Three striking things emerged from an interview with Ann Coulter at the Heritage Foundation: 1) a passionate defense of America and national sovereignty; a surprising unfamiliarity with basic English; and the sense that it was all a performance.
Let’s Be Illogical
Coulter, the consummate wordsmith, seemed unfamiliar with elementary English, claiming, “It’s not even illogical. It’s counter-logic. It’s the opposite of logic.”
But Ann, “illogical” means “devoid of logic.” If it’s “devoid of logic,” if it’s “counter-logic,” if it’s “the opposite of logic,” then it is, in fact, “illogical.” Elementary English.
Perhaps Coulter has twisted words so often to mean so many things that she has forgotten their true meanings. We know she has distorted “establishment” to mean “anyone but Romney” and she has suggested that it is more principled to be unprincipled.
Or perhaps Ann misspoke out of the intensity of the moment. Perhaps.
With passionate zeal, Coulter vociferously championed restoring border security and developing sound immigration policy, demanding,
“We want a barbed wire fence. I want the same fence that Israel has. Let’s start with that. I’d like the same fence Israel has, and we just have to get rid of this refugee policy. What are we going to do, take in the entire world? All countries suck compared to America. Is that the standard?”
All a Performance
Immediately after making her impassioned plea for sanity in the immigration debate, Coulter – in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye – totally changed her demeanor. Check the video (at about 1 Min. 25 sec.). One moment she was on fire defending America. The next moment, a self-satisfied smile appeared on her face, growing as she panned her audience seeking approval and applause for her splendid performance – looking away from her interviewer. But then she was brought back to earth by another question. Coulter’s face turned serious and she appeared frustrated that she had not received the accolades she felt she so richly deserved.
UPDATE: One of Coulter’s colleagues suggested she just misspoke. Wrong. About 36 hours after this essay was published, Coulter posted her weekly column with this illogical absurdity: “This is something I don’t recall encountering before. It’s anti-logic.”
Instead of just admitting, as her colleague suggested, that she simply misspoke, Coulter doubled down, called it “anti-logic,” and claimed it to be a totally foreign concept to her. As we have seen, admitting error is anathema to her, as are repentance and forgiveness.
What is it about elementary English that Coulter cannot grasp?
In her column – in which she makes “anti-logic” its centerpiece – Coulter expands on her remarks of the previous Friday. Coulter continues to make a distinction between “illogical” and something more superlative, more hyperbolic: “counter-logic,” “opposite of logic,” and, now, “anti-logic.”
But Coulter’s new terms – for what she regards as a brand new concept – are merely different ways of saying the same thing: illogical – the very term she says “it’s not even!”
Illogical means “devoid of logic.” If it’s “devoid of logic,” it’s …
- “the opposite of logic”
Another dictionary definition of illogical: “contradicting or disregarding the principles of logic”
Sounds anti-logic to me.
Strikingly, Coulter does not “recall encountering [this concept] before.” How is that possible? It’s illogical.