I feel dirty saying it, but Ann Coulter is right. Well, sort of right, but she's right about the wrong thing and for the entirely incorrect reasons.
By now, many of us have seen Ann's Today Show ranting about the 9/11 widows and her perceived "Liberal Doctrine of Infallibility." What sickens me the most is the fact that her concept it right; the errors are that her "doctrine" isn't unique to liberals and it has nothing to do with infallibility. I'll explain below the fold:
For some background on the issue, here's part of the Today Show excerpt:
COULTER: This is the left's doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to. No. No. No. We have to respond to someone who had a family member die. Because then if we respond, oh you are questioning their authenticity. ... They were cutting commercials for Kerry. They were using their grief to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding.
LAUER: So if you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?
COULTER: No, but don't use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for being able to talk about, while preventing people from responding. Let Matt Lauer make the point. Let Bill Clinton make the point. Don't put up someone I am not allowed to respond to without questioning the authenticity of their grief.
LAUER: Well apparently you are allowed to respond to them.
COULTER: Yeah, I did.
LAUER: So, in other words.
COULTER: That is the point of liberal infallibility. Of putting up Cindy Sheehan, of putting out these widows, of putting out Joe Wilson. No, no, no. You can't respond. It's their doctrine of infallibility. Have someone else make the argument then..
For the sake of argument, let's ignore the part of her rhetoric that literally makes us sick to our stomachs and focus on the "logic" of her point, which summarizes as follows:
1. Ann Coulter wants to argue with people about political issues.
2. You can't argue with victims or victim's families because they're "infallible."
Therefore, only professional politicians should be allowed to have opinions.
Unfortunately for her, this has nothing to do with infallibility; what this is really about is credibility. One of the great principles of America is that anyone is allowed to have an opinion and few people embody that principle better than Ann herself. However, given that there are 300,000,000 people with different opinions on any different issue, we naturally need a way to decide who is worth listening to and who isn't. Typically, there are two criteria that increase the value of a person's opinion in the public's eyes--perceived expertise/first-hand knowledge and perceived victimhood/suffering.
This is why witnesses are called to testify at trials. This is why people listen to Cindy Sheehan regarding the Iraq War. This is why a scientist is more credible on global warming than an oil executive. This is why John Walsh is considered a crime expert. This is why some people still believe what Donald Rumsfeld has to say and this is why people listen to the 9/11 widows and family members regarding foreign policy.
Do these people know more about their topic of choice than some other person who has studied the issue? Often not. However, there is a perception of credibility that limits a person like Ms. Coulter to confront the issue directly instead of resorting to personal attacks. To re-quote her:
COULTER: ...Don't put up someone I am not allowed to respond to without questioning the authenticity of their grief.
She makes that sound like any debate would question the grief of the victim's families. What she really means is that she's free to respond, but such a response can't involve personal attacks which are the basis of her entire persona. Following such a restriction would prevent her from saying things like:
These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-parrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much.
as she states in her book. What would happen to her career if the only people engaged in politics were those who are so credible as to be immune to personal attacks?
Overall, she's right; there is a "liberal doctrine of infallibility." Except it's not limited to liberals and it has nothing to do with infallibility. So, let's rename it to the "American doctrine of listening to people who know what the hell they're talking about and can do so in a respectable manner" and end the discussion there.