The difference between the way people treat Ann Coulter and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has nothing to do with who is the better liar (“Coulter receives most criticism when Ahmadinejad deserves it,” Oct. 17, p. 9). It has everything to do with American tolerance for ridiculousness. To some, namely the ones that still shiver at the phrase “axis of evil,” Ahmadinejad is evil incarnate. To the rest of us, he’s a paper mache Mephistopheles. What’s the point of even booing him? Ann Coulter, on the other hand, has not quite descended to that level of ridicule — there are people who really listen to her, and they live within our borders. To some, she is that last bastion of hope against the godless liberal horde. People believe her. People believe her! That is why she is a more serious threat and more deserving of bile and booing and whatever else we can throw at her.
Nevertheless, I was willing to grant Ben Keil’s premise until the last line: “Maybe someday, we’ll listen to what speakers have to say based on the merits of their arguments, and not who they insult from the podium.” Isn’t hurling insults from whatever podium or truck stop she is granted essentially Coulter’s M.O.? If you think even she believes that her arguments actually have merit, that strikes me as very sad. Ann Coulter intentionally creates backlash every time she opens her mouth, and she knows too well what to say every time; she can’t possibly believe it all. But there are people, American people, who do not see this, and that is why her words are more dangerous than Ahmadinejad’s. His hateful speeches make us more aware of hate speech and drive down its legitimacy in the collective consciousness. Coulter only furthers the agenda of hate simply by masquerading as being up front with her bigotry — and we are supposed to find this somehow respectable?
Zachary Little
CAS ’10