Addition or subtraction?: Ann Coulter and the conservative crossroads

In the run-up to the fateful election of 2008, conservatives face a clear-cut choice: we can rebuild our movement as a broad-ranging, mainstream coalition and restore our governing majority, or else settle for a semi-permanent role as angry, doom-speaking complainers on the fringes of American politics and culture.

We can either invite doubters and moderates to join with us in new efforts to affirm American values, or we can push them away because they fail to measure up to our own standards of indignation and ideological purity.

In short, we must choose between addition and subtraction: either building our cause by adding to our numbers or destroying it by discouraging all but the fiercest ideologues.

No political party or faction has ever thrived based on purges and insults and internal warfare, but too many activists on the right seem determined to reduce the conservative cause to self-righteous irrelevance.

The most recent outrage involving Ann Coulter provides a revealing example of the self-destructive tendencies of some dedicated partisans on the right. Addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C., the best-selling author and glamorous Time magazine cover girl declared: “I was going to have a few comments about the other Democratic candidate for President, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot’ so I’m kind of at an impasse. I can’t really talk about Edwards.”

Some members of the audience gasped as she deployed the forbidden slur, but many others laughed and applauded. Naturally, Democratic Chair Howard Dean and many others pounced on the incident as another example of conservative viciousness and bigotry, demanding that all Republican Presidential candidates dissociate themselves from Coulter’s comments.

This challenge creates a miserable dilemma for every GOP contender. If the candidate ignores the controversy, he looks gutless and paralyzed in the face of obviously inappropriate and over-the-top insults. If he condemns Coulter, he looks like he’s wimping out to the liberal establishment and offends right-wing true believers who feel instinctively protective of Ann the Outrageous. Any comment by a presidential candidate also refocuses the national conversation on the absurd and unacceptable suggestion that John Edwards is secretly gay.

To paraphrase the old line attributed to Talleyrand: this smear amounts to worse than a crime, it is a blunder. John Edwards deserves contempt and derision on many counts, and I go after him (regularly) on my radio show for his extreme left wing positions on foreign policy and health care, his shameless opportunism, even his long history as a fabulously wealthy and floridly hypocritical ambulance-chasing attorney. Ann Coulter could have found plenty to say about the former North Carolina Senator without invoking the dreaded f-word (all right, the other dreaded f-word).

In fact, Edwards has been a visibly loyal husband to Elizabeth, his wife of more than 29 years, who’s currently battling breast cancer. Together, they’ve brought five children into the world, including a son who died in a tragic traffic accident at age 16. Drawing attention to Edwards’ personal life and away from his policies only helps Edwards and harms conservatives.

In other words, the lame attempt to question the Senator’s sexual orientation is precisely the wrong attack, and Coulter herself is most certainly the wrong attacker. If this issue continues to attract attention, indignant liberals will no doubt point out that the devoted family man from North Carolina exemplifies traditional values far more notably than the mini-skirted, never-married provocateur from the right.

Personally, I like and admire Ann Coulter, and I’ve always defended her in the past – even when liberals gleefully quoted out-of-context from her recent bestseller “Godless” to make it sound as if she suggested that 9/11 widows wanted their own husbands to die and celebrated their fiery deaths. Her caustic humor often upstages her serious and substantive political points, as did the notorious headline “They Shot the Wrong Lincoln” appended to her column attacking her fellow Republican, Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee. That one opinion piece didn’t doom Chafee’s re-election bid, but movement conservatives like Coulter and many others expressed the desire for his defeat—a loss that insured the Democrats’ one-vote margin in the Senate.

Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of concentrating fire on a fellow Republican (even a liberal GOP’er like Linc Chafee) but there can be no argument about the purely destructive impact of Coulter’s sneering slur against Edwards. How could such a nasty shot possibly assist the conservative cause? Which potential Republican supporters would feel motivated or mobilized by her casual use of the term “faggot”? How could a smart woman expect anything other than a disgusted and negative response for her implication that a long-married father of five deserved outing as a homosexual?

The Coulter commentary (and the subsequent applause) reinforced the public image of conservatives as unreasonably hostile to gay people in general, not just opposed to the dubious particulars of the so-called “gay rights” agenda. In fact, exit polls showed that self-identified gay people made up 4% of the total electorate in the incomparably close election of 2000, and nearly one third of those homosexual voters cast their ballots for George W. Bush. In other words, more than a million gay citizens voted for Bush-Cheney, in a race that ultimately turned on a mere 527 votes in Florida, and a national margin in the popular vote of just 537,000 for Gore.

