How do you solve a problem like...Ann Coulter?

By Michael Gaynor

Steven M. Warshawsky's "In Defense of Ann Counter" is a well-meant, but misguided attempt to rally conservatives automatically behind Ann Coulter, even when she goes too far. Ms. Coulter usually makes the conservative case with principle and passion, in a memorable, often wickedly funny way. But sometimes she is thoughtless instead of thoughtful, in her zeal.

Mr. Washawsky found it "very troubling that conservative commentators are so offended by a few harsh words for our sworn enemies."

The latest Ann Coulter brouhaha is over her crude characterization of Muslims as "ragheads" during an enthusiastically received speech at a Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on February 10, 2006. "I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences," Ms. Coulter opined.

The problem with terrorists is not their choice of head attire. And insulting the very people who can be most helpful to us in the War on Terror (genuinely religious Moslems) by mocking their head attire and thereby emphasizing something they have in common with the terrorists is...FOOLISH. Because it plays into the hands of the terrorists (who pretend to be devout Moselms, but are really diabolical).

To be sure, Ms. Coulter did not present disrepectful cartoons of the prophet Muhammed. But, this time her sometimes sophomoric sense of humor was utterly out of place.

The fact is that Ms. Coulter's wicked sense of humor periodically overcomes her good sense.

For example:

As the confirmation vote on now Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. approached, Ms. Coulter went to a traditionally black college in Arkansas (homestate of Senator Mark Pryor, considered a possible Alito vote) and, in addition to stating the obvious (that more conservative United States Supreme Court Justices are needed), said: "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee. That's just a joke, for you in the media."

NOT funny, Mr. Coulter. [Note: Senator Pryor voted against Justice Alito's confirmation.]

And:

After President Bush nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers for Associate United States Supreme Court Justice, Ms. Coulter not only opposed the nominee as not suitable, but she did so in a shamefully elitist and obnoxious way, writing that "Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report" and described the job of Supreme Court justice as "a mind-numbingly tedious job suitable only for super-nerds trained in legal reasoning like John Roberts" (whose nomination Ann also opposed).

Ms. Coulter not only disqualified all Southern Methodist university graduates as United States Supreme Court Justices, but also wrote in her first article on the Miers nomination, with reference to Supreme Court justiceships: "[S]ome jobs are so dirty, you can only send in someone who has the finely honed hatred of liberals acquired at elite universities to do them."

Really, Ms. Coulter?

But for the tragic September 11, 2001 attacks, perhaps President Bush would have nominated another lady from Texas, the late Barbara Olson, who earned a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Saint Thomas (Texas) and a juris doctor degree from Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law before working as an associate at the Washington-based law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, marrying former United States Solicitor General Theodore Olson and becoming a passenger on the American Airlines plane that was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

If President Bush had nominated Ms. Coulter's friend Barbara Olson, Ms. Coulter would have supported the nomination enthusiastically, without a bit of disparagement about the University of Saint Thomas (Texas) or Cardozo School of Law.

Regrettably, Ms. Coulter periodically crosses the lines between good and bad taste and fair criticism and fatuous criticism.

More examples:

Ms. Coulter on killing former President Clinton: (Responding to a question from a Catholic University student about her biggest moral or ethical dilemma) "There was one time I had a shot at Clinton. I thought 'Ann, that's not going to help your career.'"

Presidential assassinations and attempted assassinations just aren't funny, Ms. Coulter. But that comment about making decisions based on their effect on "your career" belies a dangerous selfishness.

Ms. Coulter on Iran and the Holocaust: "Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and the NY Times have made submissions."

Holocaust humor is a blank book, Ms. Coulter.

Ms. Coulter on the United States Supreme Court: "If we find out someone [referring to a terrorist] is going to attack the Supreme Court next week, can't we tell Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalito?"

Absolutely! But insinuating that conservatives should disregard the safety of even the Supreme Court's judicial activists is neither moral nor conducive to the national unity especially important during the War on Terror.

Mr. Warshawsky reported in www.intellectualconservative.com: "Yesterday on The American Spectator website, in an article by David Hogberg entitled 'Not Funny,' Ms. Coulter was even tarred as a 'racist,' and castigated for damaging the 'conservative movement' with her incendiary rhetoric. She also was blamed for 'ruining' this year's CPAC.

