June 15, 2006
Coulter's Critics Have Proved Her Point
By Mark Davis
So, what are we going to about this Ann Coulter woman?
Clearly, some resolution must be carved out, because people are being thrown into fits by some excerpts from her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism.
If you're not familiar with Ms. Coulter, you should know that she is on a bit of a tear with one-word book titles that crystallize her take on the landscape of liberalism. There is Slander, which chronicles the cruel and false charges often launched by the left toward those who disagree; then came Treason, her thesis that the left too often leans toward America's enemies.
No shrinking violet, this woman. But while her past work has brought the natural grumblings of those who disagree, this book has sent people over the edge, inviting the question: Who has gone too far, Ms. Coulter or her critics?
Interestingly, the firestorm does not revolve around the book's main thrust, that liberalism (as opposed to all liberals, she would tell you) has become radically secular. It is instead about observations she has made about the so-called "Jersey Girls," widows of 9/11 victims who have attempted to parlay properly earned sympathy into unearned clout as experts in fields from politics to national security.
We have learned that they question President Bush's leadership, which they are entitled to do. Some campaigned for John Kerry, which they are entitled to do. They have criticized the priorities of the war on terror, which they are entitled to do.
What they are not entitled to is one speck of credibility on 9/11 issues beyond any other women in New Jersey - or men in Idaho, or anyone of any sex in between.
There is nothing in bereavement that yields additional wisdom on the nuts and bolts of how our nation has responded since 9/11. Ms. Coulter is fairly blunt on this matter, and that's what has people freaking out.
"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis," she writes. "These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. ... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
Since I have been known to actually speak with Ms. Coulter on various occasions, my e-mail box instantly swelled with taunts demanding that I either embrace or condemn her on this matter.
So, would I have said what she said? The answer is no.
I would not have called them "broads."
OK, the whole approach really isn't my style. I would not have referred to them as "enjoying" their loss. But exploiting it? Seeking to morph it into attention miles beyond the requisite sympathy we all have for them? Absolutely.
Predictably, partisans for whom Kristin Breitweiser, Lorie van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza became heroes will hear no criticism of them. They will say with feigned horror that the Coulter remarks are beyond some line they have established for mannerly debate.
Yet, somehow, I don't think these same people were as shocked when senators like Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin equated U.S. troops with Nazis and torturers, or when choruses from the left are more offended by Halliburton than by Saddam Hussein.
But in the calls for Ms. Coulter's head, her critics have proved her right. From Cindy Sheehan, whose lunatic ravings cannot be criticized because she lost a son in the war, to John Murtha, who is untouchable because he once wore the uniform he now defames, the left is fond of offering up "human shields" with life stories designed to spark instant derision for anyone suggesting they might be mistaken.
Ms. Coulter does in prose what editorial cartoonists do with pictures: artful exaggeration with the goal of crystallizing a political point.
If her word choice is not your cup of tea, that's fine. Don't buy the book. For me, the Michael Moore mantra that Mr. Bush is an evil idiot is a tad harsh. We all have our tastes.
So, here's the deal - let's all be big boys and girls and realize that anyone intentionally entering a vigorous arena of debate is fair game. And instead of wasting our time hand-wringing over whose style wounds our sensibilities, let's focus on who has a point and who does not.
