Earlier this week, some of my commenters were piqued that I didn’t demand Ann Coulter have her head sawed off in the public square for using the anti-gay slur “F” word in referring to John Edwards.  I called it “bad form”, using my gift for understatement, and bemoaned the fact that Coulter’s constant “malaprops” (I wish I had the faith to believe that they actually are such) make life a lot harder for us conservatives in the trenches. 

Why didn’t I express sufficient outrage?  Partly because everyone else already was; the starchamber of mega conservative blogs have already put Coulter on their eternal spit list; what difference does it make if Mitch Berg piles on?

And partly because to do so would be to play Coulter’s game.  Inflammation is Coulter’s stock in trade, and she plies that trade better than most.  To hop up and down and wax purple over it would be like yelling at Madonna for trying to provoke, or at Michael Moore for tossing around baseless accusations, or at Lindsay Lohan for being a vacuous celebrity; it plays into the schtick.

And partly because I cling to a shred of fandom.  Coulter’s sharp, she’s incisive, and – when she’s not aiming to outrage, or doing it just for the flop of it – she’s better than most of her detractors. 

And finally, partly because I wanted to wait for someone to say what I wanted to say, only better. 

Which brings us to Mitch “The Other Mitch” Pearlstein’s letter on Coulter from the Center of the American Experiment.

Folks on the right often criticize folks on the left for not criticizing one of their own when they say something thoroughly offensive and stupid. To avoid countercharges, let it be known that I wasn’t a fan of Coulter and her style before last weekend and I’m even less so now, as her reference to presidential candidate John Edwards by the full two-syllable, homosexual-slur “F” word was galaxies beyond the pale. It was ugly and she ought to be ashamed, and frankly, I’m not too thrilled that her audience of conservative activists in Washington didn’t make their displeasure immediately clear.

And I agree.

Why was her jab at a joke so unacceptable? Because decent people just don’t talk like that, or at least they shouldn’t. And no, this is not because of overly sensitive, politically correct touchiness.

Pearlstein is right.  It’s something that goes far deeper than callow political correctness; one should treat people the way they’d like to be treated themselves.  Not that Coulter doesn’t come in for a lot of abuse from her detractors – in fact, much of it vastly more scabrous than anything Coulter herself has ever said – but that’s really no excuse.  One should try to be better than one’s opponents. 

But Coulter also was wrong because she was counterproductive. Conservatives are more inclined than liberals to challenge emotionally saturated initiatives, such as the drive for same-sex marriage. There’s not the smallest doubt in my mind that the overwhelming majority of us who oppose same-sex marriage do so honorably, as we simply (or not so simply) fear that such a radical change in our most important institution would not be in the best interests of society generally and children especially. But making such a case is increasingly hard if high-profile conservatives talk dirty.

Exactly.  It’s hard enough to cut through the noise that the left tosses in our faces without giving them more ammo.

Pearlstein notes the blazing contradiction between Coulter’s words and the conservative movement’s actions as manifested at CPAC:

… I’ve been intrigued by how well Rudy Giuliani is doing with Republicans across the country, social and religious conservatives evidently among ’em. You know the latter guys I’m talking about. All those Christians thumping without time, mercy or American place for anyone outside their parochial fold…Sure, it’s 20 months to Election Day, and by no means are all religious conservatives enamored with America’s Mayor. Not by several stretches. But for now, isn’t it more than a little elucidating that so many of them appear open to supporting a presidential candidate who doesn’t line up with them precisely on abortion, gun control and gay rights; who has been married three times; and who, for picturesque measure, has been famously photographed (I’m on real fragile ground here) wearing a dress?

Save for Coulter, what in the world is close-mindedness on the right coming to these days?

I wonder – if you posited that contradiction to a dogmoleftist like a Cenk Uyghur or a MNob, would their brain herniate?

Pearlstein notes the irony of the left’s charges as seen in his own life:

Oh, by the way, a well-known political/religious activist in Minneapolis of the larboard persuasion (that means left) recently declared at a community meeting on the North Side that American Experiment is anti-black and ultra-right-wing, not to mention “Klan-like.” My biracial daughter already has written him a respectfully nasty letter. Maybe some of my liberal friends will follow up, too.

Um, yeah, Mitch.  Let us know how that goes.

Because way too much of the left treats “nastiness” and “incivility” the same way Spike Lee treated racism; as something the left can’t be accused of, because they’ve got bigger things on their minds.

I’d say “the right needs to be better than that” – but really, we all do.