- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I wish no ill will against Ann Coulter, and normally don't ask for censorship. Censure may be more appropriate for her. The hateful views of pundits provokes polarization. It provokes a overly simplistic black and white, either or, red vs blue, evil vs good, us vs them mentality.
This polarization keeps working class people fighting among themselves over wedge issues, while a wealthy and powerful elite co-opt the apparatus of government and the media, to further their ambitions at the expense of the people. The saber rattling of people like Ann Coulter helps to keep us inflamed and divided. That is her purpose, as is the rhetoric of Rush, Glenn, Joe ad nauseum. You are more likely to hear an intelligent discourse on shows like Thom Hartmann, where differing points of view are more cordially and sensibly debated.
In 2004, Bill Clinton said "they need for us to be divided." He was referring to the Republicans, but in other speeches, he has highlighted the historical fight dating back to our founding fathers, between those who feel we need a aristocracy of a handful of wealthy powerful corporate apologists versus a true democracy of, by and for the people. It is that handful of wealthy powerful that really need us to be divided. United, our numbers would assure our control of the government and the media. The elite would have to accept a more level playing field in the competion of ideas.
As for Ann, there is no criticism that could be more damaging to her credibility, than to let her speak her own mind. The rhetoric of hate and division is its own worst enemy.
