View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Lisa Fabrizio |
March 8th, 2007
Any way you look at it, the word Ann Coulter used to describe Edwards was uncalled for and unwarranted.
Every time I write a column that even remotely mentions homosexuality and history’s disinclination to regard it as a commendable lifestyle, I am inundated with email accusing me of hateful gay-bashing and labeled a homophobe. While I do not hate homosexuals or anyone else for that matter, I do have a problem with folks who use etymologically confused words like ‘homophobe.’
When used as a noun, even the word ‘homosexual’ is now considered objectionable because, as one dictionary puts it, “of the emphasis this term places on sexuality. Indeed, the words gay and lesbian, which stress cultural and social matters over sex, are frequently better choices.” Oh for the days when this kind of ‘logic’ was found anywhere but in a reference book!
Prior to the Bill Clinton era, words had definite meanings and many times, also consequences. After the 42nd President treated us to his tortuous twisting of the meanings of the words ‘sexual relations’ and ‘is,’ he and his war-room personnel coined the phrase, “politics of personal destruction” to deal with anyone who dared give actual credence to the afore-mentioned words he had spoken under oath.
As a result, the whole Lewinsky affair — which gave untold numbers of young people the happy notion that oral sex was no longer considered sex — was an event typical of the ongoing debasement of our modern culture which has claimed many victims; two of which are language and civility.
Turn on your TV at almost any hour of the day or night and you will see the evidence. From grammatically-challenged hosts (“We’re back after this commercial break.”), to loutish teenagers, presumably still under the blush of a public-school education, who can barely complete a sentence without using profanity. Or open a newspaper where you will read of a municipal employee in hot water for using the word ‘niggardly’ in reference to budgetary matters.
And so now have we come to the point that nearly all forms of speech, and especially those formerly deemed crude, have now made their way into the political arena. This is not to say that America hasn’t seen its share of electoral mud-slinging, it’s just that the mud has become dirtier and more pervasive; rearing its ugly head in unexpected places.
Last week’s flap over Ann Coulter’s unfortunate use of a vulgarism regarding John Edwards is a prime example. Miss Coulter is a brilliant writer whose High Crimes and Misdemeanors was a tour-de-force during the aforementioned Clinton era and an indispensable argument against his ‘it’s all about sex’ defenders. She is a stalwart conservative whose rapier wit often wounds Politically Correct — a nauseating euphemism for a perverted sort of civility — sensibilities.
But any way you look at it, the word she used to describe Edwards was uncalled for and unwarranted. The organizers, sponsors and attendees at CPAC generally represent the conservative mindset, which for decades has maintained that it is the movement of ideas, of those who think with their heads; in direct opposition to the liberal left which tends to attract those whose feelings dictate their policy.
Also implicit is the notion that conservatism, by its definition, embodies the desire for the preservation of the cultural status quo, or a return to one of earlier times. In either case, the use of words such as those used by Miss Coulter last week and at CPAC 2006 when she dismayed many present with the term ‘rag-head,’ cannot reflect well on those aims. Our leading lights, especially those who proudly call themselves Christians, need not descend into the pit of what sadly passes for modern discourse.
There are many who think that the time for such civility is long past, given the control liberal media and education have on the minds of our fellow citizens, and while this is a factor, it doesn’t necessarily make it a determinative one. On the contrary, when a conservative does push the boundaries of good taste, they are quickly called on the progressive carpet for crimes of hypocrisy, making the incident all the more useful to the other side.
This of course is not to say that conservatives should be pacifists in the war of words fought in the modern political arena — indeed, one withering paragraph from the pen of William F. Buckley is worth a thousand words from Maureen Dowd — it’s just that the use of vulgarities must be viewed as an unwelcome weapon.
Conservatives love to bemoan the fact that there’s not another Ronald Reagan out there. If his followers would unite in preserving the example of his kindly and gentlemanly ways, maybe the next one won’t be far off.
mailbox@lisafab.com
Visit their website at: http://www.lisafab.com
Responses to "War of Words"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
With all due respect to Lisa Fabrizio Ann Coulters use of the term 'faggot' had nothing to do with sexual orientation. It was, as Miss Coulter has said "a school-yard taunt" meant to imply he is a coward, wuss, or yellow-belly unwilling to fight or defend us aginst our enemies. Now, instead of debating the foreign policy credentials of the Democrat field we are focusing on conservative 'intolerance.'
When we accept the false premises of the left and turn our attacks on our own we are doing the conservative movement a grave disservice by implicitly accepting the liberal's indictment of conservatives as homo-phobes, racists, sexists, etc.