What sense does it make for a featured speaker at a conservative conference to deliver gratuitous insult and offense to that stalwart minority of homosexuals who still choose to cast their lot with Republicans, despite the party’s impassioned (and appropriate) opposition to gay marriage?

By the same token, how does it help for one of the nation’s highest profile conservative talk hosts to use his broadcast on the Martin Luther King holiday to insult the fallen hero as unworthy of federal commemoration? Yes, the overwhelming majority of African-Americans votes incurably Democratic, but in 2004, Bush still drew well over a million-and-a-half black votes. It doesn’t help these courageous dissenters from politically correct orthodoxy if loud voices on the right make them wonder whether Jesse Jackson and Howard Dean are right about the racism of Republicans.

Finally, the most serious challenge of all involves the rapidly growing and increasingly prosperous Latino communities. Were it not for his competitive showing among Hispanics (with some 35% of their votes in 2000, and above 40% in 2004), Bush wouldn’t even have come close to victory, either time.

Meanwhile, elements of the President’s party seem perversely determined to make sure that no future Republican repeats this success with the nation’s fastest growing minority group. Imagine how naturalized Hispanic citizens, or even native-born Latinos might feel, at the suggestion that their cousins amount to an “invading army” bent on destroying America, or the common equation of terrorists (who have all been legal U.S. entrants by the way) and those who enter the country to care for our children and mow our lawns. Anti-immigrant rhetoric (which increasingly dispenses with any distinction between legal and illegal arrivals) provoked a disastrous shift of Latino voters away from the GOP in 2006. If Republicans continue to draw just 20% of Hispanic votes they will never regain control of Congress and stand scant chance of retaining the White House. Nativist posturing (like Congressman Tom Tancredo’s obnoxious slogan, “America Is Full”) may play well with some elements of the conservative base but it could easily doom Republicans to permanent minority status.

Obviously, the future of the conservative movement and of the Republic itself requires GOP recruitment of more Latinos, Blacks and gays, and anything that stands in the way of such participation fatally undermines the party’s future.

The situation hardly requires retreat and retrenchment on key issues of principle in the vague hope of winning more minority support.

Republicans don’t need to drop our implacable opposition to gay marriage in order reach out to gays.

We don’t need to reverse our criticism of race-based quotas in order to bring more black involvement in the party.

And we certainly don’t need to endorse automatic amnesty or “open borders” as a way to connect with Latino voters – but we might want to avoid widespread public advertising for games like “Find the Illegal Immigrant” (devised by a College Republicans chapter in New York City) or giving undeserved respect to crackpot fringe groups like the scandal-tainted “Minute Man Civil Defense Corps.”.

On all the important issues, it’s not substance that needs to change, it’s style.

Republicans need to return to the open, expansive conservatism of Ronald Reagan: more concerned with bringing in newcomers than driving out dissenters, more committed to winning elections than to scoring points in arguments, more determined to steer the government in the right direction than to sit at the sidelines carping about inevitable decline. We should make skeptics feel welcome as Republicans and urge them to fight the issues inside the party where they can have the most impact.

Every major event, every potential speaker, every resolution, every specific approach, deserves evaluation in terms of effectiveness in party building—winning new adherents to the cause.

We should ask a crucial question before we speak or act: will this draw people to conservative ideas and ideals, or will it serve to turn them off and push them away?

It’s not a matter of pandering; it’s an expression of practical politics. At this crucial juncture, conservatives need to recall the obvious point that you strengthen your cause most effectively when you’re appealing, not appalling.

If your kid calls another kid a 'faggot' in class, and that kid punches him -- do you think your son did anything wrong?

Only if the kid was straight. Then, my son would be in the wrong and shouldn't have said it.
If the kid claimed to be gay, sure. He could use the word.

I repeat, Faggot means homosexual. That's what the word means.

Why should a free people be dictated to by the left wing thought control machine and be forced to obey their lingual dictates? Who are they to decide what words are acceptable and which are not? Already they're trying to out law certain parts of the American language. How many words are we "forbidden " to use?

Speak up now, folks, or forever hold your tongues.

Mean and nasty people don't win elections. There's nothing to defend about a self-evident statement. What don't you understand about it?

Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Mrs. Clinton, Raul Emanuel, etc, etc, etc.
Mean and nasty people win elections all the time!!!
That's my point.

I don't know how old you are, but I am almost 40 and it has not been a "normal word" for my entire lifetime. And not because of a political movement of homosexuals, but because it is vulgar.

I'm 41 and maybe where you are from that's the case. But from where me and Ann are from, it's a schoolyard taunt that has nothing to do with homosexuals. If they want to be offended by it being used to describe obviously heterosexuals that is really their problem.

