Should progressives take Ann Coulter seriously?
By Sam Berger and Ben Adler
Friday March 30, 2007
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.
--------
Comments
I tend to agree with Ben here. While it would be nice if we didn’t have to suffer the simple-minded ignorance of Coulter and her types; if only we could simply ignore them with the understanding that others will do the same.
But not only must we suffer them, we must take pains to counter their distortions—because, for whatever reason, people do actually listen to them.
— mcorcoran - Mar 30, 04:01 PM - #I can’t stand to even look at Ann-ti Coulter much less read or listen to her sick rantings. I am very surprised that any American media, except FauxNews, would even have her on or print her rantings.
— Janet Johnson - Mar 30, 06:55 PM - #I would advocate the middle road. Perhaps we can quickly explain the absurdity of any idea Coulter espouses with a quick allusion to her name calling habits and refuse to engage in a point by point discussion. Any prolonged discussion with Coulter would degenerate into name calling on her side, anyway.
— rini - Mar 30, 07:17 PM - #Given the opportunity, I would club her like a baby seal until that heinous, gaping irresponsible mouth of hers stops moving. Forever.
— Robert L. Giarrusso, esq. - Mar 30, 08:30 PM - #While I agree that Ann Coulter should be ignored, I still am of the opinion that her heinous ranting has a more insidious purpose. I have said it before, but I believe that if Ann Coulter had been born 50 years earlier, her hate speech would have been directed at blacks or other ethnic minorities. She, and those of her ilk, know the benefit of hatred and fear when it comes to coalition building. In ‘04 they used the shared bigotry of many, not the least of which being religious pseudo-adherent, to propel the conservatives to greater power.
They were almost too successful by banning gay marriage in 40 States; the issue largely disappeared in ’06 – and with notable consequences. Rallying the troops with hate speech has been effective since the inception of civilization and, sadly, has proven to be quite effective even in current times. Maybe I am too bent to accept that her hate speech is just an attempt at shock-value to bolster her persona, but I seriously believe that the true purpose of it is an attempt at fanning the dying embers of the ’04 crusades that proved so effective. The one group that they can still direct their hatred and bigotry toward with virtual impunity is gays. I, for one, am surprised that we haven’t heard more of the ‘f’ word coming from her, and those of her ilk.
— Dick Mills - Mar 30, 09:47 PM - #Like a previous blogger, I too would like to see Ann Coulter beaten to a pulp – and add a sign “Watch your back, Bill O’Reilly!“attached to her chest but I am afraid it wouldn’t work. Our only hope is that her rightwing base gets bored with her and she is left alone, isolated -which is what she really deserves.
— Larry Sork - Mar 30, 10:16 PM - #I disagree that the homosexual slur against John Edwards “could only possibly serve to hurt the conservative movement.” The populist appeal of John Edwards gives him a bases among a section of the population that is in part homophobic. Sad to say, some bit of Coulter’s slur will stick to John Edwards.
— Mick - Mar 30, 11:53 PM - #Ignore Coulter to the max, but respond to those who publicly report, repeat and/or support what she says. Marginalize her, but debate her lies and distortions only with legitimate national commentators
— luckypuck - Mar 31, 01:04 AM - #I think it is important to do our best to put the fear of God into the advetizers in the Mainstream Media, when Coulter is allowed to use their programs to spew her venom.
She belongs on only ONE so-called network, Faux Noise!
Efforts to confront advertizers need to be massive and immediate. That low-life needs fewer forums in which to trumpet her filth.
If C-Span lets her on a program, there should be a hundred thousand calls and emails to their headquarters asking if they plan to let the American Nazis and the KKK also speak, since those organiztions are more honorable, less disgusting, and more honest than the dispicable Coulter!
— hterrya - Mar 31, 07:02 AM - #They should send her to Iraq and let her cover the war from the front lines for about a year or til she takes one in the mouth, which ever comes first.
— Joe P - Mar 31, 03:22 PM - #These are the kinds of comments which lead to gay bashing and gay murders like Mathew Shepard. And, of course, who will ever forget the applause and cheers which were given to Coulter’s hateful remarks?
— grissy - Mar 31, 03:50 PM - #fox noize channel works just like real news ,threaten the advertisers,email the station .When ever they cover junk remind them insider/e/et is for junk. they just need to be reminded what is news.
