Paul R. Lehman, Ann Coulter uses language to create attention

November 6, 2011 at 6:53 pm | Posted in American Bigotry, American Racism, blacks, equality, Ethnicity in America, justice, Media and Race, minority, Prejudice, whites | 4 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Ann Coulter has for years used her spin on information as an
attention getter. She has created a persona that some people accept as genuine
and credible. The problem with accepting the Coulter persona is that it is not reliable
or trustworthy. Whatever Coulter has to say will always shed light on her
first, then the information. For example, she was recently on Fox News talking
with Sean Hannity about how the liberals were attacking the African American
Republican candidate for President, Herman Cain. Although no proof was offered
for the accusations, she nevertheless made the claim with confidence. Coulter
has shown herself to be a manipulator of information to call attention to her
and elevate her position with all the people who think and believe as she does.

While talking with Hannity, Coulter made the statement: “Civil
rights laws were designed to protect blacks from Democrats, from Democrat laws,
from Democrat segregators, from Democrat governors and Democrats in the White
House wouldn’t protect them.” To hear her speak these words one would assume
she knew whereof she was speaking. However, to anyone with a general working
knowledge of history, Coulter obviously mixes movements, parties, and time
periods to create simultaneously two different interpretations.

First, for people who are knowledgeable of American history,
they know that prior to the Civil War, the Republican Party, the party of
Lincoln, supported the elimination of slavery. They also know that the
Democrats were the party that embraced slavery, especially in the South. For a
better picture of the party differences prior to 1964, any informed reading of
the Reconstruction Period in America will fill in the gaps. Coulter spins the
information to make it appear current, which we know is not the case.

Second, for the people who are unfamiliar with American
history, and share Coulter’s belief and perspective, her words will appear as
truth. What becomes obvious to the reader it that the messenger appears more
important than the message. The attention that falls on Coulter is exactly what
she wants. Coulter knows very well that it was the Democrats, President, John
F. Kennedy, and Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson who were responsible for the
1964 Civil Rights Bill. If any American knows anything about the 1964, 1965, 1968,
or any Civil Rights bill, they know that never is there a reference to any
specific American citizens. Civil rights are to be experienced by all Americans.
The civil rights legislation sought to include those citizens that had not been
included previously. The party for bringing the changes in civil right is the
Democrats. Most African Americans know this, and continue to support the party
that supports them.

Whether Coulter is a bigot or not, she knows how to use
language to create concern that might suggest bias. She made a statement to
Hannity that suggest a kind of paternal ethnic bias that goes back to the days
of slavery. She knows that many African Americans as well as many Americans
generally, question the rationale of ethnic minority citizens joining a
political party that does not recognize their value. What the party does
recognize in these ethnic minority members is a change to use them as
protection against charges of bigotry. In essence, if we have ethnic minorities
in our party, then we cannot be accused of bigotry. So, in an effort to stroke
the egos of the ethnic minorities in their party, especially the African Americans,
Coulter says that: “our blacks are better than their blacks.” Therefore,
African Americans who belong to the Republican Party are better people than
those African Americans that belong to the Democratic Party. The fact that she
uses the pronoun “our” indicates ownership and suggests that these citizens are
not free to make their own choices, but simply follow what the party suggests.

Although the statement might have been offered as a show of
support for African Americans, like Herman Cain, who are members of the
Republican Party, the statement can also be seen as a slam on the inability of
African Americans to recognize an insult or a back-handed compliment. In any
event, the language of the statement was meant to arouse attention, which it
did. The attention, however, fell on Coulter more than on the message. She
knows how to spin the language and present it in a way that some people will
not question it. She has also developed a style of over-talking anyone who
questions the veracity of what she says.

Coulter manages to keep herself in the public eye by writing
books or making claims that call attention to her for making the claims. If Coulter
was an expert in some area or had some credentials that provided reasons to
accept what she says with more than a grain of salt, then her claims might be
taken seriously. Unfortunately, she has her mouth and her determination to
dominate any conversation in which she participates. That evidently, according
to Fox News, seems to be enough because when she brings up the famous Clarence
Thomas phrase “High-tech lynching,” with a reference to how she suggests the
liberal media treats Herman Cain, Hannity does not seem to understand just what
Coulter has done. She knows there should have been a reaction to that term, but
Hannity is so accustomed to agreeing with her, the significance of it does not
register.

Coulter generally comes across to viewers and readers as a
person in control of the information she dispenses. The problem with that is
those people who are uninformed, believe her. For the other people, they know
she caters to bigots who rely on ethnic  stereotypes
to give meaning to her words. Coulter is the epitome of the person with a
little knowledge being a danger. She is skillful enough to play around the edge
of the mud pit without falling into it, but she will provide enough information
for some to wallow in it. To read her books or listen to her talk, one has to
wonder if she is pulling our leg or is she really that crazy. With all the
attention she gets and the money she makes, one might easily say that she’s
crazy—crazy like a fox.

Advertisements

4 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Like a fox indeed and the tongue is the strongest muscle in the body.

  2. I read about here years ago and decided that was one lady I was NEVER going to like.

  3. From what I’ve seen of her on television interviews, I believe you have described her personal “spot on.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: