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.

Maybe where you are from but not here.

Horsehocky.

Do you know any gay folks? Have you asked any gay folks how they feel about being called a faggot by someone that doesn't like them?

Calling someone who is not a homosexual a faggot is an insult and no, they can't use it for that.
And that's what Ann did, so she goofed, agreed?

Yes and no. She did link it to the Breck girl, and he does look and act like a faggot, so I suppose she has the right to state her opinion, but on the other hand he is married to a woman, so her comment made no sense.
Her real issue was the censorship of words that allow a people to express themselves, and she was 100% right about the rehab thing.

I guess I'd have to say she was 90% correct to say what she said, but 10% in error about how she delivered it. It caused confusion.

It makes absolutely no sense to build a ruling "conservative" coalition if doing so means "conservative" has to become something else to build it.

We may lose, but so will the RINOs, and that's better than helping them win.

Why don't you go ahead and answer my question first. It's more "high road" that way.

Okay, if I must, oh great final-word-on-everthing Mr. Silverback, I'll answer your question, which was:

So let me get this straight...you think it's intellectualism and smugness to say it doesn't do the conservative movement any good to go around calling a faithful husband a faggot? .

No. Try to keep up. What I'm saying is that 'highball' used the very same type of PERSONAL attacks that he was condemning Ann for using. ARe you a Breck Girl too? Am I harming the conservative movement by using those words? Maybe "Breck Girl" should be banned?

Do you know any gay folks? Have you asked any gay folks how they feel about being called a faggot by someone that doesn't like them?

So does everybody like you? Should we mandate that everyone like you? Should we outlaw anyone who says something you don't like about you? How about calling someone stupid or booing at a ballgame or calling someone asshole? You mamby pamby feel good "republicans" are going right down the socialist hole and insist we go with you.

My best friend growing up is gay. We grew up together - he's like my brother. As a kid I had many fist fights defending him, and not one of them had anything to do with the word fag. One of my first cousins is gay.... But we aren't talking about a gay person being called a fag now are we?

And 'nigger' means black person.
So do you allow your children to call black folk 'nigger'?

THAT is racism. It does NOT mean a black person. Racists only used it to describe the blacks. You've been brainwashed by PC. Anyone who assumes it means "black people" has a problem.

Contemptible, inferior, ignorant, a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised.

I'm an Ann Coulter fan, but I thought her recent comment was ugly.

Edwards, in my opnion, is an egotistical, hypocritical, lying phony who is wide open for harsh criticism. But why use a bigoted term that impugns millions of people who are not John Edwards?

She should accept that she made a mistake and apologize. How refreshingly rare that would be for a public figure.

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?

An iconoclastic, South Park Republican thrill.

Next question.

BTW...N-word = race: definite no-no.

F-word = behavior

Failure to recognize the difference is prima facie evidence of demagoguery.

Oh, vulgar. Oh, I see now. We can't be vulgar. Go it. What's next? We've lost. Soon we'll be like France and won't be able to videotape violence.... Our enemies call us every name under the sun and we have our panties in a bunch because Ann was "vulgar."

She did link it to the Breck girl, and he does look and act like a faggot, so I suppose she has the right to state her opinion, but on the other hand he is married to a woman, so her comment made no sense.

She called a guy 'faggot'. Which is an insult, and fighting words.

Gays and straights alike consider that an insult when used in that manner. Her 'point' was she doesn't think it's fair that 'faggot' is like 'nigger'.

She's wrong, and she just goofed.

Faggot and nigger have the same effect. If you walk into a gay bar and go up to a big, strong gay guy and say, "I can't stand you faggots", you're going to get into a fight.

A hair-pulling, scratching cat fight, probably -- but still! :-D

The point was not about criticism of behavior. It was about how the idea of Ann being in the right because she was fighting semantic totalitarianism is a non-starter. What if, for example, she had said, "Some say the country isn't ready for an N-word president, but I think we are. That president should not be that N-word Barack Obama, however, because despite the fact that he's a well-educated, articulate, intelligent, handsome, dedicated and pro-family N-word, his ideology overall is too far to the left for him to be our first N-word president."

Why couldn't she say that and just say she was using terms that are used by people of Obama's race to describe him? I haven't seen a single argument in her defense on this thread that wouldn't apply to it. If the word "faggot" applied to a guy who has been faithful to his wife for 29 years is something that will advance the Reagan Revolution, why not the N-word applied to a guy some people in the ghetto would describe as an N-word?

And what if she just dispensed with the N-word and said he was unqualified to be president because of his humongous Baby New Year ears? Would that have been good for conservatism and reinforced her point about semantic totalitarianism?

You mamby pamby feel good "republicans" are going right down the socialist hole and insist we go with you.

It's just simple. If you go into a bar and go up to some faggot and say, "Move your ass, faggot", you're going to start a fight.

And you folks are proving you'll defend anything, no matter how indefensible.

Funny stuff!

Who are they to decide what words are acceptable and which are not?

I notice the left never said a word when more than one liberal Senator has, in a fit of rage, called a fellow Senator a faggot right in the Senate chambers.

Personally, I think the word is distasteful and shouldn't be used by anyone. But it is very hypocritical of the left to criticize Ann but remain silent when members of the Dem party use the same word.

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.