— carri faber - Mar 31, 05:44 PM - #I was shocked when, in the aftermath of the Coulter speech, Edwards bailed from a Fox-sponsored debate under cover of a blogger-sponsored boycott. It was as if to prove he had no… er… balls. I love Kos but he was 1000000% wrong on that one. I’m not saying Edwards’ softie move was a response to Coulter, but I’m sure plenty of righties made precisely that connection.
— Independent - Mar 31, 07:13 PM - #God bless Ann Coulter!
— RaymondJ - Mar 31, 10:35 PM - #Raymond, what kind of God loves people who bash on homosexuals and calls a hetrosexual man with a wife who has cancer, a “faggot?” Is is any wonder that the republicans lost so much in the last election? Do you wonder why? What would God say to Ann Coulter? Ann Coulter should be ashamed of herself for being so mean, but I would say to her, keep talking bitch, you are showing your true “compassionate conservative” colors, indeed.
— grissy - Apr 1, 12:41 AM - #I think the reference to “Anna NiCoulter” was the most appropriate. Ignore her? No. Publish her widely, but select the comments like she made about Edwards. Even self-respecting republicans (yes, there are some) are repulsed by such “lyrics” by the likes of Coulter, Limberger, and O’what’s his name.
— Sali - Apr 1, 09:32 AM - ##6. Like a previous blogger, I too would like to see Ann Coulter beaten to a pulp – and add a sign “Watch your back, Bill O’Reilly!“attached to her chest…
#4.“I would club her like a baby seal until that heinous, gaping irresponsible mouth of hers stops moving. Forever.”
#16. “...but I would say to her, keep talking bitch…”
And lets not forget some liberal feedback in the HuffingtonPost last week about Tony Snow:
“Sure holding all that bulls**t in your gut would make anybody sick..!”“The growth in his abdomen is his head stuck up his a**. F**k him!! He is pure lying scum and should die ASAP!!”
Ahh, truly compassionate progressive/liberal statements.
— Andrew - Apr 1, 10:58 AM - #Andrew, liberals learned to talk like that from their compassionate conservative counterparts. It seems to actually work. At least liberals are spewing hatred against hatred, and are being intolerant of intolerance. Someday this country may return to adult, respectful speech, but until then liberals have learned they must fight dirty.
— Claire - Apr 1, 12:58 PM - #Clair:“Liberals learned to talk like that from their compassionate conservative counterparts.”
The vast majority of liberals have never learned anything from conseratives. Gutter talk, hate speech and lying for “the cause” is something liberals do very well on their own.
— Petra - Apr 1, 01:21 PM - #Listen, the title of her last book was about “Godless Liberals.” I do not accept hateful comments from either side of the spectrum. Ann Coulter does not discuss issues, she just called a hetrosexual married man, married for many years with children one of the worst names a man can be called. She could have discussed what specifically she disagreed with regard to Edward’s politics. When people call names and demonize a whole group of people, they are part of the problem, not part of the solution. This is the type of hate speech which leads to all kinds of violence against gays and lesbians. If there are liberals who engage in this type of hate speech, I condemn them, also. But that does not exonerate Ann Coulter for her disgusting, hate filled, gutter talk. We had a saying in the 60’s, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Ann Coulter is part of the problem and she had made a lot of money on her hate and her books. Is that what it is about, making money at the expense of others? I am a black person and I will tell you honestly, people do not dare get in the face of black people anymore with that kind of out and out hate, they just do not. But, it seems that people always need a group to vent their hate on and now, that group has become gays and lesbians. They watch their words with blacks now but they are out and out with their hate towards gays. What is it about us, Americans, that we need a S##T group on which to vent our hate? I would like to see a “compassionate conservative” come out against Ann Coulter and call her on her mean, nasty, hateful, venous remarks. I am a writer myself and I can assure you that no amount of money can make me be that mean and hateful. If you earn your money on the backs of others, then all the money you earn is cursed, as Coulter will find out. Shame on all of those who find her hate “funny,” shame on all of you! You know, God is not sleeping and He knows the difference between the real and the phoney. You do not fool God. And, if all your religion teaches you is to bash on gays or any other group, then you or your religion is not worth the toilet paper I wipe my ass on…
— grissy - Apr 1, 08:42 PM - #grissy:” I would like to see a “compassionate conservative” come out against Ann Coulter and call her on her mean, nasty, hateful, venous remarks.”
