Ann is my homegirl

Ann Coulter has fans. People that buy all her books, concentrate when she is talking, and take her as a serious voice in American politics.

These are people who think the John Birch Society is too touchy-feely, people who would otherwise accuse Jesus of being soft on crime. Scary people. To call them conservative would be mud in Richard Nixon’s cold, dead eye.

The majority of the people that read Coulter’s columns, I presume, are true conservatives, in that they would probably hate me, but they are thoughtful, well-meaning people, and they just get a kick out of what appears to be her sticking it to self-righteous cultural elites. And Ted Kennedy. It’s interesting that she claims to, and sometimes does, speak on behalf of “average, middle-America, patriotic” Americans, when she is about as blue blood as they come. I digress.

Then you have the liberals, and they hate her. Not because she is “conservative,” although that is good enough reason for some, but because she is constantly dousing their faces with battery acid with her pitched snark, equating liberals with terrorists, hysterical women, baby killers, and everything else that is villainous, cowardly and Clintonesque.

There is no Coulter counterpart on the left. Nobody that comes close, really. Ted Rall, maybe. But first, he’s an editorial cartoonist (he does write a column, although it is artless, not widely carried, and is dwarfed by his cartoons, which are widely circulated) and second, while he may pull the old stick and jab with conservatives, he is only occasionally mean spirited, unlike Coulter, who is all hate, all the time, and must live in a world where she is forever not getting her way (even though the GOP controls the federal government, most state governments, and she’s rich, educated and beautiful).

That’s the thing, though, isn’t it? You can always have more.

It’s a good thing there is no Coulter counterpart. One is enough.

Although I disagree with her most of the time, I’ve grown to enjoy her columns. I’m not sure why. It helps when I tell myself that in spite of the racism, which is utterly disgusting, deep down she is a really a curmudgeon who obsesses over the things that piss her off, in print, to the point that self-respecting newspapers won’t carry her. If she really didn’t believe the things she says (liberals like to claim she’s pandering to the lowest common denominator), you’d think she’d change her tack. Instead, she’s gotten worse. Maybe she’s insane, I don’t know, she spends a lot of time hating liberals, who have almost zero official power these days. But so does George Will, who appears reasonable in comparison, and is as exciting as valium. Maybe they are both insane.

Recently she’s shown an independent streak, and although it boils down to accusing President Bush of not being overtly racist enough, it’s good to see her getting away from her role as the victim, but it’s pretty disturbing, the stuff she’s writing.

There’s an argument against Coulter that goes thus: the brand of prejudice, and the methods, of Coulter poisons the country’s political discourse. She’s pissing in the well, they say. Besides, they say, there are other conservative commentators who don’t use terms like “camel jockey” to describe Moslems ( even if she is ostensibly joking).

Who? Krauthammer? Right. Cal Thomas? John Leo? These guys are tools. Bill Safire was an interesting tool, but he’s retired. Linda Chavez writes about things that don’t get a lot of coverage, so she gets props, but she’s dry. Jonah Goldberg does a poor impression of a journalist, but at least he tries. They are all boring sheep.

Even when Coulter is towing the party line, which she usually does, she’s bombastic. Others try, but there not as smart as she is. She’s probably pretty damn smart, which is disheartening.
Besides, can you blame Coulter? Or Fox News? Or the fat subsidies from right-wing yahoos?

They’re ideologues, like Michael Moore and Al Franken (although neither of them compare), they’re trying to get their message out. There’s nothing wrong with that. The First Amendment isn’t there to protect good ideas. If some one is to blame, it’s the fault of the rank and file xenophobes that pay attention to her blather. Right? Maybe the problem is an educational system that doesn’t teach young people to think critically, to identify fallacies, or a society that doesn’t value such things. I don’t know, but what Coulter is doing is not historically original. Schlafly comes to mind.

Really, though, for me, it comes down to the words. I may not like her intentions, but I like Coulter’s use of the language. Bombastic is an understatement. She wants to claw out my eyeballs.

All columnists are not created equal. The best, in my opinion, are journalists. They are the smartest, and the best writers (!). Next would be lawyers. After that, you’re on your own. It’s hit and miss, especially with the Jack Kemps of the print pundit world. But if you look at a column as a person’s sacred space where they can clear points without interruption, you could do worse than with a lawyer.

Coulter is a lawyer. That’s her trade. She didn’t come up as daily reporter, she didn’t go to j-school, where they teach you to remain aloof and focused on facts. She was editor of the law review and represented Paula Jones in her sexual harassment lawsuits against Bill Clinton. She’s an advocate, her job is to win. The best lawyers show no fear, go for the throat and never apologize. She’s batting for her team, and she doesn’t know any other way but to keep a roll of quarters in her fist and a razor blade in her teeth. When you take the oath – journalists don’t believe in oaths – lawyers swear to perform zealously for their client. By far, she’s the right’s most zealous national columnist.

So, in conclusion, I never want to be associated with Coulter or her ilk, and I dread the day they finally get their way and destroy all life on the planet, but there’s a Satanic art in her use of language, a destructive charm, and I kind of dig it. She makes my skin crawl. How many columnists do that?