Coulter Didn’t Mean It, and Also, She Meant It and She Was Right
Interesting reactions to last night’s post quoting nk’s parody of Ann Coulter (you did realize that he was satirizing her comments . . . right?).
Xrlq says:
No one serious thinks she [Coulter] means they [the Jersey Girls] are enjoying their husbands’ deaths directly . . .
Meanwhile, another commenter who appears to be “serious” seems to think that Coulter did indeed mean that they are enjoying their husbands’ deaths directly. What’s more, the commenter speculates that Coulter might be right:
Patterico, here’s my question: what about the *merits* of Coulter’s claim? That the Jersey Widows are enjoying their husbands’ deaths. Maybe it’s true.
This echoes a similar comment made by Steve Sturm, another apparently serious person who made the following statement on Xrlq’s site:
I’m not jumping in to defend Coulter, but, even assuming Coulter implied these women are happy their husbands died (as opposed to their enjoying their new-found notoriety), what makes Patterico so sure that this is not true?
So there you have it. No serious person thinks Coulter meant the Jersey Girls are actually enjoying their husbands’ deaths. Also, some people do think that’s exactly what she meant, and suspect that she is correct. As Jim Treacher says:
I’m told she didn’t really mean it, even though it’s true and everybody else is just afraid to say it. . . . See, it’s LOGIC.
Gotta love it.
In any event, I hope you all read the update to my earlier post, in which I explained that I do not believe these women are immune from criticism. I just think that Coulter’s criticism went way, way over the line — and it’s part of a larger pattern.
Well, maybe. Possibly so. Could be. But even so, David Klinghoffer of NRO still hit the nail right smack on the head about all this — “If Coulter commits any indefensible excesses, they are small beans compared to her substantive, incisive, important main point.”
That’s pretty much how it is, no? The rest is just quibbles.
– Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.
Comment by Alan Cole — 6/13/2006 @ 7:13 pm
I agree that Coulter’s statement went too far, but I think her basic point about the left’s use of victims as spokespeople is valid. If she had kept her criticism to the content of their ideas and their undeserved platform it would have been very effective.
Now her entire point is overshadowed by all the fuss and furor over her. Which, based on her history, may be just the way she likes it.
Comment by Stephen Macklin — 6/13/2006 @ 7:15 pm
As I wrote here:
Comment by Tom — 6/13/2006 @ 7:53 pm
I think you are parsing too much. Clearly she meant that they are enjoying the results of their husband’s death. Not necessarily the actual deaths of their spouses (though you never know, it’s not like all marriages are happy).
Like Cindy Sheehan - she’s having the time of her life, all thanks to her son having been killed. Does anyone seriously believe she isn’t enjoying herself? Many of her statements & actions are downright morbid.
Comment by JeremyR — 6/13/2006 @ 8:15 pm
Clearly she meant that they are enjoying the results of their husband’s death.
This is clear to you, but not so clear even to other defenders of hers, as I point out in the post.
And as vile as I find some statements by the Cindy Sheehans of the world, I would never presume to say (as some commenters here have) that they wouldn’t take back their loved ones if they could, if it meant giving up their notoriety. Few people are so evil.
Comment by Patterico — 6/13/2006 @ 8:23 pm
Tom, #3:
“They have exacted tribute from us and exercised unwarranted influence in politics — simply because of the manner of their husbands’ deaths.”
So what do you think about Mothers Against Drunk Drivers? And John Walsh? Have you heard of Megan’s Law, passed in all 50 states? You may also think that Jessica Lunsford’s parents are exacting tribute from us — simply because of the manner of their daughter’s death? Pray to God that you never get so much to “enjoy”.
Signed: Boob who would do well to improve his command of English.
Comment by nk — 6/13/2006 @ 8:25 pm
All supporters of the Three Strikes law are “enjoying” the death of Polly Klaas. Right?
Comment by Patterico — 6/13/2006 @ 8:36 pm
Thank you, Patterico Comment #7. I’m sorry I left Polly Klaas out. In Illinois we have the case of Jeanine Nicarico whose parents have been fighting for justice for 23 years. At least the governor who pardoned the ____ twice convicted and once acquitted of her horrible death, and then reprieved even more horrible monsters, will get a small taste of justice.