Because of incidents like this one conservatives will be less inclined to speak out (after all, who will defend us if not our own?) and the lefts tactics of screaming 'intolerance' as a way to stifle debate will have been vindicated and encouraged. These self-righteous exercise in PC self- censorship needs to stop.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | March 8, 2007
Jeff,
That's what she says now–that the term had nothing to do with sexual orientation. Frankly, it's just not credible that she believed people would hear the word and not associate it with homosexuality.
But let's give Coulter an unreasonable benefit of the doubt and say it was just a "school-yard taunt." What the hell kind of defense is that? "No, no, I wasn't calling him gay, I was insulting him in the manner of 10-year-old. How dare you accuse me of being crude?"
Give yourself a break. If you don't think her comment deserves the unceasing coverage it has been getting, fine. Don't join the chorus. But if Coulter wants to pick these fights, let her defend herself. Don't waste you energy rushing to her defense every few months when this attention-hogging egomaniac says something deliberately designed to cause offense. You have better things to do.
Comment by Katzen | March 8, 2007
While I agree with Ms. Katzen on principle, the howl you hear as a conservative response to the left's screeching about Ann's remark isn't because we're necessarily defending Ann, it's because of the blatant double-standard being applied.
The left can get awy with "homophobe", "Nazi", "woman-hater", "narrow-minded", and other such nasty diatribes all it wants, but let a consevative start flinging lables back (labels that stick a whole lot better than theirs), then we get the backlash from the left, and of course, from you and yours.
Do I think she should have said it? No. I think we should indeed be like Ronald Regan and have the civil debates that should exist in politics. Unfortunatly, those debates dissolved long ago, thanks to the left, not the right.
So, in principle, you're right, Katzen. But in practice, Ann's remark was not only right on in describing Edwards was right on: in his beliefs and the way he comminicates, he is a faggot. It's sad that only one side gets to scream obscenities, while we quietly go our way, shaking our heads not at the side who screams, but at those who strive to lift their voices up loud enough to be recognized and heard.
Comment by daverock | March 8, 2007
Katzen,
Do you remember when the knock on Bush 41 was that he was a 'wimp?' Or how about Bush 43's lack of 'gravitas' in 2000? Did conservatives rise up to denounce the choice of words used by the left or did we try to dispel the implications of the arguments themselves?
Whether or not you like the terms wimp, faggot, or lack of gravitas they were meant in the same context: a weak man disinclined to defend himself or his country. By attacking (or refusing to defend) Ann Coulter you are conceding to the left the 'fact' of conservative intolerance and letting the Democrat's off the hook for their cowardice on national security.
This is a self-defeating exercise and one of the main reasons Republicans have difficulty retaining political power: We have shown we lack the stomach required to wage these rhetorical battles and are too quick to concede points to the left. We allow them to change the subject and throw us on defense.
In a word, we are acting like 'faggots.'
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | March 8, 2007
First, let's put this "egregious comment" into perspective. Ann Coulter did not say "John Edwards is a faggot!" like it's being made out. She said she couldn't discuss his campaign, because if you use the word "faggot" you have to go into rehab. It was done with a little more finesse than she's being given credit for. Also, keep in mind that the audience were predominantly young students. Anyone who's taken a speech class before should be aware that you tailor your speaking for the audience. I doubt Ann Coulter would have made the same comment in a nationally televised issues debate.
Now,
I guess Katzen hails from a slightly different generation than mine. I can say that the word "faggot" takes on a variety of meanings in urban slang for people in my generation (The 20 and under crowd). Many a time have I heard one straight (that is to say, heterosexual, if that term is not too offensive) male say to another "You fag!" in response to an insult or jest. The person does not mean to imply that his friend is, in fact, a homosexual. Here's another hint in case you ever encounter anyone under the age of thirty outside of a philosophy classroom: things described as "gay" may or may not be "homosexual" either. For example: "Did you see that new movie that just came out?"… "Why yes I did, it was really gay". The answerer does not mean to imply that the movie was homosexual, but wishes to express his displeasure with the quality of the movie. Okay, so now that we're all hip with the new jive, let me ask, what is so outrageous about a conservative using such "vulgarity"? If Whoopie Goldberg can go on a 10 minute tirade about the parallel between our president's last name and female genitalia, who really cares? If senator Byrd can describe people as "white niggers", what is the big deal? If war protesters can call their detractors fascist pigs, why can't war supporters call pacifists faggot? To keep some moral high ground that no one respects anyway? Ann Coulter has just done herself and the conservative movement a huge favor. Nobody besides the few hundred people in attendance at that conference know or care what deep philosophical topics were discussed. But most of America now knows that Ann Coulter said "faggot". Maybe they'll pick up one of her excellent books and read it for the first time. Or maybe they'll follow her to her next convention and throw eggs at her like they have in the past. Either way, a conservative person steals the news headlines from Britney Spears and Cindy Sheehan for a few moments, and things get talked about. It's been an effective tactic of leftist counter culture goons since the 1960's. Why do you we need to ostracize a conservative for stirring the pot for once?
