|
|
 |
|
FOR ANN COULTER?
|
Why not do unto Coulter
what she does unto libs?
of TheColumnists.com
Ann Coulter has made a great deal of money being an over-the-top critic of liberals. In a series of books with titles such as “Godless,” “Treason” and “Slander” she argues that liberals are traitors, among other things. Her books sell in the millions.
Coulter doesn’t engage in polite or sophisticated debate about the issues. Her business plan is to go straight for the jugular. The latest example is her recent remarks before the Conservative Political Action Conference, where she implied that Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards is a “faggot.”
That’s it. No reasoned discourse on any faults that might or might not exist in Edwards’ plan for health care. No thoughtful arguments for or against his stance condemning the Iraq War. Just he’s a “faggot.”
“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot’ so I’m kind of at an impasse,” she said.
Now, it turns out that Coulter really didn’t mean to imply that John Edwards was a homosexual. Oh, no.
“The word I used has nothing to do with sexual preference. It is a schoolyard taunt,” she said.
Odd. The Random House Dictionary of the American language defines “faggot” as “a male homosexual.” Coulter makes her living as a writer. Seems she would know the meaning of the words she uses.
And leaving aside her unique ideas on what words mean, what is Coulter doing using a “schoolyard taunt” before an audience of presumably substantive conservatives interested in a serious discussion of public policy?
The crowd, by the way, laughed and applauded when Coulter made her statement about Edwards.
Faced with such a reason-free adversary who seems to get away with outrageous untruths on her way to the best-seller lists, what are wishy-washy liberals supposed to do?
Here’s one underhanded suggestion:
On lefty blogs, in newspaper opinion columns by lefties and in speeches by left-leaning politicians, everyone starts referring to Coulter as an atheist. Over and over again.
“Atheist Ann Coulter said today…”
“Well-known atheist Ann Coulter….”
“Everyone knows that Ann Coulter is an atheist.”
No one gets into a discussion regarding proof of whether Coulter is an atheist. Asked for proof, the liberals say:
“Proof? Proof? That’s just the kind of elitist thinking that has led our nation down the path of depravity and sapped our moral values. She’s an atheist. That’s all that needs to be said on the subject. Let’s move on.”
I suppose they could mention that she wrote a book titled “Godless,” but that would be perhaps going too far in answering demands for proof.
Coulter could not be blamed for reacting with indignation.
“I’m not an atheist!” she will shout. “I go to church every Sunday! I grew up in a convent! My father is a pastor!”
Wouldn’t matter. No one on the left blinks. They keep mindlessly referring to Coulter as “that atheist.”
Coulter then writes an op-ed in the New York Times giving details of her devout Christianity, thereby proving beyond a doubt that she is a real Christian.
“Ann Coulter, the atheist…” the liberals continue to chant in blogs, speeches and columns. It is a vast left-wing conspiracy. Facts are ignored.
Right-wing radio hosts and newspaper columnists react angrily. But in attempting to counter the endless left-wing mantra, they are forced to use the words “Coulter” and “atheist” in the same sentence, thereby reinforcing the Liberal Lie.
After about a year, straight news stories begin to refer to “Coulter, whose religious views, or lack of them, figure in her controversial image…”
A little while later, news reports contain sentences such as “Coulter, often accused of being an atheist….”
Or:
“Coulter, the political commentator
often associated with atheism…”
Since much of Coulter’s audience is made up of uneducated,
fundamentalist religious zealots or hard-right jihadists who
are mostly unaware of the way the world works, the Big Lie technique
would gradually peel them away from Coulter-worship. After all,
if she’s an atheist, how can we agree with her on any subject?
Sales of her books would plunge.
Coulter would be in the same position as, say, the mayor of a town accused of molesting a four-year-old boy. He could deny it, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was in Des Moines at a Bible meeting on the night in question, but his political career would be over.
Unfair? Of course. Effective? Decidedly.
A dastardly, hateful man named Joseph Goebbels had it right 75 years ago. If you repeat a Big Lie loudly enough, and often enough and long enough, people will come to believe it. Or enough people will to make a difference.
It would be an irony for the ages if it worked against Ann Coulter.
©2007 by Charles M. McFadden. The McFadden caricature is ©2001 by Jim Hummel. The illustration is from IMSI's Master Clips Collection, 1895 Francisco Blvd. East, San Rafael, CA, 94901-5506, USA. This column first posted March 12, 2007.
You can comment
on this column online. Please address your message to either
"The Editors" or Chuck McFadden. To send an email,
click here and don't forget to mention Chuck's name: talkback@thecolumnists.com
|
|
|
Archives |
|
|