Comment by nk — 6/13/2006 @ 8:47 pm
Good taste aside the problem with Coulter’s comment is that it takes the focus off the vile and indefensible conduct of the women in question.
Comment by kent — 6/13/2006 @ 10:11 pm
Three problems, Patterico. First, neither of those quotes is a solid counter-example to Xrlq’s claim. The first one may be reading “enjoying their husband’s death” the way I did, meaning “pleased at what they have been able to extract from their husband’s death”. The second one only accepted your interpretation hypothetically.
Second, you are implying some sort of inconsistency on the part of your opponents in this debate by assuming that each speaks for the other. Clearly that’s fanciful.
Third, there is nothing inconsistent in saying both that (1) You are violating the principle of charity in your reading of Coulter, and (2) even if Coulter meant what you think, it didn’t violate any accepted standards of behavior. I just wrote a new post arguing for (2) (I tracked-back to your previous post on this topic if you want to find it) and I’m planning to do another one tomorrow on the principle of charity in interpretation.
Hope you stop by again.
Comment by Doc Rampage — 6/13/2006 @ 11:14 pm
I think there are indefensible things out there.
Ann Coulter is one of them.
I’ve already hacked away at the propriety of her statements (short version: What? Who the hell implies evil *motives* of victims of terrible tragedies, when such is not supported by any evidence whatsoever?)
What of the efficacy of her statements? Is drawing in the Coulterites a good idea for Republicans? I was talking to a Democrat the other day (I often do this, I’m afraid) and he talked of the loons on his side fouling up his long-standing party. But moderate people making decisions on whether to join or stay in their political party - principled people, the people the Republican party should want under the tent - are going to stay away in droves if your flag-waver is crazy or obviously dangerous.
Maybe at the next RNC, we can line up a Pat Robertson-Pat Buchanan-Ann Coulter trifecta. And the next day, I’ll be a registered Democrat. And I won’t be alone.
–JRM
Comment by JRM — 6/13/2006 @ 11:19 pm
All right then,
Could someone please describe the PC expression of the followinging sentiment:
‘ Although saddened by the deaths of their spouses, the Jersey Girls are experiencing an inordinate level of moral authority on the issue.’
In the larger picture, it seems like the same old thing, someone is wronged and we throw all sorts of rights and privledge at them because of it. example: a young woman is struck down in her high school years by an unnoticed heart condition, she was popular and had a promising life ahead of her. But, because of her untimely death, we now have a city park named after her.
Now, naming a city park is no big deal, but thats life, some people die from illness, some people die from crazy people, drunk people and sometimes we die of our own stupidity. But my death doesn’t infer any new privledge on my survivors. THE LIFE I LIVED DOES. What was it about the Jersey MEN and their lives that made their wives such an authority? That is the question. I suspect that to the man they were hard working , loved their familes and thier country who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, unlike our service men who choose to go in harms way thereby (in my opinion)making their lives stand for something which is obvious to us all.
Comment by paul from fl — 6/14/2006 @ 4:54 am
“Few people are so evil.” Patterico
This is a naive concept. How about the 500,000,000 muslim men who treat women with contempt? How about the ~50,000,000
muslims who would welcome the opportunity to behead all infidels?
rab
Comment by rab — 6/14/2006 @ 5:34 am
“All supporters of the Three Strikes law are “enjoying” the death of Polly Klaas. Right?”
The situation is quite a bit different. First of all, the Klaas family did not get millions of donated money. The NYC widows and the “Jersey girls” did.
Secondly, the Klaas family focused on the perp. If the Jersey girls were focused on the perps who flew airlplanes into the WTC, I don’t think we’d be complaining. They have focused on the people who are trying to defend them. I don’t recall the Klaas family attacking the police although there was a very troubling incident when the child might have been rescued. Maybe you know of them complaining because that officer helped the perp get his car unstuck. I think that is a pretty good parallel.
I don’t read Coulter’s books and think she gets over the top too often but she is nothing like the nut jobs on the Democratic side. They make their nut jobs chairman of the party. And seat them at the convention in places of honor. Quite a bit different. George HW Bush let Pat Buchanan speak at his convention in 1992. That’s as far as I can find a parallel.
