign Communications Director, Repower America
• Toke Up Marijuana Laws
• Send a Health Care E-Card
• The Battle for Pittsburgh