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.

"Recruitment of gays? How many of them are there, and how many bother to vote?"

It's right there in the article.

"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."

If this is actually right, that would be more than 4 million homosexuals voting.

Ann and my sense of humour is somewhat different. I wouldn't have called Edwards gay - because it's pretty clear he isn't. What he actually is (an ambulance chasing leech attached to tbe buttocks of the body politic), is bad enough, and indeed, risible enough.

Regards, Ivan

Medved - We need to RECRUIT MORE Latinos, Gays, and Blacks!

Absolute nonsense. Conservatives need to state conservative principles and any person in agreement should join us. Medved sounds like Howard Dean. Medved thinks the border guards got exactly what they deserved which melds nicely with his stand on open borders! Please, the guy is a pompous movie critic.

Liberals have their own litmus test: you must be socialist, be for higher taxes, for gun control and 100% pure on the Holy Grail before which all good liberals kneel: abortion. Dissent from that last position is simply quashed. If there's a movement that brooks no real diversity of views, its our opponents. They're the ones who invented political correctness, have enforced speech codes and prosecuted their political enemies. Besides that record, Ann Coulter's transgression is small potatoes.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

Yes there is. Michael Medved can bite me.

It is somewhat amusing how many people seem willing to step up and prove Medved's point without realising they're doing it.

Ivan

Faggot is not a forbidden slur.

It is quite common in art and literature, it is a slang word among youth of the last few decades, and it is also a description of a particular type of gay....the flaming, flamboyent, uber effeminate variety.

Personally, I don't have it at the high end of the Outrageous Word Scale. It's probably about a 5 or 6. The "N" word is a 10.

FWIW, Elton John gladly supported Eminem's work that was laced with the word faggot.

Conservatives need to state conservative principles and any person in agreement should join us.

In recent days, I've seen arguments about how conservative goals can be achieved descend into accusations that one side is merely "traitorous liberals" in disguise. In terms of conservatives eating their own, Medved has a point.

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.

Ivan

Recruitment of gays? How many of them are there, and how many bother to vote?

He claims that 4% of voters are homosexual and if that applies to the general population then there are 12,000,000 queers in the USA. I don't believe that number or anything close to it. That would mean that 4,000,000 voters in the last general election were gay.

I think that we need to stop expending so many resources during political campaigns courting "minority" votes. They absolutely won't vote for us and even after all the effort we only move the bar a few percentage points.

On the flip side of the coin, by pandering to such groups like illegal immigrants we wind up losing those that have been known to easily vote for us in the past, i.e. the Reagan coalition. This includes rural voters, blue collar voters, white catholic voters, and even suburban women. A platform of safety and security, capitalism and traditional values might lose a small number of voters that are unlikely to vote R anyway. But the reverse will wind up causing all of the others who are larger in numer and more apt to voting R, to disert the party. (2006 election)

I can't believe I heard Mike right: how are we going to gain recruits from Democrat-leaning groups without watering down conservatism? When we stand against open borders, the gay agenda and reverse racism, we offend people in each of those groups. We could abandon our views but once we do that we alienate our own base. Becoming more like the Democrats isn't the answer to our plight.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

You don't understand the meaning of the word nor the context she was using it in. Yet, you have no problem accepting the definition handed to you by the Left. Do you really think you can play another man's game by his rules and win?

Thank God for people like Ann - to paraphrase a great man, "We can't spare this woman - she fights."

The problem is that there are a group of people - albeit a minority - who are very willing to call in the Inquisition against any perceived heresy.

And you are not seeing what is going on. The problems isn't those saying she shouldn't have said it. I, for one, think the joke flopped (and it was not a smear aimed at homosexuals, btw, but a reference to speech codes, the Isaiah Washington incident and Edward's metrosexuality).

The problem is those demanding she be driven from polite company, (actually be made to grovel apologetically then driven from polite company) while, Edwards, who has actually hired and defended true bigots gets a pass. While Joe Wilson -- a proven liar and arguably a traitor-- gets a basically innocent man convicted of a crime and is given a movie deal. While, liars and smear artists like Michael Moore and Al Gore get Oscars.

I'm sick of it.

Keep fighting Annie!! Never apologize!!

What Ann said was a matter of personal opinion. She's NOT making policy. One can say she shouldn't have said it. We live in a country where people are free to say it was in bad taste. Now its time to move on.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

This is politics we are talking about. Sometimes the appearance of a thing is just as important as what actually is. Discretion, modesty and courtesy are virtues, not signs of weakness.

Yes, it may not be fair, but life isn't fair. Everyone over the age of seven gets used to this.

Ivan

Vote for a liberal, and you'll get more liberalism.
Don't vote (D/L). Don't vote (R/L). Don't vote for a letter of the alphabet.
Vote for a philosophy.
Vote for a Conservative, and you'll get more Conservatism.

You'll get what you voted for. Vote wisely.

The two things are disconnected. We are supposed to operate at a higher standard than the liberals - that's one of the reasons why I signed up for conservatism - partially because they are base, venal and disgusting.

We should not ape their behaviour - particularly when our vocabulary is much better than theirs and can be used to deadlier effect.

Regards, Ivan

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.