Comment by Mike K — 6/14/2006 @ 6:08 am
OK, you got me there. When I said “no one,” I should have said “no one whose head isn’t lodged firmly up his [non-expletive swear word deleted].” On H&C, Coulter was asked point-blank if she doubted whether the Jersey Girls would gladly trade all their fame, money, etc. to get their husbands back, and her answer was that she didn’t know.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/14/2006 @ 7:10 am
If the JG’s are severe enough narcissists, they can “enjoy” the fact of their husbands’ deaths without any help at all, and in total disregard for the effect of death upon their husbands.
When they seek or respond to the cynical, and even perfidious uses found for their happenstance status by others, it does make it appear quite possible that they are narcissists - though they could be availing themselves of these options for other, valid or at least understandable reasons.
I think Coulter initially really was calling out the JG’s on the charge of narcissism, and also outing the perfidious and cynical users of anyone merely happening to find themself in certain categories, thus valued as tools.
In my view Coulter did what needed to be done, and she deserves to enjoy it: because if it turns out that some people like the JG’s are simply susceptible to being used, especially if due to their genuinely experienced loss, it’s the cynical and perfidious users who should be hammered and vilified, not Ann Coulter.
Why pretend? We know the game by now.
Comment by J. Peden — 6/14/2006 @ 7:44 am
[…] To whet your appetite, here’s Michael Smerconish laying down the law on AC tonight on Scarborough Country. I should have had video of that too, but my goddamned computer malfunctioned. Expose the Left should have it later. Also, John Hawkins interviews Coulter; Patterico observes a contradiction within the pro-Coulter camp; and AC reaps the whirlwind on the NY Times bestseller list. […]
Pingback by Hot Air » Blog Archive » Coultermania! Leno smackdown preview — 6/14/2006 @ 7:58 pm
Mike K,
You’re missing my point entirely. It’s not a comment about the Klaas family. It’s about people who want to read the word “enjoy” in a strained way that defies common sense and commonly accepted and understood usage. My example merely illustrates how strained the pro-Coulter reading really is.
Comment by Patterico — 6/14/2006 @ 8:53 pm
I guess it depends on the use of ‘enjoy.’ For example, to quote m-w.com:
transitive senses
1 : to have for one’s use, benefit, or lot : EXPERIENCE
2 : to take pleasure or satisfaction in
I, personally, think Ann meant #1 and not #2. It seems to me that they did ‘enjoy #1′ (benefit from or use) their husband’s death and were able to amplify their anti-Bush message.
Comment by Jeff — 6/14/2006 @ 8:58 pm
Hence my Polly Klaas example.
Comment by Patterico — 6/14/2006 @ 8:59 pm
Good grief . . . some of you guys seem so dense I can’t help but wonder if it is deliberate. If you think Ann Coulter’s rhetoric is not to be taken seriously or is over the top, then you clearly do not understand the issue. Ann told Leno that she has accomplished her goal of drawing attention to the liberal stategy of using victims to criticize the administration or conservative ideology on the grounds that such victims are immune from criticism because they are grieving victims: “I guess they won’t be doing that anymore.” To draw a moral equivalence between the liberals’ use of victims to stifle free speech from the right and Mothers Against Drunk Driving or Polly Klaus, et al., is patently offensive. MADD is indeed comprised of victims who have turned their grief into a change in public policy concerning the dangers of drunk driving. The Jersey Girls were Democrat Party members who are fronted by the DNC in an effort to influence the public in an attempt to regain political power. Is there anyone in their right mind who honestly believes that the Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Berg, etc., who are attempting to influence public policy to save lives? If so, how are they doing that — by criticizing the President? Rather, they are enjoying their notoriety by gaining national attention to espouse their political beliefs to help Democrats regain power. The tragic deaths of each of their family members no more qualifies them as experts on terrorism, war, or foreign policy than the death of my wife in childbirth makes me an obstetrician. Patterico, your unfounded criticism of Ann Coulter is indeed disappointing and smacks of a personal problem with her. It doesn’t appear to be based on anything substantive because you haven’t articulated a cogent substantive response yet. C’mon . . . please refrain from giving liberals a platform for criticizing conservatism by crucifying the messenger. Get a grip.
