By Joseph J. SabiaPublished 10/4/2001
ITHACA--Conservative political circles are abuzz with talk of the recent firing of Cornell alumna Ann Coulter '85 from National Review Online (NRO). Coulter and NRO editor Jonah Goldberg have traded vicious barbs since the dissolution of their relationship, with Coulter calling the NRO staff a bunch of "girly-boys" and Goldberg referring to Coulter as a "crappy writer". It certainly has been amusing to watch, especially for fans of both Goldberg and Coulter.
Allegedly, the incidents that precipitated Coulter's departure were her two most recent columns on the terrorist attacks. In the first, she said of the terrorists, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." In the second, she argued, "We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males."
These comments are clearly not outrageous. Why is there so much furor over wanting to convert terrorists to Christianity? Fundamentalist Christians do not plan mass murders in the name of Allah by slamming planes into skyscrapers. A growing number of Islamic Fundamentalists do. Additionally, as Coulter argued, exporting Christianity has been a policy of the United States government in the past as when General Douglas MacArthur called for the deployment of Christian missionaries to Korea.
Her second comment about "swarthy males" is certainly more controversial given that racial profiling is viewed as more heinous than pedophilia in most elite circles. Coulter would probably argue that the effort to curb terrorism is not aided if authorities are forced to stop as many white Jewish girls carrying Prada bags as suspicious-acting Arabs. Politically incorrect? You bet. But out of bounds? No way. Liberals are able to advocate racial profiling in admission to universities (via quotas), so why is it out of bounds for Coulter to make a similar argument?
"But Sabia," you say, "with racial profiling, a guy is targeted for questioning by the police because of his race. In affirmative action, a guy is targeted to help him get an education."
Tell that to the white guy who did not get into Cornell, Penn, or NYU because of a racial quota. I think that he is slightly more inconvenienced than an Arab who has to endure a few extra questions or has to take a later flight. The point is that Coulter's support of racial profiling is a legitimate political position in the times in which we live.
Jonah Goldberg is disingenuous when he states that Ann Coulter is a bad writer and what is more, he knows it. Agree or disagree with her views, Coulter is one of the most entertaining, thought-provoking conservative columnists today. That is why NRO hired her. That is why Goldberg's site promoted her recent articles by placing the "convert them to Christianity" line on the main page of their site, serving as a link to her article. They know that Coulter's opinions catch readers' attention.
So why was Coulter really fired? Goldberg has been all over the place on this one. First it was:
"We didn't feel we wanted to be associated with the comments expressed in those two columns. We got a lot of complaints from sponsors and a lot of complaints from readers left, right and center. We've decided for editorial reasons we think are sound that we're no longer going to run Ann Coulter's syndicated column."
Then it was:
"The problem with Ann's first column was its sloppiness of expression and thought…she failed as writer."
And finally it was:
"What publication on earth would continue a relationship with a writer who would refuse to discuss her work with her editors? What publication would continue to publish a writer who attacked it on TV? What publication would continue to publish a writer who lied about it - on TV and to a Washington Post reporter?…She behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty."
The first two explanations offered by Goldberg were as goofy as most of his columns about his talking stomach. First he says that her opinions are making everyone mad and then he says that she cannot form a coherent opinion. In my experience, incoherent opinions tend not to generate too much anger. So these arguments are bunk.
The third explanation gets as close to the truth as we are going to get. From NRO's point of view, Coulter was a nightmare to have on staff because she's a jerk. Goldberg says that she was disloyal for going on Bill Maher's show and to the Washington Post to bash National Review. Fine, she's a disloyal jerk. And NRO has every right to fire her for that. This is America, after all.
Goldberg is correct in his assertion that Coulter's appearance on "Politically Incorrect" was terribly unbecoming. She accused NRO of "censoring" her and "repealing the First Amendment." It is very sad to see a brilliant Constitutional lawyer invoking the First Amendment as a simple rhetorical tool to gain sympathy and support. Coulter has no Constitutional right to be employed by NRO and she knows that.
At the heart of the divorce between NRO and Coulter is a battle of egos. Goldberg resents that Coulter is a mini-celebrity on the talk-show circuit (calling her a "PR-hungry, free-swinging pundit") while he gets few invites because he is a terminally tedious speaker. Coulter hates having to answer to a boss who dares criticize her judgment.
The marriage was destined to fail. The beauty is that we can still enjoy all of the egos--the "thin, short-skirted blonde" at Front Page Magazine and the "girly-boys" at NRO. And we can only pray that the nasty exchanges will continue.
.
.
