Coulter Crazy
Here is my take on the latest furor over Ann Coulter saying something irresponsible:
I’m thinking to myself, if we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, [starts to shout] all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! [crowd cheers] Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families. [stands up, yelling] What is happening in this country? What is happening? UGHHH!”
–Alec Baldwin, NBC Late Night with Conan O’Brien, December 11, 1998.
The man is on the Court. You know, I hope [Clarence Thomas’s] wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that’s how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person.
–USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux, PBS To the Contrary, November 4, 1994.
Not me, I think [Jesse Helms] ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.
– National Public Radio reporter Nina Totenberg, Inside Washington, July 8, 1995.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Ann Coulter says things that liberals have said for years, waits to be called on it, and then — voila — liberal hypocrisy on display.
I think it is calculated.
If I thought for a millisecond that she meant it, I would denounce it. But, since is it so obvious that she didn’t, what’s the point?
On the other hand, I’m pretty sure Alec Baldwin (who also used the “just kidding” defense, though not immediately after his tantrum), Julianne Malveaux, and Nina Totenberg actually meant what they said. And two of these three came from that paragon of understated virtue and civility that we know as public broadcasting.
It’s also instructive to consider what presumably motivated each of the offensive statements. Alec Baldwin incited violence because a perjurer and a philanderer might be held accountable. I’m not sure what the context for the Malveaux comment was, but most things with her are about race, so it would be a good bet that she hoped for Justice Thomas’s death because she was upset about his rulings against racial preferences. And Totenberg’s idea of justice was that Senator Helms die of AIDS, just because she disagreed with him about the optimal level of federal funding for research grants. Baldwin and Totenberg weren’t even content to confine the carnage to the principals — wishing death on their children and grandchildren as well.
At least Coulter left the family out of it. When is the last time you heard about anyone protesting a Nina Totenberg speech?
Contrast the issues that motivated the liberals with the primary, though not exclusive, issue that motivates conservatives like Coulter to hope for a conservative majority on the court: the legalized murder of millions of innocent unborn children — disproportionately poor and black. Liberals desperately grasp for the moral high ground because they are defending atrocities like that. Unfortunately, Coulter keeps giving them straws.
related articles
- The War Within (July 1st, 2007)
- Five Years Later: Americans Trapped in Saudi Arabia (June 27th, 2007)
- Anti-immigrant Immigrant? (June 13th, 2007)
- WorldNetDaily: Elrod v. Thompson (June 11th, 2007)
- The Price of GOP Control (October 27th, 2006)
February 3rd, 2006 at 8:43 am
Loud applause for this post! I have paid lots of attention to meanness in debate and public discourse. Without fail (in my experience) my friends on the left are the first to turn nasty, and they are the first to turn even nastier.
If it is indeed true that people on the right tend by a large majority over their leftists peers to believe in God, divine judgment and an after-life, then it follows that the right will be more circumspect in their speech: they fear God. If the religious right dominates American discourse (as many leftists proclaim), then it would be counter-productive to their evangelical goals to call their neighbors “fascists, Nazis, abject heterophobes, ignorant morons, etc.” or some such, er, niceties. Conservative Christians are by and large worried about saying the wrong things. But progressives aren’t worried. Ends justify the means in progressive thought: “What is said about the Right might not be literally accurate but it nevertheless points to a true something or other.”
This is not a double standard to which the left holds. We are talking about blindness.
Gnade
February 3rd, 2006 at 9:31 am
Both liberals and conservatives are wrong when they use this sort of rhetoric, whether they intend such words to be taken tongue and cheek or literally.
I am willing to listen to anybody speek whether they come from a liberal or conservative persepctive — until their speech becomes crass, vulgar, disrespectful, hateful, unprofessional, etc… And it is unfortunate that so many people, from both the right and left, fit into these catagory.
February 3rd, 2006 at 10:38 am
I’m excited because I found out today that she is coming to IU!
I am really, really looking forward to it…
February 3rd, 2006 at 10:58 am
Rex,
The point of this post is not what was said, but how it is received and covered. When conservatives say something outrageous, the mainstream media goes nuts with condemnation. But liberals, for the most part, get a free pass.
It is hypocritical.
