The Coulter-Far Right Concept of Consequence

A good thing came from watching Ann Coulter on Hannity and Colmes. I'd been rereading Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. Mr. Darcy had been described twice as a person of "consequence," someone not approachable by those of normal status. I realized listening to Coulter, that she is not merely a mad woman. Indeed, she is actually a reflection of a superior way of thinking that permeates much of what is now America's leadership. By describing the widows of 9-11 as enjoying a claim to fame based on the deaths of their husbands, as if this horror is somehow a less viable means of gaining attention for a cause than being born into a wealthy family with major connections, Coulter is mouthing the view of the hateful arm of the Republican Party. Their agenda is power and greed; their insignia is despicable condescension.

"How do we know their husbands weren't going to divorce these harpies?" is the language of a myopic, vile person who divides the world into people of consequence and people of inconsequence no matter the depths of their suffering. This is the antithesis of what America is supposed to stand for, no matter one's political party. It's the language of someone desperate for attention. And so as she supposedly stands by her man, George Bush, she weakens him as a President of the people. She brings him down by the weight of her indignation for those who weren't born to their cause, but instead were led to it as Christopher Reeve, Dana Reeve, Michael J. Fox and a host of others who took the horror life dropped on their doorstep and turned it into a means of improving who we are.

Money, power, family connections and media position have come to be, to the Coulters of this world and those she ably represents, what make a person of "consequence." All others are supposedly fakes. This is what you vote for if you vote Republican. Not always in the past and not now in every case, but surely in the majority of cases at this deeply noxious point in time. Who fights our wars? Those would be Coulter's people of inconsequence if they come home and complain. Who teaches our children? Those would be them as well if they have an opinion other than hers. What right would they have to a podium if they hadn't been born to wealth and found a taming of the shrew niche to mine for years?

Consequential people, from my experience, are often the less powerful, less well paid and those lacking impressive connections. Some are well known. But they are not better people. They possess values and do not cavalierly use the heartbreak of others to advance their careers. If they are seen on the media, it is because they are like Christine Amanpour, Paul Douglas, James Brolan, Kimberly Dozier and others alive and gone who have repeatedly risked their lives to bring us the truth. They are people of consequence - women and men alike. These are people of consequence; not Ann Coulter or the people who want her front and center to say what they are clearly too cowardly to say themselves.

Frankly, I hope she keeps talking for the hateful Republican element, keeps going on television spewing her venom far and wide insulting everyone who stands for something important. I say give her lots of attention, not for a person of consequence but of shallowness and incivility beyond the comprehension of those who decidedly leave her in the dust.