Good Points Do Not Always Mean Good Arguments

In an article written by Ann Coulter entitled “Get Rid of Government -- But First Make Me President!” published on June 15, 2011 on anncoulter.com, Coulter talks about all the reasons she can’t stand libertarians.  While she makes some good points about flaws in the thinking of libertarians, Coulter attacks libertarians too aggressively to 

effectively convince anyone who doesn’t already share her opinions to agree with her.  

Coulter’s choice of words in this article alienates any readers who don’t already agree with her.  By using words like “babbling” (paragraph 2) to describe libertarians she makes libertarians sound like idiots thus making everyone who even slightly agrees with them become defensive.  This tactic of aggressively attacking libertarians is somewhat effective for the conservative readers who frequent her blog, but if anyone comes in search of an opinion different from their own they will have to look past the attacks to see Coulter’s points.  

One of the main statements Coulter attacks is a suggestion made by Rep. Ron Paul on June 13, 2011.  Ron Paul, in response to his opinion of gay marriage, suggests that marriage should not be something the government needs to be involved with, saying that it should go to the church and individuals (paragraph 7).  Coulter’s says this is a very impractical idea because of all the legal issues and government programs that rely on the  legal contract of marriage.  She asks, “If state governments stop officially registering marriages, then who gets to adopt? How are child support and child custody issues determined? ... Who inherits in the absence of a will? Who is entitled to a person’s Social Security and Medicare benefits? How do you know if you’re divorced and able to remarry?” (paragraphs 8-9)  By pointing out all of these issues Coulter shows that it would be impossible to take away the government’s registration of marriage because of all the marriage related programs and legal issues we’ve created for the government to oversee.  

While Coulter’s assessment of Ron Paul’s argument has many valid points, she does nothing to convince people who don’t share her beliefs to agree with her.  No one who agrees with Ron Paul in anyway will be very willing to listen to her argument against him when they read Coulter comparing him to a vegetarian who still eats meat (paragraph 11).  Coulter also doesn’t do herself any favors by saying all liberals and libertarians “appeal to irrational mobs to attain power” while conservatives never do (paragraph 23).  In both groups there are people who do that, and it is unfair to both groups to make that statement. 

Coulter makes many good points in this article and calls out some faulty thinking of libertarians and Ron Paul.  Her opinions are well thought out and backed up by reliable evidence, but her manner of presenting it is completely off.  If Coulter had communicated her views in a way that sought to convince her reads more then to attack those she disagrees with, then this would have been a much more effective article