Comment by Craig W. Sanders — 6/14/2006 @ 11:57 pm
To draw a moral equivalence between the liberals’ use of victims to stifle free speech from the right and Mothers Against Drunk Driving or Polly Klaus, et al., is patently offensive.
Trust me that I’m being sincere, and not simply confrontational, when I say that you don’t have the slightest understanding of what my argument really is. The part I just quoted proves it.
I’m growing tired of repeating myself to folks like you who swoop in and think you understand my argument when you plainly do not.
Start by reading the update to this post.
The Klaas example is there to respond to people who say that “enjoying their husbands’ deaths” really means “enjoying a secondary benefit resulting from their husbands’ deaths, which they didn’t enjoy.” That’s like saying “Californians are enjoying Polly Klaas’s death” when you mean “Californians are enjoying the benefits of the Three Strikes law, which resulted from Polly Klaas’s death, which Californians didn’t enjoy.”
That makes no sense. Which casts doubt on the interpretation of Coulter.
It would be legit to say: “Californians are enjoying the benefits of Three Strikes, which ironically resulted from Polly Klaas’s death, which everyone of course regrets.” Just like it would have been legit for Coulter to say: “The Jersey Girls are enjoying their notoriety, which ironically results from their husbands’ deaths, which no sensible person would claim they are hapy about.”
But that’s not what she said. Instead she chose to say something very deliberately hurtful.
That was my point. See it now?
Comment by Patterico — 6/15/2006 @ 12:50 am
Let us see how using m-w.com definition #1 (to have for one’s use, benefit, lot) works in the sentence:
“I have never seen anyone benefit from the deaths of the 9/11 victims and the grief of their families so much.”
or
“I have never seen anyone use the deaths of the 9/11 victims and the grief of their families so much.”
It seems that in context of her overall point of people exploiting their victim hood, the first definition does indeed fit.
She could also be making a point like Tammy Bruce would make about the narcissistic tendencies of the left. In that case, they could also “taking pleasure” in the deaths of their husbands. It would be like the person that wallows in their pain to get attention from others. Hmmm, maybe that does fit.
Of all the interviews I have seen with Ann Coulter her point is consistent with the first definition (benefiting). The benefit they get is the shield from criticism (the point of the whole chapter of the book). She doesn’t appear to be talking about narcissism.
Comment by Jeff — 6/15/2006 @ 2:10 am
I found a bigger quote from the book:
“These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them.”
In this context using the word “enjoy” later on in the chapter does seems to fit definition #2. It does appear that the word “enjoy” is indeed the right word for this. Ann is pointing out the narcissism on the left.
After seeing the context, I still agree with Ann. As Tammy Bruce points out, this is not an uncommon problem with people the extreme left. I would not be surprised that these women are narcissistic enough to enjoy their husband’s death. They are not turning grief over a loved one into a crusade for justice. Instead, they did all sorts of things to make sure the blame fell only on Bush.
It seems to me that true grief would crave justice, not politics.
Comment by Jeff — 6/15/2006 @ 2:43 am
Jim Treacher: if you were responding to me, I would answer that severe narcissists do have a perverse sort of pleasureable enjoyment, self-fixated as it is and only can be. Cindy Sheehan is probably one such person, unless her pathologic behavior can be explained by the use something like a mind-altering drug such as an amphetimine, or by a psychosis or mild mania, which I assume are not present.
But I don’t think she can get off with being normal: her son was killed doing what he thought he should do to defend us all, one of the most honorable things possible. She then turns it around so that it was her who was most harmed by the fact of his death, instead of him, not caring that she thus disparages the very thing he died for, along with him very personlly too - the very source of her status and strength, her own son. She has taken his power in every way she can, including the power she derives for disparaging his power.
She then proceeds to do all manner of things which always attempt to bring disrespect to her son, for which she is praised and often given the center of attention, allowing her to try to parasitize George Bush, then finally pushing her narcissism hopefully to the hilt by claiming the Universe has placed her here to reroute humankind to a new form of enlightened and more perfect existence - or something like that. Thus she manages to place herself at the center of the Universe.
