The furor over the Ann Coulter flap burns hot and heavy; and this writer has chosen to stay out of the fray for the most part. I wonder, though, if a lot of the writers and commentors are getting a particular point. I’m not sure I’ve seen it anywhere, unless it be in synthesis from several different articles.
Situations like this remind me of that old Encyclopædia Britannica film we saw in school back in the Seventies, on “The Bill of Rights in Action.” You probably saw it too if you’re of my generation; it’s a classic “what if” test case kind of situation: when does offensive speech go over the line? The film’s story was of a neo-Nazi speaking in honor of Adolf Hitler in front of a synagogue (which, I believe, touched off a scrum until he was arrested). You can probably guess the question: was the man’s speech protected by the First Amendment, or was this the equivalent of shouting “Fire” in a crowded theatre?
Ms. Coulter’s talk at the CPAC meeting tastes of this kind of situation. Her use of “faggot” in reference to John Edwards is definitely offensive to many people, and not just gays or liberals; or even “wusses,” as Ms. Coulter claimed she meant the remark on Hannity and Colmes last night. But how much does her offensive speech give others the right to shout her down? She has not set off a riot, unless you measure a riot by the number of bytes expended in either defending or excoriating her, and the minutes of airtime she is garnering in publicity for herself and extreme conservatism. You cannot abridge a person’s First Amendment rights based on the level of (supposed) controversy they generate; and the left and center, and even the moderate right, need to keep this in mind.
Ah, but there is the flip side of the coin, which Ms. Coulter’s champions should keep in mind. Her unabridged words carry a cost — a political cost that should be apparent to the least of anyone with a reasonable degree of analytical sense. At a time when the Republican Party is trying to woo back voters, one of its most prominent faces is hurling around epithets aimed at potential candidates in the opposition party. Ann has scooped up a pair of great gooey gobs of pitch — and the Republicans will not miss out on being smirched, precisely because Ms. Coulter is identified so strongly with “conservative values” in the minds of the voters. Especially voters in the center, which listens to and evaluates both — if not all — sides of a question.
It doesn’t help the far right to dismiss the center as of no consequence, or to demand that they get on the bandwagon and get their heads out of certain anatomical locations; the center exists, and will continue to exist, and no election is winnable unless you can convince them that your candidate represents their values and concerns. Will one of your party’s best-known voices win uncommitted voters to you when she is slinging insults at the other side? Will it convince the non-voting public, avoiders of politics because it’s become so corrupt and vulgar, to shed their apathy? Or will it drive them further away from politics and support for your agenda?
In fairness, by the way, radical Democrats need to consider this as well. Both sides have reduced the political process to the level of a gutter brawl with remarks about the opposition’s candidates. Does rolling in the same tar pit make you look any cleaner? Or rather, does it not leave you smirched as well?
Listen to the words of The Hand Grenade of Enlightenment; he who has ears….
===== * =====
A group of accredited CPAC bloggers, including the prominent Ed Morrissey of Captain’s Quarters, have published an open letter to the convention organizers requesting that Ms. Coulter no longer be invited to speak there. Ed himself also publishes an excerpt from a speech by Dr. Edwin Fuelner in 2004 on political incivility.
Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice has had quite a bit to say on the question, and links to many a blog in a large post on the flap. Several other articles have followed, by Joe and a few others of his co-editors; check TMV’s archives for this month.
===== * =====
Peace be to you.
2 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Well, they can back away from her as much as they want, but that doesn’t erase the fact that the crowd applauded Coulter when she made the joke in the first place.
How much of the crowd? Was it universal, or confined to blocs and groups? There are some out there who actually appreciate how much of a political liability Coulter is becoming for the party. (Having not seen any of the video, I cannot testify to the level of enthusiasm myself.)