But, Mr. Hogberg straightforwardly set forth the problem in the first paragraph of his article: "What's a conservative to do with Ann Coulter? She is one of the political right's most popular, witty and outrageous pundits. She also has a side that is vile and ugly."

Mr. Hogberg's position on Ms. Coulter ragging Moslems as "rag heads":

"How stupid are such remarks? Let us count the ways.

"First off, they're racist. There is no difference between using 'rag head' and using 'nigger,' 'spic,' or 'honky.' Perhaps it could have been excused had she made it clear she was referring to Islamists and not Muslims in general, but she did not. Indeed, her speech seemed to suggest that she wasn't making that distinction. It is cliche, but true: the vast majority of Muslims are not Islamists.

"Second, she had a responsibility to her hosts, the American Conservative Union, which runs CPAC, to ensure that CPAC was not barraged with bad press. The folks at the American Conservative Union work like dogs to put on a great event, and they deserved better media coverage.... Unfortunately, it's Coulter's idiocy that now dominates the buzz.

"She also has a responsibility to the conservative movement, of which she clearly considers herself a part. Specifically, she has a responsibility to not give the political left and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) ammunition that they will then use to smear all of us. The media often takes the sensible things we say and distorts them (didn't Ann write a whole book about that?). Why give them low hanging fruit?"

EXACTLY!

Mr. Hogberg appreciates that Ms. Coulter's "raghead" ridicule was NOT an aberration:

"Coulter seems increasingly intent on pushing the envelope as far as she can. This was clear in other areas of the speech, as when she said, 'one time I had a shot at Clinton. I thought "Ann, that's not going to help your career."' After watching the left engage in disgusting assassination fantasies of President Bush, Coulter seems willing to drag conservatives down into the same muck."

Fighting the far left in the gutter is giving them the homefield advantage!

Ms. Hogberg reported that the audience seemed to appreciate that: "While much of the audience laughed at the rag head remark, I got the sense that the laughter was uncomfortable. Fortunately, during the question and answer period, one gutsy young man got up and called her on the remark. He claimed that her remarks would make it difficult for him as a Muslim Republican to recruit other Muslims to the conservative movement. Many people applauded him. Coulter's response? 'Well, I make a couple jokes about Muslims, and they kill 3,000 Americans — fair trade.' Snippy. Immature. Typical."

Snippy and immature, certainly. Typical? Seemingly so.

Did Ms. Coulter "ruin" the CPAC event?

Mr. Hogberg says yes: "A number of conservatives I spoke with afterwards claimed they cringed at Coulter's remark. A gentleman at the Islamic Institute's booth later told me that a lot of conservatives came by afterwards to apologize. I hope come next year's CPAC Coulter will have other plans. This year she ruined an otherwise great event."

Mr. Warshawsky says no: "As someone who attended CPAC and heard Ms. Coulter's speech, let me begin by flatly denying that Ms. Coulter's speech 'ruined' CPAC. There were a multitude of intelligent and informative speakers at this year's CPAC — including Dick Cheney, John Bolton, George Will, Phyllis Schlafly, Mark Krikorian, John Fund, Ramesh Ponnuru, Oliver North, Gov. Rick Perry (TX), Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY), Newt Gingrich, and many others — whose contributions to a robust political debate were not lessened in the least by what Ms. Coulter said, or how she said it. CPAC is not a one-woman show. To suggest otherwise is, itself, a denigration of the conservative movement."

As former President Clinton might say, it depends upon what "ruin" means. If, by ruin, you mean "damage irreparably," then no. But, if, by ruin, you mean "subject to frustration, failure, or disaster," the yes, Ms. Coulter gave both America's terrorist enemies and conservatism's political enemies ammunition. For a laugh. THAT was inane.

Still, Mr. Warshawsky tries hard to excuse Ms. Coulter:

"Moreover, the expressions of shock! shock! at Ms. Coulter's incendiary remarks ring especially hollow, given that Ms. Coulter is the author of the most (in)famous commentary on 9/11: 'We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.' Nothing she said on Friday — in which she referred to our Islamic enemies by the derogatory term 'rag heads' — compares to this statement."

