Saturday, October 13, 2007

Ann Coulter, Jewish People, Kittens

When the announcement for Ann Coulter's new book came out, I predicted that Ann would try to stimulate sales by putting in a picture of herself biting the head off a kitten.

Given that the kitten is still alive, the prediction would seem to be wrong.

Instead, Ann is trying to goose her sales by dabbling in anti-semitism. You can't help but admire the clever way that Coulter steers interviewer Donnie Deutsche toward her anti-semitic comments on "The Big Idea." When Deutsch asks Coulter about her ideal version of America, she describes the 2004 Republican convention (via African-American Political Pundit).
In her recollection of the convention, she said: "People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America."
Of course, Republican delegates were also overwhelmingly white, straight, and very well off. By focusing on Christianity, however, Coulter leads Deutsche into his next question.
"It would be better if we were all Christian?"
Now, Coulter is off to the races. Having set up the question about not accepting other religions, Coulter answers with a simple "yes" as a way to focus the interview on her favorite terrain, i.e., the question of whether she's a bigot, in this case whether she's anti-semitic.
" When pressed by Deutsch regarding whether she wanted to be like "the head of Iran" and "wipe Israel off the Earth," Coulter stated: "No, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws."
Under more questioning about whether she was being "offensive," Coulter continued:

"No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament."

It's almost needless to say, but Ann ends her anti-semitic statement by implying that it's really the Jews who are prejudiced. "We believe your testament, but you don't believe ours." I swear that sometimes I think there must be a Bigotry for Dummies book that instructs racists, homophobes, and religious zealots to end every statement with a claim that minorities are the ones who are the real bigots.

So, what's the meaning of it all?

Obviously, Ann Coulter is trying to increase sales of her book by being "outrageous" and the Anti-Defamation League gives her a hand by being "outraged":
"Coulter's remarks are outrageous, offensive and a throwback to the centuries-old teaching of contempt for Jews and Judaism.
But there are some interesting considerations there. For example, it looks to me like Ann Coulter--who is as good at political calculations as anybody--has decided that there's no chance for a Republican presidential candidate to get anywhere with the Jewish vote. So, why not start a controversy over anti-semitism if that's going to help her sell books. It's not like she would think that Jewish people are a group that actually matters to the Republican Party or the conservative movement.

That's the same calculation that goes into Coulter's gay-baiting of people like Bill Clinton and John Edwards. If Republicans had a shot at the gay vote, she probably wouldn't do it.

Beneath that calculation, there's another calculation that should disturb Jewish leaders much more than Coulter's "outrageous" comments. If Ann Coulter is going to get out this kind of casual anti-semitism, then it's quite likely that she doesn't think that the Jewish community is capable of anything more than impotent outrage.

If I were a Jewish leader, I'd be much more worried about the political calculation behind the insult than the insult itself.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Does that bitch ever shut up?? And if she's gonna keep running her mouth does she ALWAYS have to beat up on the already downtrodden?

Okay, two stupid questions. Ann Coulter wants to make money. That's why she engages in hate-speech and character assasination and now, extreme religious bigotry with some very subtle misinterpretations of the difference between modern Judaism and ancient scriptures.

Now I do not doubt that Coulter would be happier if her party and her twisted ideology were the most prevalent, however she can live with being a member of an irrelevant party with horribly untutored views and 19th century views as long as it means more zeroes in her bank balance.

So she makes anti-African American remarks. She says women shouldn't be able to vote. She slams Jews for daring to believe differently from her. She says those of us on the left are dragging the country to hell. We're "Godless" in "Coulter-speak."

She is no better than the paparazzi who relentlessly seek the lowest common denominator in the stories they print and the pictures they publish of their targets. She reminds me of those disgusting photographers who chased Princess Diana to her death 10 years ago. They wanted money and limelight and if a great/good lady had to die, so be it.

Ann Coulter's words and ideas are indeed better suited to The National Enquirer than a publishing company. She is one of many on the extreme right who fit that description.

Anonymous said...

Why is there no resounding condemnation of her comments from the Right wing politically folks?

Just silence on her offensive remarks. Does she have to be a professor for David Horowitz to attack her? Where is Jeff Goldstein? His gollum (JD)? Where are the people who so offended by any mention of the word "Jew" or "Israel" from a left-wing politician??

Anonymous said...

"It's almost needless to say, but Ann ends her anti-semitic statement by implying that it's really the Jews who are prejudiced."

How could any adherent to a religion not be prejudiced toward others? It seems to me only agnostics could view them all equally. I do, and I am an agnostic. If I sometime do make up my mind to select a single religion to believe in, wouldn't it be implicit that I considered it superior to all others?

Just because you guys seem to consider religion a matter of fashion and convenience doesn't mean others do. Any True Believer is going to want to convert everyone to their belief system, it is the way this shit works. Coulter is a True Believer, just like most Progressives.

B Moe

Anonymous said...

"Any True Believer is going to want to convert everyone to their belief system, it is the way this shit works."

That simply is not true. I, for one, am Jewish, but I do not believe that my path, the path that is right for me, is the right path for anyone else. I believe that there are multiple paths to the same end.

Under Jewish law, rabbis are required to say "no" to prospective converts many times before agreeing to teach them and, after much study, convert them. You may recall an episode of Sex in the City where one of the characters has a door slammed in her face repeated by a rabbi.

Faith is very personal. Just because you don't have any, doesn't give you the right to put down those of us who do or generalize and mischaracterize our views.

Anonymous said...

"That simply is not true. I, for one, am Jewish, but I do not believe that my path, the path that is right for me, is the right path for anyone else. I believe that there are multiple paths to the same end."

How can you believe that Jesus was the Savior for some Jews and not others? You can say you respect their opinions, but you obviously think they are wrong or you would be a Christian. The fact that you may be reluctant to accept converts hardly proves a lack of prejudice, now does it?

"Faith is very personal. Just because you don't have any, doesn't give you the right to put down those of us who do or generalize and mischaracterize our views."

I capitalized True Believer for a reason, it is a book by Eric Hofer(sp?) that explains and examines the personalities and dynamics of religious (and political) zealotry. I did not mean to imply that all religions are imperialistic, but certainly many of them are. And your implication that because I lack faith I am somehow lacking perspective rather proves my point, don't you think?

You must understand that I don't accept the common absolute negativity associated with the word prejudice. It seems to me being prejudiced is a natural human reaction, and is not necessarily a bad thing. I doubt that Todd Mayo hangs out down at the Country Club, for example, and I don't feel the lessor of him for that.

B Moe

Anonymous said...

Actually I do "hang out" at the Lexington Country Club on occaision. My aunt and uncle who live down there are members, principally so my uncle can golf on a private course. It's not a restricted club if you were thinking of bringing that up.

And "B MOE" I do not think any less of you because my family can afford to be members there and yours cannot. Given your love of all things exclusive I should think you'd admire the idea that I rub elbows on occasion with the Bluegrass's Blue Bloods.