Demonic and The Underrated Ann
It seems strange to say that Ann Coulter is underrated. Every book she writes is a bestseller — her new one, Demonic, is no exception. When she’s on tour, you can barely turn on a TV or radio without seeing her face, hearing her voice. I was in a restaurant with her once and she was so swamped with admiring members of the public I felt like I was part of a movie star’s entourage. (I don’t really do entourages, but if I had to be part of one, I was glad it was hers.) All the same, I don’t think she gets the respect she deserves.
I don’t expect anyone to give her the Pulitzer Prize. The Pulitzer is one of those prizes liberals give to other liberals so they can call each other “prize-winning.” It’s appalling, however, that in a country where a blithering bomb-throwing hack like Paul Krugman is given an ongoing column in a prominent former newspaper, Coulter is considered too incendiary to have a mainstream column of her own. Her weekly piece online is routinely so witty, slashing and packed with information that it makes even some of the best newspaper columns look like pretty weak sauce in comparison.
The Coulter books I’ve dipped into looked like good bathroom reading. Rightly, I believe, has the far superior Dorothy Rabinowitz dubbed Ms. Coulter “the Maureen Dowd of the conservatives.”
That is absurd. Ann Coulter is simply brilliant. Besides being hilarious. And I notice that her critics NEVER come at her in terms of facts and logical argument. Dowd? How many best sellers does she have to her name? She’s a nobody. Try Camille Paglia if you want someone who comes close to being in Coulter’s league.
>>her critics NEVER come at her in terms of facts and logical argument.
They most certainly do.
David Horowitz: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=17332
Dorothy Rabinowitz: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB105754162750055900-search,00.html
In the following, at least, Rabinowitz was off-base:
The SS men accused of the massacre were executed after a highly irregular set of events and processes. Senator McCarthy objected to the certainty of the executions, as if there were no doubt whatsoever that those particular SS had committed a most heinous war crime. Also, there was testimony offered to the effect that the American POWs had acquired weapons and opened fire on their SS guards, which was apparently dismissed.
Of course, today McCarthy’s name is principally associated with his allegations of Communist infiltration of the State Department and parts of the Army. Those allegations have been proved almost entirely correct by the Venona papers. Ironically, in the run-up to the investigations themselves, McCarthy was often the voice of caution, asserting that no man should be accused by name until he’d had a chance to clear himself — “a clean bill of health,” in McCarthy’s own words. But his Democrat adversaries were determined to paint him in the worst possible light…just as, a couple of years earlier, Democrats in the House of Representatives were anxiout to smear Richard Nixon over Whittaker Chambers’s accusation that Alger Hiss was a Soviet agent — which he was.
(We may count on those who have a stake in the rewriting of history to blacken the names of any and every American who took a stand against Communism in the early postwar years…and there are a lot of folks who have something to gain or protect by doing so.)
Coulter’s books are well focused and meticulously referenced. I check references– and to this date, I’ve never found Coulter to have misrepresented or distorted a source. Perhaps Rabinowitz could say the same about her written work, and perhaps not. But in either case, her obvious envy of Coulter’s audience and effectiveness is rather unbecoming.
I am happy to meet you, Francis, here as a person who thinks rather than parroting anti-Coulter and anti-McCarthy idiocies…. sorry, falsehoods, I meant to say.
I, with my 50-year long experience of living under Commies, tried everything I can to rehabilitate the noble name of Joe McCarthy.
It’s not a coincidence that he was as hysterically hated by Soviet Commies as he is still hated by American (and European) Liberasts.
I laud Ann Coulter for her courage (and brilliant writing talent) to tear the mask off our Commie- and sex-obsessed Liberasts.
Francis W. is a scholar and a sharp guy.
What I like about Coulter is that she is a “in your face” person, minces no words, tells it like she sees it and tends to be both factual and logical.
What I don’t like about Coulter is her sometimes immodest dress.
