Ann Coulter is an Enigma
Forward Article to a Friend
Print Article
Ann Coulter is an enigma. So much so, that I think she deserves to become the topic of Stanford’s next PWR class. It would be even better and more outrageous than “The Rhetoric of Menstruation” that was included in the course bulletin last year. It would present freshmen with the challenge that I’m facing writing this article now. How do you analyze a public figure whose blatantly explicit (and inflammatory) statements you’re never quite sure are said in jest? More importantly, how do you reconcile seemingly irrational rhetoric (“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity,”) with a public that has endorsed four books of it on the New York Times Bestseller list?
I’d like to pass Ann Coulter off as an opportunistic publicity stunt. But she does have those four best selling books, a Cornell diploma, a law degree, a past job with the Department of Justice Honors Program, and frequent guest appearances on television under her belt. “Damn,” I think. It’s hard to argue with success.
The other problem is that Coulter is funny. That is, if you accept the premises on which she bases her comments. For example in an article from her column, she begins, “Liberals’ comprehension of corporate scandals is like the Woody Allen joke about what he knew about ‘War and Peace’ after taking a speed-reading course and reading it in 20 minutes: ‘It involves Russia.’” I laughed too, until I realized that it was the association with Woody Allen’s joke, and not that I believe that all liberals lack understanding. In fact, most Coulter lines read this way. Like a lawyer joke, everyone can muster a chuckle but when they stop to think about the statement, they recognize it for the poor generalization that it is.
That being said, I would still be afraid to talk to Ann Coulter. It’s a factor of pure psychological intimidation. She quips fast, and throws one-liners faster. Or if that wasn’t enough, as a friend put it, “She says so many things I disagree with at once, I wouldn’t be able to respond.”
Or maybe I realize that I will be lucky to achieve half her professional fame. Yet, something about Coulter strikes a dissonant chord in many, either in her writing style or in public commentary.
Ann Coulter is a de facto force in the world of popular politics, but a force leading where? It seems she would have all political thought divided cleanly into the whiny left or the glorious right. The danger of Coulter lies in the strength of her rhetorical appeal to persuade us of this divide. Even if you don’t like her, you’ll find yourself laughing right along as she decries the extreme left and cracks yet another Clinton joke. She writes and speaks with such confidence, that it tends to mask even the generalizations and often-inaccurate references.
I am almost tempted to rationalize for her. For example, in her book Slander, when she writes on page 19, “Liberals don’t try to win arguments, they seek to destroy their opponents and silence dissident opinions,” surely she does not mean what she says. A political debate begun by demonizing the opponent, apparently before they get a chance to return the favor, is anything but constructive. Sarcasm has its limits, and one might question the logic of publishing a statement never to be accompanied by the softening “jk.”
If Ann Coulter were reading this, she might laugh and comment on the time I’ve wasted trying to analyze her punditry, meant only to energize an already established base. At least that’s what I’d hope she’d say. I would hope that somehow I am misinterpreting her true intentions; that she really does believe in rational discourse; that all her commentary is really a gimmick. Or maybe she’s doing it all for her own personal amusement, to see how long she can keep the public going before declaring, “I can’t believe they fell for it!”
With so much education behind her, I sometimes envision that she somehow knows what she’s doing, that perhaps she is in some way contributing to conservatism beyond debunking the myth that Republicans cannot sport mini-skirts and heels. But her titles convey a certain sense of what she’s going for. It’s us versus them, “how to talk to a liberal, if you must.” Then again, you might say that liberal author Al Franken commits a similar faux paux. His title, “Lies, and the Lying Liars that tell them, a fair and balanced look at the right,” is no less explicit. Still, when Franken talks, you get the sense that no matter the subject of his ire, he’s generally kidding. When Coulter remarks that she believes the country would be better off if women didn’t vote, she’ll insist herself on its veracity.
She does a great disservice to the conservative movement. She preaches to the choir, and repels everyone else away from conservatism much in the way that Micheal Moore frightens moderates from the left. As a writer for the Review, I’ve witnessed how these talking head figures can impede partisan dialogue. Anytime people start throwing around blanket associations, logical arguments tend to become obscured. The Review is a prime example. Many people disregard the publication because it has earned the title of “that inflammatory conservative paper,” but in fact it serves an important campus role in sparking debate and contributing to intellectual vitality at Stanford.
For these reasons, we must ask ourselves, are the Ann Coulters of the world funny enough to be worth the damage? Such a strong polarizing force in the media may seem attractive, but in the end only serves to dumb down many important public debates that deserve intelligent consideration.
Still, in a world where the razzle dazzle of pop culture is more often than not the determining factor in political decisions, she has hit on a ready market. But at least from where I stand, she’s not winning any new converts.
