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.

This is politics we are talking about. Sometimes the appearance of a thing is just as important as what actually is

You couldn't be more wrong. That's because we allow the Left to define who we are and what we can say and do without fight back. That's playing their game by their rules and WE CAN'T WIN that way. The best we can hope for using that strategy is slowly bleed to death!

I wouldn't have called Edwards gay - because it's pretty clear he isn't.

That's true. He can be described as a faggot though, although I will concede that is a bit crude. "Breck Girl" is a better choice. Not that it means anything different than "faggot" though in the context in which Ann Coulter used it.

What a wuss medved is:

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.

ANYTHING Michael??

Like accepting the far lefts version of Politcal Correctness, also known as an Orwellian nightmare? Like accepting a stinking LIBERAL for a presidential nominee of the "conservative" party? Like accepting the status quo of illegal aliens overrunning the border? By accepting law breaking mayors who offer these illegals "safe sancuary"? By pandering to NAACP and the Urban League and the rest of the anti-american black scumbag leftists? By spending countless hours criticizing a quip by one of the few conservatives who call these commies to the carpet, and ignoring the fact that hundreds of school districts across America are teaching schoolkids about anal sex?

Medved, you can have the GOP you want, it just won't include those of us who "push them away because they fail to measure up to our own standards of indignation and ideological purity". That's right, the same voters like me who helped steer the GOP away from Rockefeller Republicanism and into rock ribbed conservative Reaganism. Who gladly pulled the lever for GWB twice, despite his lack of "purity", and who plugged our noses and voted for his father and Bob Dole.

Take your limp wristed bullsh*t elsewhere, Michael.

Question:

Who are the serious spokespersons for the left? Someone to be taken seriously, who if they uttered slurs about the right would be marginalized.

I can't think of a serious leftist name. Perhaps Colmes of Hannity and Colmes? The Olbermanns, Matthews and many other cable hosts of the world slur the right all the time and are not marginalized. So why is the standard so high on the right?

That being said, I think Ann attracts enough attention without hyperbole. But it's her career risk. Both sides have their verbal risk takers. They should be treated by society is a similar manner. I think Ann is conducting a test, to compare treatment; grist for the next book perhaps.

I don't see how matters are improved by Ann calling Edwards a "faggot". As a previous posters have stated, it was a botched joke, not apparently a deliberate move forward.

Being frustrated is fine - it happens to everyone - but when one comes down from being frustrated, the reality of the situation is, there are more effective ways to lacerate the liberals. This was not some well-thought out jibe to move anything in particular along - it was a from the hip comment which has fallen flat. It shouldn't be raised to a Holy Crusade on Ann's behalf, and conservatives do need to think about gaining a wider audience.

That's all.

Ivan

"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"

This is where he and President Bush are flawed. Most Latinos got here by hard work and the long process of naturalization. They see these illegals the same way we do as people breaking the law. They will vote for Republicans if they are for God,Church and the rule of law. The Rhinos would change that and cost more votes then conservatives.

It's not a joke that would have worked - Edwards has multiple children. One can certainly make jokes about him singing "I Feel Pretty" while looking in the mirror every morning, but that's not the same - plus we have the proof of him taking such an interest in his appearance that it seems true.

Regards, Ivan

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.

I am sick and tired of the asymmetric warfare both military and political. You can't allow your enemy to fight by his rules while you fight with mittens on and expect to win. All that does is embolden you enemies and guarantee a future defeat. We need people who will fight and rewrite the rules. It's time for reciprocity!

Thank you for saying what you said the way you said it!!

I am not super-intelligent nor super-educated but I got what Ann was saying when she said it. Amazes me how many think she was calling Edwards gay.

And what's with all the Repubs apologizing for her? They should have done what Obama did and say they would not apologize for something they did not say...

MadIvan,

Good article... but I do take exception from yet another conservative commentatory talking about pandering and compromise this far before the primary.

I would prefer our leaders focus on reality... Catholics make up 25% of the US population and Protestants are over 50%. Rather than focusing on pandering to minority groups, we should be having VALUES discussions regarding those issues which matter the most to more than 75% of Americans.

One of those values that needs to be highlighted over and over is abortion. The Democrat Party Platform advocates for legal abortion. The GOP Platform has an entire article on the sanctity of life. I shouldn't have had to find this out myself--this should be shouted from the rooftops! Overwhelmingly, Americans do not want abortion. The only way it polls well is when the MSM make it an issue of medicine or choice... not when it's a matter of life and death.

If we truly want to win in 2008, leave the abortion-supporters behind and hit hard at our first liberty as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Sound the clarion call our Founding Fathers sounded that all men are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights; "that among these are life..."--without which no other right is exercisable.

Colter is right. The Breck girl does look and act like a faggot. He's not called the Breck girl for nothing.

Colter says what millions of Americans have been conditioned ( by political correctness, i.e., the silencing of all opposition to the left wing agenda) to be afraid to say through threats of hate speech legislation.

I'm happy to have such a great woman on our side. If she doesn't speak up for us, who will? You?

Speak up while you can, or forever hold your tongue!

I agree. Ideas recruit people. Not agendas.

If there are Blacks Latinos and gays who do not share core conservative values -like minimal govt involvement in our lives. And wrinkling your nose in distaste and changing the subject when you don't like someone else's "joke" - instead of personal destruction of the bad joke teller, and trying to come up with reparations for the (usually perpetually) offended.

If conservatives reach out anything besides ideas and truth - then recruiting becomes "pandering" and we become the democrat lite party. And we are already witness to the social effects of that.

BTW, singing kumbaya with radical gays whose "spokesmen" are working force a social agenda on the rest of America-and who will NEVER embrace conservatives because they need an enemy to coalesce against - is probably antithetical to "recruiting" conservative-leaning Blacks and Latinos.

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.