In Defense of Ann Coulter?
Conservatives are turning on Ann Coulter in droves. Here are some quotes from conservatives throughout the blogosphere:
Michelle Malkin: (”RAGHEADS” AND “SAMBOS” AND “GOOKS”)
Ann says many deliberately provocative things. This one was spectacularly ill-chosen and ill-timed. I want the young conservatives who attended CPAC — particularly young conservative Muslims — to know that not everyone uses that kind of epithet.
I don’t. Not in public. Not at home. I have no ill will towards peaceful people who happen to cover their heads for their faith.
Red State: (Conservative’s Enemy #1: Ann Coulter)
It is time for conservatives to make Ann Coulter persona non grata like they did to David Duke. I am calling on all conservatives to contact the following sponsors of CPAC 2006 to register their displeasure with Coulter’s appearance at the event. I would also like to see conservative organizations refuse to book future events with Coulter.
What was Ann Coulter’s crime? She said last week, referring to Iran:
“What if they start having one of these bipolar episodes with nuclear weapons?I think our motto should be, post-9/11, ‘Raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.”
But then Michelle Malkin explains:
“My problem, as I’ve made clear on this blog, is with radical Islamists at home and abroad who threaten our existence. I don’t care what they wear on their heads. I care what’s in their heads and what’s strapped around their chests and and what’s hidden in the soles of their shoes and what’s being cooked up in their labs and nuclear reactors. I have a lot of blunt names for these jihadists who have killed our sailors and soldiers, butchered and beheaded innocent civilians from around the world, flown planes into buildings and incinerated babies, children, and pregnant women in the name of religion.
“Ragheads” is not the word that immediately comes to my mind. Evildoers. Bloody murderers. Bastards. Yes. “Ragheads?” No.
I thought Ann Coulter was also speaking about “radical Islamists” who are “evildoers”, “bloody murderers” and “bastards” as well. And what about beloved free speech? Supporting Denmark’s free speech to criticize Mohammad and Islam, but not Ann Coulter’s to criticize, using sarcasm, radical Islam?
Steve Warshawsky attended the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last Friday and heard Ms. Coulter’s speech. He wrote In Defense of Ann Coulter on Reality Check.Org:
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.
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.
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 naive.
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.
I have to agree. I’m not ready to throw in the towel on Ann Coulter. She says what people think. No profanity. No nonsense. The jury’s still out.
Cross-posted at Amy’s Blog
February 15th, 2006 at 7:55 am
[...] Today I see the article by California Conservative’s article “In Defense of Ann Coulter?” It is well written and put together. Must read for all conservatives who seem to dump on Ann. The comments which started this? “What if they start having one of these bipolar episodes with nuclear weapons? [...]
February 15th, 2006 at 8:33 am
Knowing the style Ann writes her comment, that won’t surprise me she use that word to describe those people. What surprise me is the self-censroship of her critics. As many had said, we hardly hear any voices from the ‘moderate’ muslims to criticize what the radical muslims did. Could that be because they also approve that and want to join in but not have enough gusts? If so, ‘radical’ - gusts = ‘moderate’?
February 15th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Mine eyesight is poor. Will someone else kindly split this hair’s breadth of difference between calling Islamofascists ragheads and running cartoons daily on a Web site that are offensive to all Muslims.
February 15th, 2006 at 10:41 am
It’s not really that hard. Simply replace raghead with another racial insult to see why using racial insults to describe our enemies is not productive. If we were under attack primarily by an African nation whose ethnic people looked “black” and Coulter said “N**ger talks tough, N**ger faces the consequences”, I think it would be more obvious that this kind of language is unhelpful to say the least. Americans of african descent would be rightly insulted and it wouldn’t help matters to say “not you, just the ones who are fighting us”…
The head nod to free speech is red herring. Nobody is suggesting that Ann be prevented from speaking by governmental power or violence or intimidation; people are (especially in the conservative blogosphere) exercising their free speech by criticizing hers. This is the way it works.