–
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Jeff,
Hypocritical! Yes I agree that the media does seem to give the outrageous rants of the liberals an easier pass than those rants which come from the conservatives. So you are right that it is hypocritical.
But you know what else is hypocrictical… That some who stand right of center rant are willing to rant about the outrageous statments made by those on the left, but then seem perfectly willing to give people like Ann Coulter a “free pass,” dismissing her rhetoric as simply non-literal shock jargon.
The truth is, I would love to see some of the more moderate liberals policing the radical liberals who have resolved themselves to child-like maturity in their course of speech. BUT I would also love to see some of the moderate conservatives police the radical conservatives who also use unwarranted rhetoric.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Rex, is right. But once I did see, in a moment of pure irony, Bill O’Reilly chastise Ms. Coulter for her “bomb-throwing” and “vitriol.” She laughed and said that in part she was at the very least trying to be “entertaining.” I believe that she weakens her position with such bombast. But I do love her, seduced as I am by her legs, her hair, her vicious wit. I can’t imagine flirting with her. She’d tear me to shreds (not that there is anything wrong with that)!
Laughingly,
BG
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Yes, I remember Bill O’Reilly criticizing Ann Coulter once too (and he is one of the few conservatives I hear criticizing their own).
I guess their is a point to make and that point is, when you stand on the left side you GENERALLY are only able to see the faults of the right side — and naturally when you stand on the right side you GENERALLY are only able to see the faults of the left side.
That’s shouldn’t be to surprising since we’re all humans.
Any ways, who is the tall skinny bald-headed (he shaves his head completely) liberal media person? Do you know who I am talking about, I would recognize his name if I saw it. He recently called for the impeachment of President Bush?
The reason I am asking is he seems to be one of the media people on the left that uses flametory, unprofessional rhetoric against the right side — someone who sound a lot like Ann Coulter but just on the other side of the fence.
February 3rd, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Here’s a radical idea. How about we not worry about “policing” everyone’s speech and just lighten up a little bit. Unless there is good reason to believe that someone is actually trying to incite violence, let’s not take it so seriously on either side.
Of course that would require us all to recognize that this sort of vivid rhetoric has always and will always be part of robust political discourse. And robust political discourse in a free society is a lot better than the alternative.
February 3rd, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Rex,
I don’t know who the tall, skinny, bald guy might be. Could it be Bill Maher (he’s surely nasty)? But he doesn’t shave his head, and I think he’s pretty short. Plus, he’s not a “media” guy, really. Hmm. You’ve got me stumped. A tall bald guy, eh? Could it be Mr. Clean?
Peace and laughter,
Gnade
February 4th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Rex,
Are you talking about James Carville?
February 4th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
Yes! He is one the far left and seems to have a very flagrent tone and speech every time I hear him. Its the sort of speech that turns me off so much that I am unable to even hear his point of view to see wheather there is any value to it at all. And that is exactly what Ann Coulter does for me as well.
I think there is a way to speak candidly and critically and still remain professional in communication, whether the speaker is a liberal or conservative. It is my opinion that people like James Carville and Ann Coulter just help further polarize the social-political community rather than speaking in such a way that might lead toward resolution rather than fragmentation.
So what is an example of candid and critical that refrains from using unprofessional (and dare I say) immoral/unethical rhetoric?
Well I certainly think this blog generally seems to be such an example, although it is different when our communication is limited to the typed word only. But here are some news anchors who I think are good examples, Anderson Cooper, Nancy Grace, Rita Crosby, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Allen Combs, to name a few
February 5th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Rex,
The funny thing about your list of names is that one of those, Anderson Cooper, is supposed to be an “objective reporter.” The rest are news analysts who are paid to inject their opinion into the coverage. Cooper, who works for CNN, is supposed to be objective - but anyone who has watched AC360 (and it’s really not that many people) knows he leans one way…
Good point.
February 5th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
It doesn’t bother me whether a news meadia person leans one way or the other, the question is whether or not they speak in a cordial and professional manner when they criticize other positions.
Bill O’Reilly is supposed to be “Fair and Balanced” but anyone who listens to him knows that he leans one way as well.
