Conservative's Coulter problem

You most likely have heard the story: Ann Coulter, speaking at last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, said, “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.'” This comment was met with a raucous standing ovation from the crowd of Reaganites and Social Conservatives in attendance at the biggest Conservative political conference of the year. Why would such unapologetic hate speech be met with such approval? The answer reflects a serious problem not in Ann Coulter, but in the Conservative movement itself.

It is instructive to take a look some other sparkling moments in Coulter’s career to gain a little insight into why she has such a following in the Conservative movement. Last year, at the same event, she called Arabs “ragheads” and warned them of the impending violence that would befall them. She also called for the murder of Supreme Court justices whose rulings did not fit her broad, sensible worldview. Both statements were met with extended ovations. She has attacked the widows of those killed in the Sept. 11 attacks, remarking, “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.” This acid-tongued commentary has earned her a multimillion dollar career, with several hugely popular books and Fox News appearances to prove it. With this is mind, why is Coulter so successful? It’s simple. Conservatives love hatred.

Now, I’m not saying that Coulter has no right to say the things that she says. She enjoys the right to free speech, just like every other American under the First Amendment (well, except for those pesky war protesters). But when such vitriolic speech finds such a receptive audience in American Conservatives, one needs to examine the culture of the parties that consume it. Many in the Conservative crowd may publicly disavow themselves of Coulter’s comments, like her favored 2008 Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. Many may think she was just there for the comic relief, an acerbic jester in a crowd of serious political commentary. But their unconvincing rebukes of Coulter belie her huge popularity within conservative circles. Immediately after her speech at CPAC, the line for her book-signing table was out the door. The American Conservative Union, the primary sponsor of the event, said that they did not “condone or endorse” her use of “hate speech.”

But when Coulter has such a strong record of comments condoning violence against individual racial groups, advocating the murder of the most important legal minds in the country, of such “hate speech,” one must wonder why the ACU saw fit to invite her to the conference in the first place. One must also wonder why she received standing ovations throughout her speech, if so many individuals would later refuse to endorse it. Of particular interest to me is whether Romney will not only refuse to endorse the comments of Coulter, but to refuse her general endorsement as well. Surely the Romney campaign doesn’t want the support of someone who is so outspokenly bigoted and hateful toward homosexuals.

Unfortunately, the logical arguments of the above paragraph will not resonate with the Conservatives who love Coulter. They are why hateful commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will always find a home on a Conservative news outlet like Fox News.

Ultimately, Coulter’s statement is incredibly useful in examining the nature of the modern Conservative movement in the United States. It thrives on hatred and fear. Hatred and fear of homosexuals, Mexican immigrants, Iran, of anything “Liberal.” It is this hatred and fear that drives Conservatism, that drives Conservatives to clamor for “strong” leaders like George W. Bush. It is the Conservative Coulter problem.

Zach Austin is a political science junior and Mustang Daily political columnist.