Re don surber’s comment, btw, the difference to islamofascists is nill, but that has never been the point. The difference to reasonable people is significant: the cartoons raised a serious point, nicely illustrated by the reaction to them, that Islamism is undermining the fundamental principles of western civilisations (plurality, freedom of speech/expression, etc). Hurling racial epithets at people is not a serious comment on anything except the motives of the one doing the hurling. Ann is the Kos of the right: an entertainer saying whatever is calculated to bring her the most attention and publicity and popularity with the fringes. Conservatives would be better off without her in my opinion.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Problem with so many critics, islam is NOT a race, so this is not a racial comment. People choose to be (or remain) mahommedans. According to this “logic” anyone who attacks Christians with the numerous foul names I’ve heard over the years is also a racist, no? I personally have had enough of the kid gloves treatment of a “religion” that demands slaughter, true racism (just ask blacks in Sudan), and sexism (any dispute there?). BTW “raghead” would refer to arabic, white, black, or martian moslems. Islam is NOT a race.
February 15th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
“Raghead” sounds to be an immature name to call someone, not a racial slur. The reason “raghead” was used was an an outlet to express the disdain for the deplorable things done by Muslims, the ones who are doing despicible things.
“Raghead” is not a racial slur, it’s a religious slur. Its belittling a religion that calls itself the “religion of peace” yet is the most violent religion in human history. “Raghead” is mild compared to what it should be called.
Steve Warshawsky who attended the event (I quoted from him in the article)said Coulter was NOT referring to all Muslims, but the extremists.
February 15th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
“Raghead†is not a racial slur, it’s a religious slur.
It is a racial slur. But if you think religious slurs are ok would you find jewish slurs. ok .
Either you accept all slurs or accept none. She is doing a disservice to her arguments. Is anyone listening to her arguements or just focusing on those few words now.
yet is the most violent religion in human history
I would say that is a pretty major claim to make without proof.
I sometimes really have to wonder does America really understand the word demorcracy. To me demorcracy is about debating the issues. But the more I look at America all I see is insults being traded between the left and the right without anyone listening to each other.
February 15th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
If she’s as bright as people seem to think, then it seems to me she can make a cogent passionate and compelling argument without resorting to any kind of language that might be miscontrued. It’s a short short step to go from ‘raghead’ to ’sand nigger’ or some such epithet. If her arguments hold merit, she won’t need slurs to make her point. Perhaps one ought to examine the merits of what she’s saying in that case. Or at least give pause for reflection if she’s the best representative.
February 15th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Coulter is a very bright, witty and caustic spokesperson for the right wing of the right wing. Seldom will her mouth go off faster than her brain.
I would criticize the use of the word she used, but that is because I don’t appreciate many of the things I am called as a Christian.
My point is, though, that it was childish and counterproductive to use a racial/religious epiteth, and as a consequence her argument has been lost in the noise. That is too bad, because what she had to say really did need to be brought out, and now no one will know what it was.
February 15th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
To be sure, she’s interesting to listen to. On the other hand, she should be more interested in bringing people around to her way of thinking rather than alienating them. Once you’ve insulted someone, it’s kind of hard to win them over to your ideas no matter how good they are. Unfortunately, one of the consequences of that is also ‘guilt by association’…. Perhaps she spends too much time ‘preaching to the choir’, as it were. But, maybe that’s what some people want: a cheer leader.
February 16th, 2006 at 9:19 am
The point, I believe, of Ann Coulter’s comments were the same as the point of the cartoons: to reveal hypocrisy.
Point 1) If Mohammed was such a great, peaceful prophet, his followers are wrapping his legacy in deceit with their suicide bombings, violent rampages, beheadings and so on. Islam has NOT gone far enough to distance itself from these acts of violence and human rights violations. This IS part of the problem.
Point 2) Perhaps radical Muslims ARE accurately portraying the prophet with violence. Perhaps they “say” peace but mean “violence”.
Point 3) Perhaps both are true: Mohammed was not a man of peace and his followers are following suit while invoking the privilege of reputation (a false reputation of peace which they call upon in times of trouble). In other words, perhaps radical Islam is overtly a violent religion while feigning “peace” and “justice”, relying on libertines everywhere to protect that facade.
If Coulter were a racist, she would have made a comment about Arab skin tone or man-dresses or something else culturally significant to Muslims. Instead, she pointed out a headdress worn by religious Muslims. I say, “Point well made, Ann.”
February 16th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Instead, she pointed out a headdress worn by religious Muslims.
I think the word you’re looking for here, dear, is sophistry
February 16th, 2006 at 11:59 am
Thank you, Daddy.
My hubby was in Iraq for a year and the guys called them “headdresses” and “mandress”. I’m not really concerned with being gutteral; I think people get the point.