|
I love Ann Coulter. I mean her mind. Well, her writing. You
know what I mean.
Her syndicated columns contain incisive commentary and
pungent prose, combining a serious analytical mind with a
no-holds-barred approach, as opposed to the drab
inside-the-beltway crap that so permeates the work of most
well-known mainstream conservative pundits in her age group. Her
words are the verbal equivalent of fluorescent colors against
the gray backdrop of the typical talking heads.
But on the question of whether she is being censored by
National Review’s decision not to publish two of her articles
and then drop her column entirely, Coulter is wrong.
Ann Coulter is no dumb blonde. Her credentials are
impeccable: bachelor’s degree from Cornell, law degree from
the University of Michigan Law School, an Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals clerkship, corporate law practice, stints at the
Justice Department and as then Sen. Spencer Abraham’s (R-MI)
legal counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee and work on
behalf of the Center for Individual Rights. Her book High
Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton spent
eight weeks on The New York Times best-seller list and
set the standard for stating the conservative position on
impeachment back in 1998. Neither is she a stranger to
controversy. Her career as a commentator was launched by the
impeachment debate, in a trial by fire in such freewheeling
forums as Rivera Live, Equal Time and the infamous
Bill Maher’s Politically Incorrect.
It is this at times that gets her into trouble. The venues in
which Coulter established herself as a nationally known
conservative commentator place a premium on shouting and shock
value, creating habits that have detracted (and distracted the
readers) from her genuine ability for thoughtful analysis. Pat
Buchanan may have been the "pit bull of the right,"
but one would never have found a reference to White House
interns earning their "presidential knee pads" in any
of his writings.
Coulter’s travails began when she marred an otherwise
wonderful tribute to Barbara Olson, herself a brilliant
commentator and wife of the US Solicitor General who was killed
aboard the flight that terrorists crashed into the Pentagon on
September 11, with a tirade about how we "should invade
their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to
Christianity." She then casually brushed off the importance
of avoiding heavy civilian casualties in the Middle East, on the
grounds that German civilians died when we bombed their cities
during World War II. It is also important to place this sentence
in its proper context, as she was not specifically singling out
the terrorist groups for this kind of treatment. She was talking
about those who cheered and danced in response to the attacks as
well. To wit: "This is no time to be precious about
locating the exact individuals involved in this particular
terrorist attack. Those responsible include anyone anywhere in
the world who smiled in response to the annihilation of patriots
like Barbara Olson."
These are perfectly understandable sentiments coming from
someone who just lost a friend, but a writer familiar with
significant proportions of public opinion in some parts of the
world would understand that such a response from the United
States would necessitate something rather close to a genocidal
slaughter on our part.
Now, as far as pundits go, I am a nobody who writes as a
hobby. But while I might be likely to say things along these
lines to the person on the bar stool next to me after my ninth
pint of Bass Ale, I would never write that in a published
article that would actually be read by people who view all
things in print (or on the web) as the truth. Surely, a
commentator of Ann Coulter’s stature should know better than
to express herself in that fashion in her column.
The editors at National Review thought so too. So they
were more (and perhaps too) careful about her next columns on
the subject, which included a call for Janet Reno to have done
unto Islamic fundamentalists as was done unto the Branch
Davidians and a comment about frisking
"swarthy-looking" men. Coulter then regrettably
decided to publicly criticize National Review for
censorship.
But when is it censorship to expect a published writer to
exercise judgment about the words she uses when discussing
sensitive topics in an emotionally charged climate, or for a
publication to exercise such judgment in accordance to its
standards when the writer fails to do so? The government isn’t
suppressing her opinions. Even after she was dropped by National
Review, Universal Press Syndicate still carries her column,
which appears in 50 newspapers. Horowitz’s Frontpage Magazine
added her as a columnist and her work still appears on such
sites as Townhall.com and Jewish World Review.
If Joe Sobran, a senior editor for 18 years, could be fired,
certainly Coulter’s public attacks on National Review
combined with the tone of her controversial article justified
removing a contributing editor to the on-line version of the
magazine. National Review On-Line editor Jonah Goldberg,
pointing to other un-PC articles that have run on the site since
the terrorist attacks, made the argument well: "The only
difference between what we've run and what Ann considers so
bravely iconoclastic on her part, is that we've run articles
that accord persuasion higher value than shock value. It's true:
Ann is fearless, in person and in her writing. But fearlessness
isn't an excuse for crappy writing or crappier behavior."
Coulter has been subjected vitriol from the left for some
time. One particularly vicious attack made its way into Boston
Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby’s annual summary of liberal hate
speech. Another, referring to her as a "telebimbo,"
would definitely have been written off as misogyny had a liberal
like Hillary Clinton been the target. She does not deserve it
from her comrades on the right.
But sometimes Coulter’s columns read like a transcript of
the recordings of Richard Nixon in the Oval Office. Which is a
tragedy, because just like in Nixon’s case, the publicity
accorded the rants conceals the insights of a truly brilliant
mind.
See the latest:
Donny Ferguson has something to say to all those Columbu-phobes
Jack Wheeler on the
CIA's man in Afghanistan
|