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 8, 2007
Good grief, have some pride. Using words like "faggot," whether they be bigoted insults or "school yard taunts" cannot be justified on the principle of "he started it."
Do you really this is the only way to fight back? That this is such a clever strategy of the Left's that it must emulated? Do you think any American teetering between Right and Left moved rightward listening to Ann Coulter imply that a former senator and vice presidential candidate is a "faggot?" That, "in principle, Coulter was wrong, but, "in practice," this produced excellent results that gave people a positive impression of CPAC?
We can rant all we want about "political correctness." This has nothing to do with that. This is about simple manners–common courtesy. And calling someone a "wimp," is just not the same thing as calling someone a "faggot." Which term would be more insulting to you, Jeff?
Comment by Katzen | March 8, 2007
Since a spirited discussion of John Edwards foreign policy positions is limited to the use of a certain menu of pre-approved words perhaps I should submit the following for sign off before using them in a sentence when referencing the Senator:
ambulance chaser, wuss, candy-ass, weakling, girlie-man, effete, soft, feeble, frail, spineless.
Which of the preceding words are inappropriate for polite discussion? And which are inaccurate? And since Rush has begun calling him the 'first female president' - maybe someone should send him an e-mail!
To answer your question I do feel some people appreciate plain spoken words (remember the campaign themes 'Straight Talk Express' and the 'plain spoken Texan?') Perhaps this betrays me as uncultured but some voters, including this one enjoy a break from the dry, meaningless academic political drivel that tends to drip from the mouths of politicians.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | March 9, 2007
Katzen,
You give "Joe America" WAYYYY too much intellectual credit. To answer your question: that may not be "the only way to fight back". And no one suggested that it was or should be. But it's one way to "fight back", and attract regular people who aren't particularly interested in an intellectual debate about the difference between "Neo" and "Paleo" conservatism, or about when "life" begins in the context of abortion, or about the justifications of the Iraq war from a conservative perspective. A very significant portion of the people in this country are boneheads who want to sit in front of the TV and get their information on politics and political candidates from punchlines of Jay Leno jokes. That group of people thinks it's funny when John Stewart says that George Bush is "f***ing insane", or calls Tucker Carlson "a dick", and they think it's funny when Ann Coulter says that John Edwards is a faggot. It's an appeal to a particular audience. It's an attention-grabbing tactic. And it worked flawlessly.
Having intelligent, logical, reasoned debates about issues is preaching to the choir. Most democrats and "undecided" people are followers. Either they don't think for themselves, or they simply don't care. They aren't interested in listening to a lecture by Ann Coulter about, say, government interference in the free market. Most of America would have been completely oblivious to the fact that CPAC even took place if it weren't for this "controversy". To answer your question directly, yes, I do think that Americans teetering between Right and Left may have found Ann Coulter's comment amusing and refreshingly bold. I know I did. We can take the perceived intellectual high ground and not say any mean things about left wing nutcases, but nobody really seems to care do they? For all our righteousness, we don't seem to be wooing all the leftists to our side. For all of the pandering and contortions we go to in order not to offend any gays or minorities, they don't seem to be jumping from the Democrat ship. You seem to be most upset here not about the fact that Ann Coulter called somebody a name, but that she called somebody a name that might offend homosexuals. Guess what? They aren't on your side anyway, and you aren't going to win them over. So who cares? Why can't we just laugh at Ann Coulter's joke and blow off the PC police like the left (who invented the PC police) routinely does? Here we are making a huge deal out of a conservative pundit suggesting that a liberal is a wuss while the left opens up with both barrels on the president and on conservative leaders while we sit by, or even go along with it, to prove just how nice and politically correct we are. In essence, conservatives are going by Marques of Queensbury rules while getting beaten to a pulp in a back alley street brawl so they can prove that they fight fair, and it's doing about as much good. We have the satisfaction of knowing that we played by the rules, but the guy beating us with a baseball bat isn't any worse off for it.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 9, 2007
Seems like everyone is taking a trivial issue and trying to turn it into news. For those unfamiliar with the English language fagot when used as a noun is a bundle of sticks and note the word has only one g. Another word the politically correct police have attempted to demonize is niggardly because it sounds like another word. Heaven forbid we ever see reruns of the old movie the Three Cabelleros (Disney) song goes "We're three cabelleros, Gay Cabelleros" which used to mean happy. And of course a cracker used to be something eaten with soup.
Even the discussion of Coulter's remarks seems foolish and without content. Maybe it is time for Americans to grow up and stop trying to create islands of offense. If the politics of being offended continues I can think of a long list of things that offend me…maybe I should start taking offense too!