Sorry, Mr. Warshawsky, having been MORE incendiary previously is not a good defense to being incendiary,

To be sure, Mr. Warshawsky was doing his best by Ms. Coulter, not buying her bombast: "I agree, of course, that it is not nice to refer to people with crude ethnic epithets. I also agree that Ms. Coulter's remarks, if broadly construed, are potentially unfair to Muslims who do not share our enemies' values and ambitions."

That acknowledged, however, Mr. Warshawsky criticized the critics: "Nevertheless, only the most abstruse, self-righteous person (which includes the two young men who challenged Ms. Coulter during the question and answer period) would believe that Ms. Coulter was referring to 'all' Muslims in her remarks. She quite clearly was addressing the radical Islamists who have declared war on the United States and its allies — and who are aggressively fighting that war, while we in the West debate the finer points of free speech."

By this time, better is to be expected of Ms. Coulter, Mr. Warshawsky. And Ms. Coulter apparently failed to make the excuse you offered for her. Instead, as Mr. Hogberg reported (and you neglected to mention), Ms. Coulter's retort to the two "most abstruse, self-righteous" young men was: 'Well, I make a couple jokes about Muslims, and they kill 3,000 Americans — fair trade." (If Ms. Coulter had said she was referring only to "the radical Islamists," your argument would be much stronger.)

Worse, Mr. Warshawsky himself misunderstood the motivation of Ms. Coulter's critics: "Indeed, Ms. Coulter's speech is the latest example of western political humor deemed offensive to Muslims that 'sensitive' Westerners — including conservatives who should know better — rush to criticize, so as to demonstrate what decent people they are. Apparently, these Westerners believe that the way to 'win the hearts and minds' of Muslims is to show them how willing we are to demonize the very people who are standing up to the radical Islamist bullying and terrorism that is going on across the globe. How utterly naοve."

What is "naive," Mr. Warshawsky, is for Ms. Coulter to needlessly offend Moslems who should be encouraged to be allies and then for you to suggest that those people who appreciate that intemperate remarks are usually more impactful than temperate remarks "should know better."

Mr. Warshawsky boldly continued:

"At the risk of being labeled a 'racist' myself, I confess I find it very troubling that conservative commentators like Mr. Hogberg are so offended by a few harsh words for our sworn enemies. Let us not forget that these enemies, who are committed to a way of life that is antithetical to our own, have killed thousands of our fellow citizens and would gladly kill millions more.

"How can it be that calling these enemies 'rag heads' is so intolerable, but killing them by the hundreds and thousands in Iraq and elsewhere is deserving of praise? After all, we on the Right (and center) loudly applaud President Bush whenever he speaks of 'destroying' our enemies. But Ann Coulter calling them 'rag heads' is going too far? This is a ridiculous example of political correctness run amok. But 'politically correct warfare' is an oxymoron, and a foolish and self-defeating way to fight a war."

Mr. Warshawsky, I do not advocate "political correctness." I am disappointed with Ms. Coulter's ridiculous (whether or not "racist") "rag head" ridicule because it is...COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

Dan Behrens put it perfectly in a commented posted at www.intellectualconservative.com: "Ann Coulter knows how to sell. There is always a bit of truth to her words, but her real goal is 'shock and awe.' Rag-head is wrong in the most fundamental battle of this war, both the insurgents and those we are trying to bring freedom to can be insulted this way, thus bringing these people together. The goal is to show the people of Iraq that we are on the same side, and comments like Ann's do nothing to help that."

Mr. Behrens predictably attracted fire from Ms. Coulter's fans, but calmly pointed out their fundamental fallacy:

"Needing more Ann Coulters' is like the democrats needing more Howard Deans'. Is most if not all of what Ann has to say agreeable to Conservatives, YES. Do I agree with her position on issues, YES. Is there a way to do that and gain ground in the middle, where elections and policies are determined, YES. Will Ann Coulter ever help in a way Rush, Fox News, or others have, NO.

"Although I do not believe the words of Ann Coulter can unite the Arab world, I do believe AL-Jareeza and Liberals would use her words to represent Conservatives, and by correlation a majority of Americans ; which, with all due respect Lt. Young, is not amusing to me. The question to ask is, "Should Ann be a spokesperson for Conservatism?, which I would have to say, no. Let the Democrats cater to the far left in Howard Dean hate speech, we will be better off with a positive approach, which Ms. Coulter rarely offers."

Ms. Coulter should reign herself in a bit.

© Michael Gaynor