So she is probably very severely narcissistically grandiose in her own necessarily limited view, which only she can validly have. And she does enjoy her narcissism as a perverse pleasure, and everything which grants her narcissism the opportunity for sustaining or enlarging itself, including the fact of her own son’s death and all that it then brings her. She’s quite a specimen.
I thought Ann Coulter was seeing this in the Jersey Girls, which one of my sisters, who is very attuned to self-centered psychological dysfunctions, was also seeing in the Jersey Girls. But who cares anyway, since I am the most important person around, and you know it.. You were talking to me, right? You can’t deny it, and even if you do, I’ll only take that, too, as a sign of my importance..
Comment by J. Peden — 6/15/2006 @ 4:26 am
Patterico, thanks for responding to my comment (I’m the commenter quoted in the post), but I have three things to say in response:
(1) You said he “seems to think that Coulter did indeed mean that they are enjoying their husbands’ deaths directly”. OK maybe I “seem” to think that, but I didn’t actually say that, and, in fact, I didn’t take a position on whether Coulter meant it literally. That’s another question, which should be addressed as well, and many people are addressing that issue. But my issue, re truthfulness, seems to be being ignored.
(2) Yes. I speculate that Coulter may be right. No one, anywhere that I can find, will address that question. Is Coulter’s statement true? If we decide that Coulter’s statement is false, then we would have to decide whether it was rude enough to warrant excluding here from civil conversation, which is what most of the argument is about. If the statement is true, however, then there is nothing wrong with Coulter’s having stated it. Would you agree with that?
(3) If you think investigating the truthfulness or untruthfulness (is that a word?) of Coulter’s statement is impossible because it relates to the JG’s internal feelings, I responded to that in comment 59 to the 6/12 Coulter post, a part of which I’m copying here:
[Anwyn] also said “Ann expressed her opinion, totally ineligible for proof either for or against.” I disagree. Demeanor evidence is probative, not just in court, but in all of life. Have you never had someone lie to your face and you knew it? Have you never seen a conversation and said, person A is enjoying this conflict too much, or just wants to win and doesn’t care about the issues? Admittedly, those are examples where the thing you are deciding on is less insulting or less important than what Coulter said, but you still make judgments based on people’s demeanor all the time. We can and should judge Coulter’s statements that are based on demeanor after seeing and judging that demeanor. Of course, this assumes that you agree that truthfulness is a reasonable defense to a severe insult.
This may be redundant, but I’m frustrated: Why is no one responding to the merits of Coulter’s statement? (I changed it from “claim” in my previous post to “statement” here because I understand “claim” implies I believe she believes the statement.) What am I missing here? I noticed that you said in one of these many posts or comments something like no decent person could be happy about her husband’s death. OK. True. Why are we assuming the JG’s are decent?
Comment by D Huff — 6/15/2006 @ 4:30 pm
Nice Huff. We all tend to seek invulnerability in our position; this is why we have laws against monopoly economic positions. Insofar as the JG seem to be enjoying their ‘monopoly position’ in the argument based on their husbands’ death I think it is fair to say they are enjoying that aspect of their husbands’ deaths.
Comment by michael — 6/15/2006 @ 4:43 pm
D Huff — usually I prefer to assume that people are decent until presented with evidence to the contrary. I do not assume that they are indecent until presented with evidence of their decency.
If there is merit in Coulter’s claim, it is incumbent upon her to demonstrate it. Absent such a demonstration from her, or some sort of visible evidence which cannot be ignored, the claim is outrageous on its face and not worthy of further investigation.
Comment by aphrael — 6/15/2006 @ 4:56 pm
aphrael, thanks for responding. I think you’re right as to why people are ignoring my question. Basically, Coulter’s statement is so offensive that she’s obligated to prove it at the time of making the statement. OK. I can kind of buy that. Not sure if I agree or not but I’m going to drop it for now. Actually it makes me feel better that probably everyone agrees with my assertion: If the statement is true, then Coulter hasn’t done anything wrong. Interesting. Thanks.
Comment by D Huff — 6/15/2006 @ 8:26 pm