Comment by Mickey G | March 9, 2007
All,
Let's separate two issues here:
1. Defending people who take easy offense.
2. Defending Ann Coulter.
Neither one is necessary, but people seem to think a refusal to do (2) implies a willingness to do (1). Coulter was not insinuating that John Edwards is a bundle of sticks. She was either trying to call him a homosexual or using a "school yard taunt." Neither explanation is much of a defense. (And I wager that when the word "faggot" is used in an actual school yard, mature adults in positions of responsibility do not dismiss it as perfectly harmless, un-p.c. fun.)
"You seem to be most upset here not about the fact that Ann Coulter called somebody a name, but that she called somebody a name that might offend homosexuals. Guess what? They aren't on your side anyway, and you aren't going to win them over."
Well, there's the best justification for abject rudeness I've ever heard! They don't agree with us, therefore it's fine to call them names. I couldn't care less whom the insult was directed at. It was cheap, unfunny, unclever, and vulgar. To say such things in a South Park episode is one thing. To say them at CPAC is another thing entirely.
"Why can't we laugh at Ann Coulter's joke…?"
Because we are not Bill Maher's audience. We don't laugh at everything just because the person who said it thought it was the most witty thing one could possibly say.
If liberals are hypocrites for condemning Ann Coulter while defending their own demagogues, then those of you who condemn the Bill Mahers of the world but make lame excuses for Coulter are, by the same principle, hypocrites. You lose all credibility in complaining about Maher when you defend Coulter. What I say for one goes for the other. Let them pick their own fights, and let them fight their own fights. They don't need any help from reasonable people in their quests to get as much time on television as possible.
Comment by Katzen | March 9, 2007
"Even the discussion of Coulter’s remarks seems foolish and without content."
As opposed to the remarks themselves?
Comment by Katzen | March 9, 2007
As far as the word "faggot" goes, I guess it depends on where you live or were brought up. When I was young, a faggot was was indeed a wus. A gay wuss. It meant gay and all the stereotypes that went with it. Yes, it was a schoolyard taunt. It meant that you were a gay wuss. That's what it meant where I grew up. Can we just give up on the "it just means a bunch of sticks" argument, though? Maybe some college professor somewhere uses the term that way, but it's very unlikely it's used that way anywhere else in this country. If we were in England, that excuse might hold water, but not here in the U.S. Who calls someone else a bundle of sticks anyway? I've seen that defense in other writings and it's just too stupid to even argue with.
Did I find Ann's comment funny? No, not when I first heard it. However, the more people howled about it, the funnier it got. I'm sure there's a psychological explanation for that. It was crass and juvenile, yes, but (this is the important part) SO WHAT?
If you don't like what she said, fine. Don't read her stuff, don't buy her books. Actions and words have consequences. However, unless a law got passed and I missed it, she (and you and I) still have freedom of expression. None of us has the right to not be offended. Frankly, unless you are John Edwards, or a faggot, I don't see how you can be offended at all.
Ann is a lot of things. A politician she isn't. She represents no one but herself when she speaks. If you wish to say that she was representing CPAC when she made her 'joke', fine and dandy, but keep in mind that Ann makes her living by lobbing bombs to draw attention to herself. The people running CPAC should have been very well aware of this. If any of them were truly shocked at what she said, then maybe next time they'll do a bit more research on who they ask to speak at their conferences. On top of that, since her comment drew attention to an event that otherwise went fairly unnoticed to the general population, I don't think the CPAC organizers are too chagrinned.
What I find interesting is that Ann implies that Edwards is a faggot and gets lambasted by most everyone in the media. Then you have Bill Maher who openly regretted that Cheney escaped from harm. Who feels that less people would die if Cheney died instead. Yet there was hardly a peep in the media. Bill Maher has as much right as Ann to express his feelings, no matter how vulgar. But if you're going to crucify Ann in the media, where's the equal outrage at Maher? *crickets chirping in the silent night* Does anyone else smell a double standard here?
Since I'm ranting anyway…I understand why I'M commenting on this. I'm just an ordinary shmuck. My opinion means pretty much zilch to anyone who isn't me, but sometimes I like to be heard. Why, though, do we have supposedly serious writers and commentators spending time on this? Is what Ann or Maher said really important in any way shape or form? You could say that people read Ann and will start to believe that John Edwards IS a faggot. I don't have a lot of pity on people who believe something just because "Ann said it" or "Bill Maher said it". Those people aren't thinking anyway and they'll just latch on to whatever someone else tells them. Nothing you or I can do about people like that.
Well, that was way too long, but I feel better! :)
Comment by Ron S. | March 9, 2007
About the rant from Ron S: ditto for the whole thing, except one sentence: …"where’s the equal outrage at Maher?" Conservatives disparage the concept of equality, except when they don't become its beneficiary.
Comment by felix | March 11, 2007