“Mother of Mercy, is this the end of Rico?”
–Edward G. Robinson in Little Caesar (1930).
Is this truly the time to ask: “Mother of Mercy, is this the end of Ann Coulter getting carte blanche to be viewed as a symbol of conservatism?”
It looks that way after a virtual firestorm of condemnation following her own supposedly botched joke — using the politically taboo (for anyone who wants to be taken seriously as a commentator or politico in America) “f” word to suggest that Edwards is gay. (Read our original post and long weblog opinion roundup HERE.)
Coulter is under fire from many quarters. And now credentialed conservative bloggers who attended the CPAC are issuing a statement on their sites declaring “the Age of Ann has passed” — and unequivocally denouncing her and urging that she not be invited back. It’s about as definitive a development in fine-tuning Coulter’s apparent real role in American politics — that of a verbal bomb-thrower who is invited due to her outrageousness and who often demeans the venues that have her speak as well as conservatism in general.
Here’s the letter as posted on Ed Morrissey’s site – it should be read in full:
An Open Letter To The ACU And CPAC Sponsors
Conservatism treats humans as they are, as moral creatures possessing rational minds and capable of discerning right from wrong. There comes a time when we must speak out in the defense of the conservative movement, and make a stand for political civility. This is one of those times.
Ann Coulter used to serve the movement well. She was telegenic, intelligent, and witty. She was also fearless: saying provocative things to inspire deeper thought and cutting through the haze of competing information has its uses. But Coulter’s fearlessness has become an addiction to shock value. She draws attention to herself, rather than placing the spotlight on conservative ideas.At the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2006, Coulter referred to Iranians as “ragheads.” She is one of the most prominent women in the conservative movement; for her to employ such reckless language reinforces the stereotype that conservatives are racists.
At CPAC 2007 Coulter decided to turn up the volume by referring to John Edwards, a former U.S. Senator and current Presidential candidate, as a “faggot.” Such offensive language–and the cavalier attitude that lies behind it–is intolerable to us. It may be tolerated on liberal websites but not at the nation’s premier conservative gathering.
The legendary conservative thinker Richard Weaver wrote a book entitled Ideas Have Consequences. Rush Limbaugh has said again and again that “words mean things.” Both phrases apply to Coulter’s awful remarks.
Coulter’s vicious word choice tells the world she care little about the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and despised. Her word choice forces conservatives to waste time defending themselves against charges of homophobia rather than advancing conservative ideas.
Within a day of Coulter’s remark John Edwards sent out a fundraising email that used Coulter’s words to raise money for his faltering campaign. She is helping those she claims to oppose. How does that advance any of the causes we hold dear?
Denouncing Coulter is not enough. After her “raghead” remark in 2006 she took some heat. Yet she did not grow and learn. We should have been more forceful. This year she used a gay slur. What is next? If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year, will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?
One of the points of CPAC is the opportunity it gives college students to meet other young conservatives and learn from our leaders. Unlike on their campuses—where they often feel alone—at CPAC they know they are part of a vibrant political movement. What example is set when one highlight of the conference is finding out what shocking phrase will emerge from Ann Coulter’s mouth? How can we teach young conservatives to fight for their principles with civility and respect when Ann Coulter is allowed to address the conference? Coulter’s invective is a sign of weak thinking and unprincipled politicking.
CPAC sponsors, the Age of Ann has passed. We, the undersigned, request that CPAC speaking invitations no longer be extended to Ann Coulter. Her words and attitude simply do too much damage.
You can’t help but look at this and realize: Coulter hasn’t jumped the shark, she now seems to have jumped the whale. Yes, many of her talk-show allies who love her (and some websites and some blogs) will continue to highlight her specialty — insults perfectly packaged to be sound-bytes for talk-radio and cable shows.
But there ARE many thinking conservatives (just as there are many thinking liberals and thinking centrists) who view politics as part of a vital ongoing debate, an interplay of ideas, and an argument over the meaning of key facts. They don’t view it as uttering the equivalent of heckler or put-down-the-heckler lines used in comedy clubs — slightly fine-tuned to fit into a political context. And these thinking people seek to win over new allies and peel off voters from other groups, not alienate them.
Read Morrissey’s comments in full at the end of the letter. Here’s are two paragraphs:
What the ACU did was provide a platform endorsed by a number of conservative groups to Coulter, who then abused it for her own purposes. If we are to tolerate speakers at such convocations using hateful and inflammatory language, then we’re endorsing it and adopting it for our own. I’m not going to stand by and watch a movement that has the power to free people and protect liberty get hijacked by someone who treats us as a straight man for her own idea of a joke….
…For the second year in a row, Coulter hijacked CPAC to get herself some headlines. The ACU was warned by at least one of their sponsors about that after last year, but either chose not to address it or got snowed again by Coulter. They need to cut off their association with her, or conservative organizations have to find a different organization for their conferences.
It may be the end of Rico.
But it looks like the beginning of an admirable line in the sand.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.