Liberals and conservatives alike awe at the deterioration of public discourse in this country and claim it signals the downfall of our republic. Liberals blame Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, while conservatives blame "The Daily Show" and Michael Moore. Neither side adds much to the debate other than fuel to the fire.
Is there actually any merit to this criticism from right and left? There is a notion that America used to be made up of respectable statesmen appealing to a respectable public. But, as Donald Rumsfeld put it, "democracy is messy" - a comment that applies equally to Iraq and the United States - and so is freedom of expression. From the beginning of U.S. history, politicians such as Thomas Jefferson have been accused, often by reporters such as James Callender, of moral crimes such as sleeping with their slaves.
More recently, Bill Clinton was accused of committing a number of acts with various women, which I had to ask my parents at the time to explain. In the cases of Jefferson and Clinton, allegations initially considered outlandish slander proved to be at least partially true with hindsight.
Yet Ann Coulter's recent and not very subtle implication that John Edwards is gay - "faggot" was her word of choice - stands out, even against the backdrop of this time-honored tradition of political assault. Even in the pugnacious world of conservative journalism, this charge stood out. This accusation threw Edwards' campaign into panic mode. That in itself should be the story - that being called gay is still a serious insult, not just on the playground but in "grown-up" politics.
It's one thing for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, to say homosexuality is "immoral." We may not like to hear these things, much less from important figures, but General Pace was merely expressing his own belief, not hurling unfounded statements about a married man. Ann Coulter's comment raises true questions about abusing, or at least misusing, the right to free speech.
It might be possible that Coulter knows something we don't, as James Callender did about Jefferson. But more likely, she's doing what she has always done, and what has made her famous: attacking liberals, provoking a backlash and then lashing back against the backlash. I'm sure this whole affair will lead to a very good book (she's already written one called "Slander").
We shouldn't rush to condemn her remarks, as Edwards' campaign did. Were Ann Coulter an elected representative, or campaigning to become one, her slanderous libel of Edwards would be an issue of public concern.
But Coulter is a normal citizen, just with an oversized soapbox. Denounce her all you want - in the end, it just gives her more attention and ammunition. She thrives off of liberal overreaction. The only way to lessen the efficacy of figures such as Coulter is, when they strike one cheek to "offer also the other," as a wise leader said a few thousand years ago.
Her remarks, and her style, are not out of line with American history - and that suggests our republic can withstand this kind of slander. However, Edwards' campaign couldn't resist overreacting. Its Web site says: "Ann Coulter's use of an anti-gay slur yesterday was un-American and indefensible." Calling someone a "faggot," no matter how anti-gay you are, isn't in the same league as calling someone un-American. Coulter simply called someone gay - something countless people do every day, even here at Brown. But Edwards' team decided to channel Joe McCarthy by suggesting Coulter's words have no place in America or in its inner debate.
It is this kind of mutual attacking that makes money for politicians. For Coulter, it sells books, even though her Web sites lost ads from Verizon. Edwards, meanwhile, used Coulter's remark as an excuse to raise $100,000 of "Coulter Cash" for his campaign. Coulter would have been wise not to say what she said, and Edwards' people would've been wiser to be more tactful and not denounce her statement the way they did. Some would say that at least one of these verbal assailants is violating the rules of decency that must be followed to hold our liberal society together. While there's nothing unconstitutional about this (nor should there be), perhaps this country would at least function better if we were all a bit more courteous.
As I've explained with two prominent examples - Jefferson with his slaves and Clinton with his interns - presidents can still function while their dirty laundry is aired publicly. But what about presidential candidates? If you don't believe what the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" claimed, you would say that a small group slandered John Kerry and ended up with inordinate influence over the campaign. Or you could simply say that this is the kind of attack all presidents have to deal with. Kerry could possibly have addressed the accusations, defused the situation and ultimately used it to his advantage. Surely, this is not an easy thing to do, but shouldn't the future leader of the free world be able to brush off some nasty verbal attacks, especially if they are false?
Some would say slander, of the Coulter variety, only divides the country along lines that have nothing to do with good governance. That is why it is the role of politicians to skillfully move beyond the mudslinging and show that they care more about their country than their reputation.
As long as the United States remains free and open, people are going to say and believe a whole variety of strange things. The President's job is to suggest, but not demand, a greater vision for the nation. And if they can't do this on the campaign trail, how can we expect they will in office?
Caleb Karpay '08 asks not what he can do for his country, but what his country can do for him.
