Tue, March 6, 2007

I'm not ready to give Ann Coulter the benefit of the doubt and assume that she understands the concept of humor. If she is ever funny – and she almost never is – the laugh is unintended (i.e., we laugh in amazement that anyone can be so stomach-turningly horrible and say the things she says). She doesn't do it to be funny, nor does she do it to make a point (although she pretends she does). She does it to get attention and stir up arguments, because she and her type crave divisiveness. They think it gives them power, because if they create a divide, they define who gets to be on which side, and if they can get enough people to hate the "them" side, they can build a de facto "us" out of random, disparate groups who would otherwise have little in common (e.g., Ted Nugent, Ken Lay, Jerry Falwell).

The very first sketch of The 1/2 Hour News Hour, Fox News Channel's right-slanted retaliatory strike against The Daily Show, takes place in the Oval Office in January of 2009, with Rush Limbaugh as the freshly inaugurated president. Coulter appears as his VP and at the close of the sketch she threatens viewers that if they change the dial, "we're going to invade your countries, kill your leaders, and convert you to Christianity," in an apparent reference to a similar comment she made just after the attacks of September 11, 2001. This is the closest the show comes to making a joke about Republicans or conservatives, and it represents itself as sly self-deprecation. Still, I refuse to assume she knows why it's supposed to be funny, or even finds it humorous herself. I think, despite what the writers' intentions may be, she says it because it's incendiary, mean-sprited, and divisive, and these are her stock in trade. She believes it, even if the intended joke was about how she seems to believe it. After all, she wasn't kidding when she said it the first time.

But Coulter's latest vile slur includes a joke that's actually pretty funny, which means we must completely recalibrate our analysis. Here's what Coulter told the assembled Conservative Political Action Commission last week: "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,' so I can't really talk about Edwards." Now, of course this is hateful and horrible for many reasons:

• implying that John Edwards is gay (and that there would be anything wrong with it if he is; I mean, obviously this would be a liability vis-a-vis his wife and four children, but implying that it's wrong for a person to just be gay)

• insinuating that there should be no consequences for calling someone a hateful name

• whether or not her CPAC audience would happen to agree, assuming that everyone in attendance would share her disdain for homosexuals and her belief that they should be marginalized and called dirty names

• for that matter, furthering the unjust assumption that just because you vote Republican, support conservative candidates, or believe in conservative ideals, you are automatically anti-homosexual and would not object to slandering homosexuals (or using homosexuality to slander anyone) at a function devoted to the completely unrelated topic of politics and the race for the presidency (i.e., if you're wondering whether you agree with me, ask yourself: "Am I 'them'?")

Of course, Coulter likes it that way. (Mainly, she likes to use the word "faggot" in front of the broadest possible audience, because she knows it will get her some attention.) But it turns out it actually is pretty funny. Not the John Edwards part, of course, and not the "faggot" part. But easily the "rehab" part.

I would never defend Isaiah Washington's right to call T.R. Knight a "faggot" or harass homosexuals (or anyone) in his workplace. For one thing, it's rude, insensitive, and wrong (for another, you're on the set of a TV show, dude – if you seriously have a problem with gay people, you picked the wrong line of work). But the resulting media hullabaloo – which portrays hate speech as a prissy spat on the entertainment page, rather than a legitimate, shameful problem – is absolutely stupid, and worthy of any ridicule Coulter or others may wish to throw at it. Further, Washington's protracted, absurd version of the Pussy Apology is completely nuts. After finally even admitting it happened, his response was to check into "rehab" – pretending homophobia is something akin to Lindsay Lohan's bouts with "exhaustion." If this silly farce is the best attempt at closure that Washington and his PR hacks can devise, then we should not grant them the favor of considering the matter closed. Don't give Tim Hardaway credit for much, but at least he is who he is.

We all harbor irrational fear, hate, judgment, or fantasy. The measure of whether we're fit for society is how we allow it to affect our interaction with people. With regard to the personal consequences, it's sometimes a trade-off. If Washington worked in an office somewhere, he could probably get away with unleashing his gay-hate any time; the worst he'd likely face is being fired and having to find work in a different office. But he's a moron; he can't contain the gay-hate, but he still chooses a career which hinges on people's ability to like him, respect him, or at least tolerate him. Where, if he accidentally slurs a homosexual, he runs afoul of the media's asinine assumption that the utterances of well-paid, gorgeous celebrities are more important or revelatory than those of regular peons. So it's in the papers and now it's harder for him to get work on another TV show (or, for that matter, in another office – except certain offices in the South).

The whole situation deserves to be laughed at. But I don't think Coulter was going for this joke. She wasn't even necessarily going for the "Edwards is gay" joke – maybe she meant you can't say mean things about people (though she of all people can tell you that's false). She just wanted to say "faggot." Asked to defend herself, she made a joke that to call Edwards a faggot would be an insult to gay people. A very predictable joke even if it weren't spiteful toward all involved, which – this is Coulter, so of course it is. But I like where she's going with the "rehab" joke even though she doesn't know she's going there.

In the same way you can't say "Hello? We call it acting," without sounding like a 12-year-old girl, you can't ridicule the obviously ridiculous Isaiah Washington situation without sounding like Ann Coulter. So, for that and that alone, I have to say I'm kind of glad we have her around.

By the way, the Edwards campaign has decided to respond to her, which is sort of what you're not supposed to do. (To borrow a term from the neo-cons, responding to Coulter's slurs emboldens her.) Obviously no one in attendance at the CPAC event actually thinks Edwards is homosexual (if they're that delusional, they no longer need Coulter to steer them) and no one who was considering voting for him will change that based on this obviously false accusation. So, generally Edwards has little to gain by dignifying Coulter with a response and keeping her slur in the news cycle. But in this case, he's using it as a rallying point for an online fundraising drive – credit due to Edwards for making the best of it. He won't be in the race this time next year, so this is unlikely to bother Coulter, but still, good for him.

© onebee · all rights reserved