Just a start: NYTimes 3/3
“The remarks by Ann Coulter, an author who regularly speaks at conservative events, were sharply denounced by the candidates, Senator John McCain of Arizona, Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. “
Ann Coulter’s remark was out of line.
I wonder what the reaction would be if she said something like “then you or your religion is not worth the toilet paper I wipe my ass on… “
Great post until you digressed (in your words) “disgusting, hate filled, gutter talk.”
Claire:
“Someday this country may return to adult, respectful speech.” If liberals really believe their cause is so noble, then perhaps they should lead the way.
Smitty
— Smitty - Apr 2, 09:49 AM - ##17, Sali: thank god there ARE self respecting Republicans (of course there are in the Senate and House too, but we just don’t get a chance to hear/see enough of them). The scary thing is how these people, the worst of the politicians (Democrat too!) our noted topic here, as well as Bill O, Rush, etc., actually pass as having something educated to say to so many Americans…whatever happened to more intelligent and articulate language? If they had to formulate an argument for a class in school, they’d get ‘F’s for Foolishness. The terrible thing that they get away with is all these unexamined generalizations, insults, put downs, and so on. And their own flagrant hypocrisy never brings them down (so, Rush, all your divorces must mean you really subscribe to family values I guess, right?)
— pwest - Apr 2, 05:08 PM - #John Warner = self-respecting Republican (who doesn’t think homosexuality is immoral, by the way…unlike Hillary or Obama, who don’t have the balls to say anything)
Jim Webb = f—king badass Democrat
both = my Senators.
Virginia Is for Lovers
— Michael - Apr 2, 09:33 PM - #Ann Coulter – wishing to be the next Hitler
— Raff Ruff - Apr 3, 12:31 PM - #Raff, just remember, always remember the applause at that convention when she made those horrible remarks about Edwards. I will never forget that applause…
— grissy - Apr 3, 02:06 PM - #I won’t either grissy, It was uncomfortable and slight abd w/o approval.
— Petra - Apr 4, 08:04 PM - #BTW grissy, your post was very interesting and eloquent until you digressed into what you deny that “I do not accept hateful comments from either side of the spectrum,” by saying: “ then you or your religion is not worth the toilet paper I wipe my ass on…”
— Petra - Apr 4, 08:11 PM - #Petra, I have three brothers who are ministers and I am not talking about ministers from the “Al Sharpton Church of What’s Happening Now School.” All three of my brothers went to Divinity School and I have never, ever heard any one of them stand in the pulpit and use their religion to bash homosexuals. Maybe it has a lot to do with the fact that they have a sister who is a lesbian and for them, that put a human face on homosexuality. I do not believe my comment is hateful in any way. I really do believe that whatever religion is, it is ultimately about teaching us what religion is FOR not what your religion is AGAINST. That, I feel, makes for a more loving way of expressing your religioius beliefs. I will concede that my wording was a little blunt, in retrospect, but you know, people skirt over thousands of passages in the Bible which tell people not to judge, to love one another, do unto others, just to get to the one or two passages which they interpret to justify hate toward a group of people. I think it is much more honest for people to be what they are than to try to be something they are not. Hetrosexuals cannot change and be homosexual, why would anyone in his right mind think that homosexuals can change and be hetrosexual? I believe that judgments should be left up to God and too many of us try to play God.
— grissy - Apr 5, 12:33 AM - #I do not believe that the God I worship would condone Ann Coulter or any other person calling someone the “f” word because that person loves a different way. And who is Ann Coulter wo set herself up as a judge of other people’s lives when the truth is that, people cannot change what they are? I also believe that God loves all of us and Ann Coulter does not have a first class ticket to heaven because she uses her power and celebrity to bring pain on the lives of other people. And, she is not “funny…”
Ann Coulter is a classic demagogue who speaks directly to the lower middle class. Such people should always be countered or answered in kind.
— John Hanks - Apr 12, 02:59 PM - #John, your post brings to mind another issue…Some of us are attacked by people who have made more money than they can spend, they have all kinds of accolades and fame, and still, that does not seem to be enough…What is is about these people that in spite of all their riches and fame, they still have the need to bash others? What do they get out of that?
— grissy - Apr 12, 11:02 PM - #Lies shpild be vigorously countered with truth, Don’t le the Swift Boat ignoring happen again. ci vil responses, Civil Disobedience— Ya gotta Believe. FIGHT FOR THE COMMON GOOD.
— jeandoran - Apr 24, 03:05 PM - #