When it comes down to it, balance is a noble quest but one that is very hard to obtain. We all gravitate to one direction or the other. I presonally claim that I want to be simply “Christian” and not a “Democratic Christian” or a “Republican Christian.” While I do recognize that there is certain problems with the Democratic views (as well as the Republican views), I cannot help escape the fact that I was raised by staunch Democrat Parents. So while I try to be above Democrat or Republican, I still lean towards the left side more when it comes to the social-political world.
Here is something funny. I am a man torn about. I was raised in a staunch Democrat family and married a girl who was raised in a staunch Republican family. So when we visit each of the families (where there is always a lot of political discussion taking place), we simply say to our faimly, “We just heard that argument being made but it was not aimed at the Republicans but instead at the Democrats (and vise versa).”
February 6th, 2006 at 12:28 am
I appreciate Rex’s difficulty with his inlaws re: politics. And he is right: James Carville and Paul Begala (sp?) are awful, mean, abusive. They don’t strike me as kidding when they mock/scoff/rebuke. They are sincere.
Is Ann Coulter sincere? Does she really mean it when she writes, as she did this week re: Alito and the Senate,“Bill Frist was afraid of what the Democrats might do, so he backed down. Scary Democrats! And not just Joe Biden’s hair plugs – all of them were scary to Sen. Frist!”?
Is this mean spirited? Is she vicious? Or is this just a legitimate point couched in hyperbole in order to entertain, and to turn the tables on the the snarky folks on the other side of the issue? Is there no legitimacy, ever, in being vitriolic, sarcastic, bombastic? What of Jesus’ “whitewashed tombs” remark, or his “brood of vipers?” Not very politic, I should think, and he surely did not mean his words to be taken literally. (And if he did not want to be taken literally in these moments, how then did he want us to understand him?) What about St. Paul, in his epistle to the Galatians, wishing that the Judaizers would slip with their knives and cut their own genitals off? Nice speech? Godly? Loving of one’s neighbor? Turning the other cheek? I don’t think so.
Perhaps I am defending Coulter because of her legs. I have read three of her books; she is good at what she does. Sarcasm is her gift, perhaps. She’s sort of like a white blood cell coursing through the bloodstream, ripping to shreds anything that causes infection. Most of us have different gifts; most of us would not want hers.
Anyhow, just thought I’d try to defend a sister.
Gnade
February 6th, 2006 at 11:17 am
First off, we live in a different culture than Jesus and Paul. But even so, I do not recall where Jesus or Paul ever spoke with hate and malicious rhetoric towards those with whom they disagreed. Some will try and dismiss Ann Coulter, saying she is just kidding or using hyperbole but it is still wrong.
There is no humor to be found in statement that wish for evil things to happen on someone else, whether the speaker intended the statement to be taken in a joking manner or not!
February 6th, 2006 at 11:48 am
But Rex, you must agree that Jesus and Paul spoke brutally and harshly at times, no? And if we posit that Jesus and Paul lived in a “different” time, then we must say that about everything they said, filtering their words through our lens (instead of filtering our words through theirs)?
Jesus’ “white-washed tombs” has what “loving” value? From what my theology profs taught me, Jesus’ remark was positively harsh in an R-rated sense. And there is nothing gentle about Paul’s wish for the slipping of the knife; there is hardly anything loving about it.
Should I speak lovingly to the face of evil; should I always speak gently to the face of what is false and yet parades as true, deceiving others? Should I always speak kindly to those who steer people towards idolatry? Is sarcasm off-limits for Christians? Is mockery wrong if I am mocking the celebration of perversity on late-night TV? Were not the prophets brutal in their criticism; and did not they even make their followers uncomfortable?
I believe that Ann Coulter weakens her arguments with the zingers she drops. But not all of her zingers are reprehensible, nor do they always miss their mark. She is remarkably right most of the time (imperfectly, of course).
Peace always,
February 6th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Gnade,
I understand and appreciate your concerns. However I think it is to simplistic to say that because Jesus called the Pharisees a “brood of vipers” that we understand perfectly his intent and the connotations being used by Jesus. Further more, the difference in culture is important. Some of the ways in which Jesus acted were as a result of the culture he was living in and therefore we must understand the prinicple rather than simply tranfering the literal act into our own culture. This calls for discernment. Simply prooftexting something Jesus said in order to justify us saying/doing the same thing in the same exact manner within our own culture fails to ask what was Jesus’ intent and rationale, it fails to consider a first century b.c. Jewish/Greco-Roman culture, and it fails to interpret a particular passage within the entire biblical and theological context.
