“When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once againthat John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to executepeople like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals,by making themrealize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn outto be outright traitors.”
Rife with its ad populum and slippery slope fallacies, the abovestatement came from former National Review columnist Ann Coulterduring a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference(CPAC). I say “former columnist” because Ms. Coulter was fired fromNational Review because of these statements (some of which called forthe death of Muslim leaders — and the subsequent conversion of theIslamic world to Christianity), as well as others, regarding the needfor police action againstdark-skinned males.
Recently, she penned a column for FrontPage Magazine, in which shecalled Muslim men “bedraggled” and “smelly.”
All this from a woman who is highly respected among the Bushadministration.
That’s right, Coulter’s remarks at the CPAC conference wereapplauded by none other than National Security Adviser CondoleezaRice, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, andLynne Cheney, all of whom were in attendance.
Now, maybe I’ve got this all wrong, but the last time I checked,calling for physical harm to your political opponents and the deathof a disliked religion was rather Hitler-esque.
Of course, Coulter is protected by the First Amendment to speak asshe wishes. That is not where my concern lies. My trepidation comesfrom the fact that her fascist and hateful comments are not onlybeing published by conservative journals, but also that our currentadministration is supportive of her.
Coulter does not simply come from a journalistic background,either. In fact, she used to work as an aide in both the Senate andthe Justice Department.
Her comments should do a little more than make leftists like mescared; they should scare any college student who Coulter wouldconsider a liberal. And according to her definition of liberal, thatincludes anybody who doesn’t hate on the basis of skin color orreligion.
Also, her personification of John Walker as the entire liberalcollege student body is more than slightly problematic. If that werereally the case, then the argument could be made that Timothy McVeighis the epitome of every conservative white male in his late twenties.But any intelligent person knows that both arguments are completelyfoolish.
What does this say about the Bush administration? It’s actuallyquite disturbing. No reasonable person would or could ever acceptCoulter’s characterization of all college liberals as JohnWalkers-in-waiting, but somehow, some way, Bush’s cabinet applaudsher.
It makes me question (and everyone else should take a close lookas well), what is this war all about? On one hand, Bush claims thatwe are fighting terrorism, but when his cabinet cheers for acolumnist who has called for the death of Islam and the need forsurveillance of non-white males, you really have to wonder. It isabsolutely sickening to think that racism is the motivation behindour effort in Afghanistan (and soon, maybe Iraq — oddly enough, amostly Islamic country), but as of yet, nobody in Bush’s close circlehas spoken out against Coulter.
I was extremely skeptical about this war from the start, and now Iam absolutely horrified. And I think any student at SDSU who is notCaucasian or is even slightly left of center politically should bedeeply concerned as well. This war is supposedly being fought toprotect freedom, but to quote Ann Coulter one more time, ouradministration has an idea of freedom that can only come from a”Christian world view.” Fanaticism and fascism — don’t stand for it.
–Blaine Sullivan is a philosophy junior.
–This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of TheDaily Aztec. Send e-mail to letters@thedailyaztec.com.Anonymous letters will not be printed — include your full name,major and year in school.
