Ann Coulter's book,
Godless, released this week, has already prompted
at least 57 diaries here, at least 7 just today. Several diaries vilified her claims and her character (some using
unacceptable personal attacks to do so). As we enter the pre-election book-publishing season, we will see an explosion of absurd right-wing claims that will engender an equally large response on-line. In case you haven't gotten it yet, that's their job.
This diary isn't about them. It's a meta diary about how we respond. I'd like to suggest it is more effective to address the claim, not the writer. Below, I'll explain how the right-wing media helps Republican candidates to triangulate, and how we can keep from playing into it.
The term
triangulation entered the political lexicon as Bill Clinton positioned himself to the left of Republicans and to the right of traditional Democrats. You don't need to move the candidate to triangulate, though -- it works just as well if you move the extremes.
When a right-wing pundit makes an outrageous claim against the September 11 widows group, she is pushing the far-right extreme farther right. The claim is so absurd that it generates publicity, it sells books, it garners speaking engagements -- she profits. And hard-right Republican candidates begin to look moderate by comparison.
Consider the following drafts of a diary (thanks to Sirocco for working through this with me in comments elsewhere):
Traditional
Ann Coulter doesn't really care about the suffering of terrorist victims, as her latest utterings illustrate. See, Ann Coulter's only interest in terrorist attacks on America is as a propaganda tool to push her book sales and her miserable TV show. And then she says that Democrats don't have solutions to make America safer? Meanwhile, there is Coulter blaming the victim and calling for more violence against Americans. What is wrong with her?
Note that this passage demonizes the pundit herself, and gives plenty of room to Republicans to keep to her left without crossing the center line.
De-Triangulated
The right doesn't really care about the suffering of terrorist victims, as Coulter's latest utterings and the failure to denounce them illustrate. See, the right's only interest in terrorist attacks on America is as a propaganda tool to push their agenda. Bush has been cutting anti-terror funds for New York while giving hand-outs to areas that voted for him -- compare that with Democrats who are actually proposing solutions to make America safer. Meanwhile, here are conservatives blaming the victim and calling for more violence against Americans. Who are you going to vote for?
This passage intentionally conflates the pundit's message with the opinions of Republican politicians. It gives the impression that her attention-grabbing assertion is a view that is shared by the Republican leadership and is shaping Republican policy. It leaves the burden to Republican candidates to waste time trying to distance themselves from her.
I'm hoping that this particular round of kerfuffle is over. But it is going to surface again, several times, as we approach the elections. These are only suggestions that I think make an argument more effective -- in a nutshell:
Regard the pundit as an empty vessel for Republican claims. Ignore the pundit personally, refute the claims, and tie them explicitly to bad Republican policy.
If you can make Ann Coulter's words come out of a Republican candidate's mouth, you have won the game: You have de-triangulated the Right.