We should also remember that is was Jesus who said those words, which I am confidnet that Jesus had a much better idea of how to be holy in his speech than I do.
The bottom line is this, does Ann Coulter and the others (on both the right and left) who resort to what I would call an “immature and mean spirited rhetoric” reflect the love of God and neighbor with their speech? WOuld those who use such rhetoric want to be spoken to with the same words and thoughts themselves (the Golden Rule)?
February 6th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Rex,
Your answer is an excellent one, and your questions are important. But let me defend at least one thing: I tried to place Jesus’ “white-washed tombs” remark in context, and I believe his listeners would have found it very offensive. And I don’t think Paul was all that gentle; I believe he was considered (or would have been considered) abrasive. His Galatians remark is telling.
I am glad that you are back, by the way. You seemed to have taken a hiatus, which is more than OK. I hope all is well.
Peace,
Gnade
February 7th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Just a quick note: O’Reilly isn’t a conservative and doesn’t lean that way. He is a populist. He is for limiting handguns, registering all guns and their owners, higher gas taxes, gas guzzler taxes, progressive income tax, windfall profits tax, government limits on how much profit a corportation can make, etc. None of those are conservative positions.
February 9th, 2006 at 9:55 am
While this comment thread seems to have died out, I nonetheless point readers to Coulter’s column re: the Islamic Cartoon brouhaha. I find Ms. Coulter’s ironic wit, snarkiness and sarcasm perfectly suitable here. Am I wrong?
Read Ann Coulter’s column for yourself. To be honest, I think it takes some courage to write this way — more courage than I have.
February 9th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
I do not believe she provides any constructive help to a horrible situation. In my opinion, this is one of many examples of journalism that the world would be better off without.
I understand why the Muslim world is upset. I understand why Christians become upset when there values are offeneded or threatened. But violence will never bring resolution, whether that violence is in the form of street rioting and rebellion or that violence is in the form of military action and guided missles.
God help us all because we (the entire world) fails miserably to live the way we were created to live life.
February 10th, 2006 at 8:03 am
I know that you and I will not agree on this, Rex, so I make no effort to convince you or one-up you. I believe that Coulter is dead-on in this piece; you do not. Her sarcasm and humor (much of it is funny) point out what many people are blind to: the double standard of the media and one particular religion.
I believe, too, that anyone that finds the cartoons offensive, or thinks that Islam is justified for thinking they are offensive, does not understand the cartoons. I have posted at length about this; some of the links I’ve provided even discuss the validity (from two Muslims’ perspectives) of depicting Muhammed in art and with humor.
Here’s the bottom line on this issue: The cartoons are not about Islam or Muhammed at all; they are about distortions of both, the gross distortions prevalent today. Coulter takes aim at the West’s PC blindness to this fact; and she scoffs at those who prove by their actions that the cartoons are right.
She scoffs the way a good prophet would scoff; for otherwise people may not hear what is true. Hard language is sometimes the only language people can hear, sort of like the language which is those cartoons.
Peace.
February 10th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
“Hard language is sometimes the only language people can hear, sort of like the language which is those cartoons.”
What did they hear? The only thing they heard was of an offensive nature. Don’t you think that if you want to communicate to someone, that you would have a better chance at healthy communication and dialogue when you don’t offennd someone unnecissarily (and I think the Cartoons, Coulter, and some of the otehr commentators unnecessarily offend people)?
February 11th, 2006 at 10:51 am
[…] Judging from the comments on the previous post and from the refusal of the press and even some bloggers I know to post links to the cartoons, it appears that some of us are ready and willing to be dhimis. I don’t think Christ calls us to dhimmitude, even if it goes by the name of tolerance or multi-culturalism. So, I salute Denmark. Freedom is not rotten there yet. […]
February 11th, 2006 at 11:49 am
No but Christ calls us to love our enemies and treat them as we would treat ourselves. Don’t separate your faith from your polotics.