Dr. J.'s Commentary: Poor Ann Coulter

Poor Ann Coulter. Here she was, invited back to the 2009 American Conservative (sic) Union's annual Conservative Political Action Committee's (CPAC) conference after a one-year exclusion. She got a featured Saturday slot, but was she featured? Ah, no. I could not find the text of her remarks despite diligent searching with Google. There were plenty of videos of her talk, but who has time for that? Then one would have to type out the juicy quotes oneself, instead of just cutting-and-pasting them.

Much more importantly, here she was totally overshadowed by the Rush-man, not only at the conference but in what has happened since. Limbaugh is indeed the leader of the GOP. Typically GOP, using their "kill the messenger so people will not pay attention to the message" tactic, they are all trying to make an issue out of whether or not he really is. But he is. The organized GOP has clearly adopted his "I hope he fails" mantra, and is doing everything it can to try to make sure that that happens. And Coulter isn't. Even as her skirts get shorter and her neckline plunges further (if that's possible but after all, she now has to compete with Palin on the right-wing "look at as much as we can show you but don't you dare even think of touching" front), her thunder is being stolen by the Fat Man.

But let us not forget Coulter. She writes the same book over and over again: "Everything that is wrong with this country is the fault of the 'Liberals,' and the gays, and the humanists, and what we really need to do is get rid of them." She gets air-time over and over again with the mainstream media (is it her books or her legs?) She is definitely the mistress of the politically outrageous on the feminine side. Limbaugh, even though he gets the most exposure, does have plenty of competition in that regard on the male side, from Hannity, O'Reilly, et al. Since she doesn't change much, except for the language, since I cannot find a transcript of her CPAC remarks, let's go back to something I noted down in 2007 to get the flavor of her. No difference from then 'til now, really.

On September 6, 2007, the Coulter gave an invited (!) speech at Xavier University in Cincinnati. (One wonders what St. Francis Xavier, after whom the University is named, one of the founders of the Society of Jesus -- the Jesuits -- would have thought of her, but we will leave that one for another day.) Among other things (courtesy of People for the American Way, Sept. 11, 2007) Ann had this to say:

* "Liberals don't recognize the existence of evil, the closest thing to it in their vocabulary is Wal-Mart."
* "The fact that liberals are godless is not even a controversial point anymore."
* Democrats, she said, "believe public restrooms are only for snorting coke."
* Terrorists, Coulter said, "are Democrats with more gumption."

Now Ann often complains that she is misunderstood, she is only kidding, she is exaggerating to make a point, she is not really mean, nasty, demonizing, a pro-creator of a future hate-based American fascism designed to maintain the Republican Party in permanent power. Reading the above, many people say "Tsk, tsk, how could she do such a thing?" So many say they are just reading Ann quickly and jumping to conclusions, namely that she is a far-right wing provocateur who revels in her tasks. For once, let's carefully consider what Ann is saying before condemning her.

For example, let's consider carefully her comparisons between "terrorists" and a particular political party. Is it fair to do that? Does it help move the political process forward? One's first impulse is to answer both questions "no." But perhaps that is unfair. Perhaps making such a comparison does move the political process forward. Just consider the following:

1. On foreign policy, Democrats advocate multilateralism and talking first, and even second, shooting only as a last resort. Terrorists, to the extent that we see them in action, shoot first and never talk.

2. Democrats are concerned about environmental sustainability and reversing global warming and detrimental climate change. Terrorists couldn't care less about such issues.

3. Democrats are concerned about the preservation of individual liberties and personal freedoms, which, citing the U.S. Declaration of Independence, they regard as natural rights. For terrorists, nothing like those concerns stand in the way of their drive to achieve their stated goals.

4. Democrats advocate adherence to the Rule of Law. Terrorists don't, arguing that the achievement of their stated goals overrides any such commitments, because they are RIGHT.

5. The current brand of Islamic terrorists advocates the imposition of Koranic Sharia Law on everyone. It, for example, criminalizes all beliefs about when life begins other than the one that holds that it begins at the moment of conception. Such terrorists, hold that the church IS the state, like, for example, Christian Dominionists and the Texas Republican Party (just check out their platform some time). Democrats advocate maintaining the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.

6. Democrats are supporters of guaranteeing due process of law to all persons within the ambit of the U.S. government. Terrorists couldn't care less about due process.

7. Democrats (at least some of them) advocate gun control. Terrorists don't.

8. Democrats advocate dealing with terrorism by developing policies and programs that actually focus on the problem, not engaging in actions that promote terrorism and create more terrorists. Obviously, terrorists hate the first set of polices and programs and love the second.

Let's see where Ann Coulter's process of comparing a U.S. political party to terrorists has taken us. Let's see if her exercise is merely hate-promoting or perhaps contains the seeds of a useful exercise. By a careful review of Democratic policies and those of the current common garden variety terrorists, we can see that they have nothing in common. In fact, they are totally opposed to each other. On the other hand, there is much in common between the terrorists' actual policies and programs and a different American political party. Thus we discover that the analysis Ann made is a most valuable one. There are many fits between the policies and programs of the major contemporary terrorist groups and one of the two major American political parties. Instead of condemning her and her brand of vitriol out-of-hand, we must thank Ann Coulter for making us think carefully about what she said. After all, all she got wrong was the name of the Party that fits her definition of terrorists with less gumption.

This analysis, from 2007, obviously has much applicability today, as prominent members of the GOP, as well as their leader, Rush Limbaugh, attack the Obama Administration for "supporting terrorism." Please, folks. Let's not ask, as the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has, the GOP Senate leadership to disavow Limbaugh. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Let's lather Limbaugh and Coulter too all over the GOP, using them to clearly demonstrate to the American people what they and their party really stands for. Especially when Limbaugh says, "I hope he fails."

 

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and a www.TPJmagazine.us Contributing Author; a regular Columnist for BuzzFlash; a Special Contributing Editor for Cyrano's Journal Online; a Contributing Columnist for the Project for the Old American Century, POAC; and a Featured Writer for Dandelion Salad http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/.