No, it doesn't:

The term nigger is now probably the most offensive word in English. Its degree of offensiveness has increased markedly in recent years, although it has been used in a derogatory manner since at least the Revolutionary War. Definitions 1a, 1b, and 2 b>represent meanings that are deeply disparaging and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense.

To claim the words are even remotely equivalent is disingenuous at best.

Thank you so much for posting this very timely & thoughtful commentary, Ivan, and special thanks in a roundabout way to those freepers contributing to this thread this morning who have managed, albeit apparently unwittingly, to illustrate Mr. Medved's essential thesis with such brilliant clarity themselves.

(Keep the faith, MadIvan!)

It has nothing to do with this conversation. Ann is an author an commentator, not a candidate for President.

Can you read? The conversation is about whether the kind of stuff Ann did...

ADVANCES THE CONSERVATIVE CAUSE.

There, I put it in big letters so you could read it. Now, can you tell me when Reagan used slur words against his opponents? Can you tell me how the word "faggot" tells the public that John Edwards is a lying, demogoguing, Marxist twit? Can you tell me why the words "Nobody should be sent to rehab for using a word, and that means any word" would not have been just as effective? Can you tell me what good thing about conservatives an open-minded 20 year old voter will get from the word "faggot" that he wouldn't get from transmission of Reagan's ideas in language Reagan would stand behind?

As for the N-word question, you are dodging again, and if you can't read what's on the screen in my comments, I can't imagine you can read my mind. You said she was making a point against semantic totalitarianism. Well, why wouldn't it be OK for her to use the N-word and illustrate how some people can use it but some people can't? When people said, "Ann Coulter used that word and it means X," Coulter could say, "If it means X, why are people of a certain skin color calling themselves that each day and thinking it's a good thing?"

So, why wouldn't be OK for her to use the N-word to describe Obama?

So you go around referring to black people as "Negroes"?

Nope. Why should I? I call all people "people."
Homosexuality is a chosen behavior. Faggot is a word that refers to them by their behavior. They chose to be faggots.
Abortionists chose to be abortionists. I don't call them "doctors." I call them abortionists or baby killers.
I call those on social programs "Welfare recipients", too.
I call illegal aliens "illegal aliens."

I even use the word "articulate!"

To claim the words are even remotely equivalent is disingenuous at best.

This is the basis of the argument.

To allow these words to be remotely equivalent is allowing the argument that the struggle for civil rights is on par with creating a protected class of homosexuals.

I'm not buying the argument.

My point is that Bill Clinton was despicable, mean and nasty and insulted his opponents with things they weren't guilty of. Ronald Reagan was about ideas and never slurred his opponents.

Yes, I know you're thinking I've proved your point for you, but do you want to be Bill or Ronnie? Also, which one of those guys won two landslides and which one won two elections where well over 50% of the country voted against him?

To claim the words are even remotely equivalent is disingenuous at best.

To pretend they are different is a clear case of denial.

"Faggot" means gay person in exactly the same way "nigger" means black person.

Faggot is used as an insult, and gay people are offended when a person in seriousness uses that word as an insult.

Gays and straights alike are offended when called a 'faggot' by someone they don't like.

The two terms are both, clearly, gonna get you into a fight if you aren't careful where, when and how you use them.

You don't really need me to explain the point to you do you? What's your point, Ann put off some people who might have voted Republican but now will not? Please! That's simply ridiculous. You have any idea how many people loath this PC culture and the culture of faux outrage and offense?

I call them abortionists or baby killers.

No no no You aren't ALLOWED to do that. Hate speech and thought control. We want it and we need it now! We will control debate and the people by outlawing words and certain thoughts. Step right up. These topics and words are off limits to all citizens. You will be met with swift and harsh punishment.

"As to the recruitment point - I would take at least some of that seriously. Without the African American vote, no Democrat can win the Oval Office."

And that is what is, at least a potentially huge problem for democrats. Their "base" is so fragmented that it cannot avoid being at odds, one with the other. At some point this must come crashing down upon them,

Now, believing the above as I do, I say that conservatives best play is to return to their base ( as I believe that betrayal of said base is what cost them on 06) and stop making apologies for our principals.

I saw anns comments as a pretty clever manner of spotlighting the liberals pratice of incrementalism as it pertains to the destruction of the 1st ammendment.

Ok, I know that was a little bit of a ramble, but hey, I "feel" better.

Greg

My question is, does that then mean they would support her if she had said "I won't comment on Senator Obama because white people aren't allowed to use the word [N-word]." If not, why not?

Race is not a chosen behavior. Faggot is. Not all behaviors HAVE to be tolerated ( although the left would like to force some to be).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.