Ann Coulter: Bannon, Part II?

John Geba, Contributing Writer

Whatever decision a president makes, there will inevitably be a cohort of people who are ready to either tear their agenda apart or remain loyal to all policy decisions. If the news of Ann Coulter’s (supposed) contributions to U.S. President Donald Trump’s current administration is true, it would be – for lack of better expression – sad. Coulter is primarily a columnist whose credentials do not qualify her to be ordering the President of the United States what to do. But if the recent news is true, it only confirms what many of us were already thinking: Trump does not know what he is doing.


With this taken into account, Trump’s sometimes incoherent language and manner render him either completely innocuous or entirely dangerous. This self-proclaimed news on Coulter makes Trump look like a rookie at best, and a weak and ill-advised president at worst. I am not saying this because of Coulter’s political positioning or qualifications; I am saying this because she lacks the latter. However, her time as an adviser is likely over, since Trump stopped following her on Twitter. It is obvious that the threat of Coulter’s advising may no longer be present. However, the fact that Trump chose someone with so little experience to advise him in the first place is alarming, and such a decision could – and likely will – happen again.


I have no issue with the president selecting an adviser. In fact, the job he has is nearly impossible to do well on one’s own. The notion that two heads are better than one when trying to think critically is true. Thus, choosing an adviser who would differ from him slightly, but agree with him and help in other ways without being too brash would likely prove beneficial.


Although Trump’s history in choosing advisers and staff members has been less than stellar, it would logistically make sense for the president to have another person he could confide in. Whether or not you subscribe to his tendencies and politics, this would be a good thing for everyone. The main trouble with Coulter is her strong, almost flagrant stance on the building of the wall. A popular critique of the concept of a wall – without considering the morality of it – is that the concept has not been thought out well enough. At least not well enough for someone to put this notion of an “impenetrable” slab of concrete at the top of their priority list for the president.


At this point, the fellowship behind the “BUILD THAT WALL” campaign is ridiculous. If constructing the wall was that simple and objectively beneficial, then it would have already been done years before the illegal immigration problem rose to the level it is at now. Although it is difficult to assign blame on how the notion of the wall – with its financial and moral implications still standing strong – still permeates, it is likely in part due to people like Coulter, who are pushing so strongly and somewhat irresponsibly towards a decision that could be an enormous mistake for American foreign and domestic policy.


(Visited 79 times, 1 visits today)