What is Ann Coulter?

Doug H. writes:

A few months back, you made some critical comments regarding Ann Coulter. I don’t remember the specifics, but it threw me off. I have always been somewhat of a fan of hers, especially after reading a couple of her books. After the latest spat she had with Joseph Farah over her decision to speak at the conservative homosexual convention, I can see she was not really a conservative.

I don’t understand why the so-called mainstream conservatives continue to call themselves such. It seems to me their convictions line up more with libertarians. They also want limited government but don’t really care about social issues. I would like to see CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Committee) renamed the Libertarian Political Action Committee.

LA replies:

It is true that many so-called conservative writers ride on the conservative train and make their living in the conservative world, but are really libertarians. Such people are guilty of bad faith in my opinion. However, I don’t know that it’s entirely fair to say that about Coulter. In fact, it’s difficult to sum her up politically, since she doesn’t seem to have any coherent political outlook. Her writings consist mainly of snarky, sarcastic, sometimes very perceptive comments about liberals, not of any articulated positions of her own.

For example, what is her position on homosexual “marriage”? Offhand, I don’t know, and after searching the topic at her website and at VFR for a few minutes, I still don’t know. She ably picks apart the Dems on the issue, but it’s not clear what she herself thinks about it. My guess is that she’s anti-homosexual marriage, pro-“civil unions,” which is about as conservative as being anti-Communism, pro-socialism.

By the way, here is a witty comment by her in a 2004 column:

Gay marriage is a tricky issue for the Democrats due to the fact that—like taxes, defense and education—they are forced to lie about their position when running for office. In other words, Democrats are gay marriage supporters trapped in the bodies of candidates who oppose gay marriage.

- end of initial entry -

Mark P. writes:

I think that there should be a special category for so-called “female conservatives” like Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, etc. These women should be more appropriately called “Republican Feminists.” These type of women have, through some accident of circumstance, discovered that liberalism does not benefit them. So, they gravitate to the Republican side as a useful foil against which to fight that which does not benefit them. But, they are not really conservatives. They just want to banish those parts of liberalism or feminism that do not benefit them.

This is why Ann Coulter has no problems with homosexuality. Women, in general, like gay men because it allows them to interface with men on a level they understand and in the absence of any sexual tension. Ann Coulter is like any other woman in this respect. Her conservatism goes out the window as soon as her status is under no real threat. The same thing with Sarah Palin.

LA replies:

This needs to be fleshed out more. What are the parts of liberalism that do not benefit Coulter, or Palin? Give us a sample scenario of one of your Republican feminists, who discovers that liberalism does not benefit her in some way, and gravitates to the Republican side, and then gravitates back to the liberal side.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 21, 2010 06:56 PM | Send