In light of the current controversy over Ann Coulter's insistence that four 9/11 widows have "enjoyed" the deaths of their husbands, I looked up the only previous post in which I wrote about her here. It appeared on April 23, 2005:
I read the TIME magazine cover story on pundit Ann Coulter yesterday. To tell the truth, my only exposure to her previous to that was seeing a few guest appearances she made on Hardball, in which Chris Matthews rightly raked her over the coals for suggesting that liberals are, by definition, unpatriotic.Today I have to say that I still feel sorry for her. But her increasingly shrill and nasty statements make her less than likable. Many conservatives tell me that she's an embarrassment and they wish that she would just be quiet and go away.
What I got from the TIME article is that this is a woman who has found a profitable gig. She's a professional provocateur who would rather make people laugh than think. That's fine except that lots of people, whether supporters or detractors, take her schtick more seriously than she apparently does.
She also appears to me to be trapped by the persona she has created and fearful that as she continues to play her part, someone could physically attack her. That must be an awful feeling. Like the moth attracted to and willfully staying in the flame in spite of the risk, Coulter appears to be both lured and repulsed by the fame she has created for herself.
It's sad that we live in a culture that often loves heat more than light and that someone like Coulter is so desperate for prominence that, in spite of her undeniable intellectual gifts and quick wit, she feels compelled to throw in with the purveyors of heat rather than the throwers of light.
Her current prominence probably says something [both] about her and about our country.
In spite of that seemingly negative assessment, I came away from reading the piece liking Coulter...and feeling sorry for her, genuinely sorry for her.
Politics is a full-body-contact sport, to be sure. But Coulter has crossed a line with her new assertions about the 9/11 widows.
But give Coulter credit: Like Morgana the Kissing Bandit, she's getting precisely what she wants from her outrageous statements: attention. That, in turn, will no doubt lead to book sales.
By now, Ann Coulter is like the three-car crack-up on the Interstate: You don't want to look, but what's before you is so gruesome, so outrageous, you can't help but look.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin is trying to legitimize Coulter's 9/11 comments saying that the author is "antagonizing the Left with her comments about the liberal 9/11 widows." It isn't just the left who is likely to be antagonized by Coulter's comments. People on the right, evangelical Christians, and people who believe in civility are all likely to be antagonized by them. I know because I'm on the right politically, I'm an evangelical Christian, and I believe in civility in our public discourse and I think that Coulter's statements are indefensible!
It's perfectly legitimate for people to disagree with the four widows that Coulter attacks. But to say that the women are enjoying their widowhood or to suggest, as she did today, that their four husbands may well have been contemplating divorcing them, is savage and insulting.
[Thank you to Andy Jackson of Smart Christian for linking to this post.]
5 comments:
I caught a snippet of Coulter from one of the cable shows. I found it disconcerting that she was wearing a rather sizeable gold cross around her neck. I don't waste much time worrying about what makes Coulter tick (it ain't much), but what she is playing to with her cross does worry me. Preachers get in the pulpit, and on a good day, say all the right things....and Coulter's choir is unmoved...and they're right there in the pews mixed in with others....no matter what the preacher says. In fact, they have the capacity to automatically translate whatever the preacher says into their own language. And the language of this country is getting more and more pogramish by the day...and as the past will teach, it don't take much to tack a little god onto it, even a made up one.
dj
Interesting comments, Dan. That her rhetoric is taken seriously by some is deeply disturbing.
Mark
If you're correct, Dan, about preachers and "Coulter's choir," maybe there's a much more troubling problem to be examined: why does she have more sway, impact, credibility, and - even - leadership ability than the pastor?
Coulter is an impersonal, conservative celebrity that wouldn't recognize 99.999% of the people in the pews across America on any given Sunday; the pastor, in contrast - who is supposed to know his flock and feed them what they need - is called to be personal and personable, albeit not always popular and hopefully not a celebrity.
So Coulter is a sinful person: who would deny that? But the bigger problem - if you are right in your assumption - is why she has more clout than the local pastor.
FWIW, here are a couple of comments I left at World Magazine's post on the Coulter comments:
-------
"A few observations:
1. Everyone, including Ann Coulter and the 9-11 widows, has a sin nature. Ms Coulter is thus likely to lose control of her tongue at times (from some of the comments here, it would appear that is true of us, too). Similarly, there are undoubtedly times when some or all of the widows are motivated by sinful desires and/or agendas in their politics (is the New York metroplex predominantly Red or Blue?) - unless you happen to believe that widows are somehow relieved of the burden of having a sin nature.
2. Paul wrote,
"But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married, thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge." - 1 Ti 5.11-12
Now, I am not putting Ann Coulter on the same level as Paul (who also spoke of widows' desires for "wanton pleasures"). I am saying, though, that widows are not exempt from criticism.
I cannot help but wonder, too, if the response to Coulter's remarks would be so condemning if she had said the same thing about widowers using their losses to promote a political agenda. Perhaps the "outrage" she has fomented is somewhat sexist or, at least, reflective of the "mommy-complex" our society is drowing in. Women are no greater nor lesser sinners than men.
3. Are we to hold non-Christians to a different standard than Christians? Certainly we need to keep our own houses clean and resist judging those outside the camp, but that does not mean that there are differing standards for the two groups. Lewis popularized this notion regarding divorce; Tolkien publically disagreed with him, saying that God's justice did not allow two sets of rules or commandments, one for believers and one for nonbelievers. Coulter is to be held to the same standard as Dawkins or Dennett, nothing higher or lower. And all fall short.
So perhaps we all need to step down off our holier-than-thou soapboxes and stop our own versions of crassness, judgment, or even hate speech. Criticize Coulter, disagree with her, be embarrassed by her - but don't slander her in the same way you believe she has slandered others.
Didn't someone say something about a log in our own eyes? Or about straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel? Well, I'm sure neither of those has any bearing on this conversation: surely He couldn't have been talking to us, eh?"
-------
And then again,
-------
"I find it symptomatic and proof of our sin nature that those who are most harsh in their criticism of Ms Coulter are doing the same thing that she did - and are outraged and indignant towards her, and simultaneously proud that they are "not like other men," i.e., that nasty publican in the temple or Coulter!
As I said before, we need to get off our "holier-than-thou" soapboxes and ask hard questions about the person in mirror, e.g., "Am I too harsh and unloving at times?" (as is Coulter) and "Do I sometimes exploit my own unhappiness to elicit desired responses from others?" (as many do - I do not know the hearts of any of the widows, other than that they are sinful).
Is it any wonder non-Christians are so often repulsed by us?"
-------
I apologize for producing a comment longer that your post: I try not to do that, primarily because I hate it when people do that on my blog!. Feel free to edit or delete this as you see fit. I certainly won't take it personally.
I'm in the camp that wishes she would be quiet.
Post a Comment