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.

She didn't call Edwards "a faggot" but she could have left that out of her talk. If you're going to use satire don't employ a sloppy expression.

"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, more vudoo commentary. If you oppose illegal immigration and demand immidiate action on our border so we retain our soveigrnty and prevent another terror attack then we are anti immigrant and will lose votes. Screw you Medved!
----
Yes, that is about it. That is the way the pro-illegal cabal, from the White House, all the way to every mother-loving, power-mad, vote-scrounging liberal wants it.

"I quit listening to Medved quite a while ago when it became apparent he prefers some kind of system where only party members vote and they vote the way they're told."

Why would you expect anything else from a school chum of the Clintons?

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

I can respect that view, but I'm still not throwing Ann under any bus.

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.

It's funny, but here the liberals are often decent and gentle people. The problem is they are also fools who follow leaders who want nothing more than to shear their wool then butcher them. Which, would be bad enough except they want to drag me along with them.

So why is the standard so high on the right?
-----
Political cowardice. Absolute fear of losing political parasite status because of the MSM or whining socialists.

Before we speak or take any action we should always consider how the left will react and/or make hay of it...NOT!

Sure, Ann made a mistake. But one thing I'd never do is apologize to the perps.

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?

I call BS on this statement.
It's impossible to no matter how careful we are with our speech to not offend those who are looking to be offended.
The libs have successfully linked the struggle for racial equality to the gay rights movement. Thus they have successfully linked using the N word to using the F word.
The fallacy of their logic must be constantly explained and Ann's humor works fine here.

Well, Ivan, the joke that AC told wasn't about Edwards specifically. She could have used any name.
The joke was about a Hollywood actor who went to rehab as a penance for calling another actor a "faggot".

I think many, many people don't know how to listen anymore. You can see this on any cable news program with the talking heads constantly interrupting each other, or they wait until a person finishes speaking and just start spouting their own stuff. They are simply waiting, not listening or thinking. Conservatives are not quite as bad as the Lefties, but this incident proves that so few people actually even heard what AC really said. It was about free speech, how's that for blackest irony?

I'm with you. We are being compromised right down the river. We have the dirty rotten dems using the no holds bared tactics while the above it all conservatives want to compromise. This government is not upholding the constitution but cowering to lawyers. It seems the bulk of conservatives are more sensative to an idiotic word that our country being overun with illegal foreigners.

I don't see how matters are improved by Ann calling Edwards a "faggot".

It exposed the issue of "semantic totalitarianism" gone wild, just as her Jersey Girl's comments exposed the "Human Shields" strategy. Once it's identified and debated it loses it's effectiveness.

It exposed the weak links on the Right who think fighting an Asymmetric war is good strategy.

Ann did more good and gained more ground by using one word than the all the Michael Medved put together have in the last year.

And, for the record, I am no real Coulter fan. I've never read any of her books. I read her columns every once in awhile but that's about it. I do know this, she is one of the few people on the Right with the GUTS to challenge the insanity.

I'd ask you to refrain from copying and pasting slogans.

It's not a slogan. It's what I think and believe.
If you vote for a liberal, forget Conservatism. That's just the way it is.

(All- if it does make a good slogan, please feel free to use it at any time. Pass it it.)

...too many activists on the right seem determined to reduce the conservative cause to self-righteous irrelevance

You know who you are.

Although I generally like Ann Coulter, her "playground lingo" excuse for the word "faggot" was silly. In fact, the word "faggot" has been seen frequently in the news in the past couple years because of its use by the military funeral protestors who believe God is punishing America for its support of the homosexual agenda.

Thus they have successfully linked using the N word to using the F word.

Neither is appropriate for polite company. They are vulgar. Perhaps some people think acting vulgar towards our political "enemies" will impress people.

I don't. Conservatives are not supposed to applaud vulgarians.

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.