The backlash has continued against author and pundit Ann Coulter.  One would expect the left wing to rise to the defense of her accusations, but this has been a great deal larger then that.  In fact there is considerable backlash from the right wing as well as the left in this case.

The blogosphere has been ablaze with condemnations, but I think it bears scrutiny as to why they are critical.

Ann is purely a victim of her method, not her message.  Had she coached her statements in demure and quiet talking points, she would simply face criticism from the left against the ideas.  That is not her way.  She has incensed the world not by the idea she forwards, but because she is not polite.

Bill O’Reilly had this criticism:

Stop Ann Coulter Before She Bombs Again

Talking Points believes most Americans reject that kind of vitriol because it is mean and counterproductive.

The question then becomes, why does Ann Coulter do it? No doubt the publicity will sell her some books, but she is already well off and famous.

No doubt the widows have become liberal activists. They replied to Ms. Coulter today on a far left blog. But as Americans, they have a right to take any political position they want. No doubt some far-left pundits have said far worse things than Ann Coulter will ever say and the mainstream media often celebrates them. But a no-spin rule is that you don’t justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

Justify?  No.  But you can point out the hypocrisy of those on the left defending Randi Rhodes or Al Franken.  You can showcase the distortions and hate speech regularly spewed by Michael Moore or left wing politicians that barely rates a wimper in the media.

Ann is not blind to the tactics of the left, her books have always noted that.  She has just decided to play on their ground with their rules.  Since Ad Hominem attacks are fair game to the left, she attacks them with Ad Hominem attacks.

No, it is not justification, not by any means.  It is however understandable.  After all, why should the left be privileged?  Why should they not be taken to task by their very own methods?  WHy are they immune to the very methods they rely on on?

I noted before that the mere fact she was attacked for saying rude things about the Jersey Girls was partially validating her point: that their grief and loss made them unassailable and any attacks on her, such as Hillary’s complaint she was "mean", just showcase the protected status these people enjoy, which was the whole point she was trying to make.  O’Reilly makes the same observation based on his personal experience.

…And Coulter’s point on the widows is interesting. She believes the far left uses people like the widows to attack President Bush and conservatives because grieving people are hard to challenge.

Now, I ran into that exact situation last January on the Letterman program when Cindy Sheehan name came up:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O’REILLY: The soldiers and Marines are noble. They are not terrorists and when people call them that, like Cindy Sheehan called the insurgents freedom fighters, we don’t like that.

DAVID LETTERMAN: I’m very concerned about people like yourself who don’t have nothing but endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan, honest to Christ.

…

Now you may remember Ms. Sheehan telling CBS News reporter Mark Knoller that the terrorists in Iraq were freedom fighters. My point was that Sheehan’s description injured the families of U.S. service people killed and hurt by those savages and the far-left activists, Ms. Sheehan, needs to be called on that, even if she did lose a son in Iraq.

Now if I had used a personal attack against Ms. Sheehan, which I did not, my point would not have been as persuasive, I believe. So if Ann Coulter is trying to persuade people to her view, the personal attacks are foolish. If she just wants to sing her choir a song, well, you can make money doing that.

I believe that in the end those standing on the high ground will win the culture war. The vicious fighter often loses to the smarter fighter.

Perhaps Ann really is just a money hound, as some suggest, and this is just a way to make money.  God knows that being controversial sells, and our culture knows it and loves it.  Heck Michael Moore and Al Franken depend on it just as much as anyone.

And so does O’Reilly.  For all his claims to being a No Spin kinda guy, he is not immune to grandstanding.

But I dont think so.  I think, in her own way, she is just passionate.  Having watched every video clip I could find, including a feature length documentary, she strikes me as being very sincere and passionate in her opposition to liberalism. 

Yes she likes to interject jokes into her speeches and writing, usually somewhat dry (if not outright arid) and caustic, and often a bit twisted and tongue in cheek.  Sometimes they are downright hilarious, sometimes they are funny in a wincing way.  But most often they are just that:  Jokes.  It is her writing style I suppose. 

So she has a point to be made, and she is using the methods that she feels leads her to the quickest point.  And every time she turns the tables on her critics and they howl as she uses their own methods against them, they prove her point.

What is interesting, and this is my only criticism to Ms Coulter, is that when she becomes serious, and speaks with her passion, she is compelling.  The jokes actually distract from her message.  When she is animated, she crackles.

The point that Ann is not engaging in unprovoked attacks also bears consideration.  When senators compare US servicemen to Soviet Gulags and Nazi’s it makes my blood boil too, and every time I see the media give them a gentle pat for their outrageousness, it sickens me.  Maybe that is why I tend to excuse her vitriol.

Sure, maybe it does, as O’Reilly suggests, make her lose moral authority because she is sinking to their level.  But the left’s clinging to moral authority in the first place is exactly what she is arguing about.  They can claim the ends justify the means, but if they do, they must be willing to accept crossfire.

They love to fall back on free speech. So does she.  And when they fire with their incensed posturing, Ann is more then willing to lock and load, and fire back.  And she is good at it.

I finished the book at the center of this, Godless.  My advice to everyone is to read it.  It is a well written book, and contains some very compelling arguments and information.  Before you pass judgment on the whole thing due to a few media highlighted paragraphs, read the whole thing.

The truth is that I have to wonder if the hysteria over the Jersey Girls is calculated to make you dismiss the whole book unread.  If it is, it is not working well. 

So ignore the howls from Matt Lauer and the others and decide for yourself.  Don’t want to make her rich by buying it?  Check it out of the library.  Borrow it.  Heck I would loan you mine if I could.

Either way, rather then obey the hue and cry, decide for yourself whether she is worth the complaints.

For what ever it is worth, LSU recommends Godless, by Ann Coulter.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS