Posted on 03/07/2007 6:28:29 AM PST by MadIvan
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.
This is off topic, but, I wish Bush lost. Then they would not have been able to blame 911 on Republicans and concoct all these crazy Bush conspiracy theories. We would have then easily thrown Gore in 04 out and put a true-blue conservative in the White House who had a mandate to clean house and take the war to the enemy....
Why not stay on topic? Would you rather lose if the margin of victory was provided by homosexuals voting for tax cut?
"you don't pick the one thing he ISN'T and call him that in some of the most vulgar language available."
You do if you are making a joke about how using the word "faggot" gets you sent to rehab.
If Coulter hadn't made it about Edwards, but instead about an actual homosexual, stupid people would have missed her point and thought she was attacking that person for being a homosexual.
As it turns out, she underestimated the stupidity of too many people.
Of course she is not the first person to get into trouble for underestimating the stupidity of the American people.
I don’t think blond jokes are going to be a great vote winner either.
No-one’s arguing for censorship (or 'drumming out of civilized society') so stop throwing up strawmen.
The day a blonde asks me to stop calling her "blonde" the words will be equivalent. Or when the dictionary notes that "blonde" is disparaging and offensive.
Look, it's far more condescending to make your assumptions about gays than anything Ann said. We've been through this before and you ignored my response. It's not fun playing your game by your rules because I can't win. I have to respond to every single idiotic straw man you set up and you get to ignore my responses and move on to your next straw man. If you are gay and think you speak for all gay people then be proud and stand up and say so otherwise, stop stereotyping them.
Did you know Ann Coulter has new book coming out? Her picture is going to appear on the spine.
I don't need special intimate knowledge of gays to know that "faggot" is an offensive term.
Why so much effort put into defending the use of vulgarity?
Just because a blond asks you to quit calling her blond doesn't make the words equivalent.
It might make you quit calling her a blond but it has nothing to do with the words being equivalent.
Unless your logic is flawed?
If your moral compass is a dictionary you might look for a different instrument to get you back on course?
"Yes, gay people love being slurred."
Hey, have you ever been out in the real world? Try doing a Google search exactly this way:
faggot -"Ann Coulter"
(That means, all mentions of the word minus anything about Ann Coulter.)
Guess what? You will get about 1,620,000 hits. Most of them from pro-homosexual sites.
One of the first is from a gay blog that proudly calls itself The Faggoty-Ass Faggot.
When Coulter called Al Gore "a fag" last July on national TV, (while plugging Free Republic), everybody around here laughed their pants off.
Where were you then?
You sure are hung up on that word? By OK do you mean should she be ALLOWED to say it. Damn straight.
What is your point? Is it only nigger that you think is the ultimate in "bad" words? Are you for outlawing the word nigger? If not then yes she can say nigger if she thinks it fits. Doesn't mean you have to like it or support it but I defend her right to say it.
This whole thing is not so much about defending Ann per se but the vast overreaction and leftest terminology being bandy about in relationship too it. If you thought it was rude boo her and get over it. This is total political BS like hate crimes and hate speech.
Many of you want to go left to be more "inclusive" because some would be "offended" Well if you want to jump in bed moving left just help yourself but I am not drinking that Kool Aid any more. We are really really really sorry. Will you like us now?
Who the heck said the words had to be "equivalent"?
The point is that people are allowed to decide what terms they want to be called. And civilized people abide by reasonable requests.
To argue as many do here that there is nothing wrong with "faggot" is to argue against civlized behavior. That has been my point from the beginning.
Way too many vulgarians here. And claiming to be "conservative" as well.
You did!!
Go back a few posts. You said they would become equivalent when the blond asks you to quit calling her that?
Don't feel bad about not being able to follow your own logic.
Got any more names to call me?
Reading your post... good point, good point, ignorant comment, didn't read further. What is reasonable, what is hostile, what is... too many variables, does not computer, makes no sense. In short, a lot of work for no gain. Make a joke next time, a lot shorter and some fun rather than this poor excuse for a personal point of view.
"The day a blonde asks me to stop calling her "blonde" the words will be equivalent. Or when the dictionary notes that "blonde" is disparaging and offensive."
I guess you missed my reference to Polish jokes.
Hey, so it's the dictionary that decides these things.
Well, when it comes to the English language there is no question as to what is the authoritative dictionary. It is the Oxford English Dictionary.
Here is their definition of faggot. They only claim the term to be derogatory when it is applied to WOMEN:
faggot, fagot, n. Forms: 4 faget(t, 46 faggott, 5 fagatt, -ot(t, 6 fagget, Sc. faggat, 4 fagot, 5 faggot. See also fagald.
1. A bundle of sticks, twigs, or small branches of trees bound together:
a. for use as fuel.
† b. Mil. for use in fascines. Obs.
2. a. With special reference to the practice of burning heretics alive, esp. in phrase fire and faggot; † to fry a faggot, to be burnt alive; also, to bear, carry a faggot, as those did who renounced heresy. Hence fig. the punishment itself.
b. The embroidered figure of a faggot, which heretics who had recanted were obliged to wear on their sleeve, as an emblem of what they had merited.
3. In wider sense.
a. A bundle or bunch in general, e.g. of rushes, herbs, etc.
b. fig. A ‘bundle’, collection (of things not forming any genuine unity).
4. A bundle of iron or steel rods bound together.
5. (See quot. 1851.)
6. a. A term of abuse or contempt applied to a woman (orig. dial.) Also in extended uses.
b. A (male) homosexual. slang (orig. and chiefly U.S.).
† 7. A person temporarily hired to supply a deficiency at the muster, or on the roll of a company or regiment; a dummy. Obs.
8. = faggot vote.
By the way, by your line of "reasoning" anybody who uses a term that is consider derogatory by a dictionary should be drummed out of polite society.
What a laugh that is. Do you realize how many words (apart from faggot, lol) are listed as derogatory?
so many of you people are desperately clutching at straws to demonize a person who has probably brought more homosexuals into the conservative movement than any other person.
But, hey, don't let any thing like that get in the way of your smug self-righteousness -- about a joke.
"Way too many vulgarians here."
You make a good point.
The Weekly Standard recently reported on a poll of potty-mouthed web sites.
Of course there were dozens of winners on the left. But the hands down winner on the Foul Mouth First Prize on the right was......... Free Republic.
Maybe Free Republic should be drummed out of the conservative movement for making conservatives look bad?
"Once again I'll be pulling the(R)lever only to vote in the lesser of two evils and slow down the socialist march the world is on."
And, once again, you will be part of the problem and not the solution. You will never, ever, ever, get to where you want to go by walking away from it.
This is the problem I see with Conservatives. They don't HAVE anywhere they want to go. They just want to stop everybody else from going anywhere.
You don't? Then how do you know? How do you know how gays feel about Ann using it? How do you know that it caused a single gay person on the fence to move away from conservatives? You don't. And speaking for them, without any intimate knowledge is more condescending that anything Ann said. My cause is freedom. That's what I fight for and have fought for my entire life.
If this is your logic, how does the word "faggot" apply to Edwards and explain Ms. Coulter's genius thereof?
Since I'm a Catholic, should I presume that you agree with the KKK label of me as a pope-loving, cracker-crunching, rosary-swinging papist? After all, it's only what I do, right? It shouldn't offend met? I bet you think that would be an appropriate use of pejoratives against someone like me in the political arena.
Moderates and independents with any intelligence will "get" the joke that is the connection to the "Grey's Anatomy" actors. If they don't get it there is little likelyhood they would be intelligent enough to vote conservative anyway.
It really is as simple as that.
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.