Okay, “arhooley” I read your links: As appears to me, Horowitz (Tuesday, July 08, 2003; “The Trouble with ‘Treason’”, doesn’t fairly JFK: The FBI found JFK to have been consorting with a Nazi spy, and which was the reason for—removing him from Naval Intel, steering him away from the European theater, and—into the South Pacific; he began the process of giving away the land of the canal, which we had taken in conquest, and which if to be given to any nation, might better to Columbia; when Russia began building The Wall (1961) and his generals told him that, stopping it was doable, he told them to stand down—the Russians had him pretty well figured; during The Bay of Pigs, except for vacillation, hardheartedness, indecision and possibly cowardice, he ordered to withhold already promised support for then dying fighters; the Cuban Missile Crises—no great mystery—held him spell-bound; he was unfaithful to his wife; when he was under some obligation to the federal reserve system banks, he double-crossed them, and began the printing of US Notes. And although no where do I see that, he fulfilled the definition of traitor, he was treacherous, weak-willed, spineless, cold and callous, and a double-crossing cheat.
In Horowitz’s (H) failure to have adequately presented things which are so very clear—but yet in reliance upon that as reasoning to disfavor Ann Coulter—I wonder about the remainder of H’s reasoning and conclusions, . . .
Then, for Dorothy Rabinowitz: Hilariously, she writes that, for conservatives, Ann Coulter is what Maureen Dowd of the NYT newspaper is for left-wingers—kind of funny because, as comparing apples, say, and boiled okra, Ann Coulter probably wouldn’t feel that, an apology was adequate for plagiarism, . . . which, I don’t think that, Ann Coulter has ever been accused of plagiarism, but if she were, . . .
But in Dorothy Rabinowitz’ writing style, what few facts there are, are so thoroughly mixed with sarcasm and other appearances of humor that, I got the feeling that, for judgement upon Ann Coulter, Dorothy Rabinowitz thought that, instead of forming my opinion by digesting of my own capacity—why mess around with thinking when I can simply accept Dorothy Rabinowitz’ thrust.
Then, whatever might have been wrong with Joe Mc., I know not, but—if Joe Mc. were looking for grossly un-American people, and were looking in the military for them, between the numbers of spies, fifth column types and other bad guys, and the clumsy ways our guys are used to using to catch them, and if in the very least, The Fort Hood Shooter, and for the fact that, our supposed CIC (Commander-In-Chief) William Jefferson Clinton presided over moving missile guidance technology from the DOD, to the DOC (Department of Commerce) so that, that knowledge and those systems could be sold to China, I would tend to believe that, Joe Mc. was very much on track. Would! to G0D we had a few Joe Mc’s. for our day, . . . except that, we might be impeaching presidents almost faster than we could elect them, . . .
And, I think that, Ann Coulter is Episcopalian, and I like Episcopalians; but however all of these things might boil down, I’m fairly certain that, Ann Coulter speaks for many women who wish that, their men would say something, . . .
Horowitz is not “one of her critics”. He disagrees with a specific book (not this one). Of course he uses logical argument – he’s a conservative, silly.
You are not suppose to read books while your head is under water that can be dangerous. Do not dip go all the way in!
Demonic is, indeed, a splendid work. It’s simultaneously entertaining and terrifying, a tough combination to pull off. If Coulter’s overarching case is occasionally obscured by her wealth of individual citations, nevertheless she always manages to round the curve and return to it.
One minor quibble: the term “crowd psychology” has always been something of a misnomer. “Psychology” is about the ratiocinative and emotive operations of a mind, which a crowd doesn’t have. Crowds have characteristic behaviors, but they neither think nor feel in any objective sense.
Actually, there was a seminal study of Crowd Psychology done in 1895 by Gustave Le Bon that was the blueprint for both Hitler and Mussolini. One of the chapters advised aspiring candidates:
… An orator who knows how to make use of these means of persuasion can do what he will with a crowd. Expressions such as infamous capital, vile exploiters, the admirable working man, the socialisation of wealth, &c., always produce the same effect, although already somewhat worn by use. But the candidate who hits on a new formula as devoid as possible of precise meaning, and apt in consequence to flatter the most varied aspirations, infallibly obtains a success. (sounds like the classic Obama in campaign mode, doesn’t it) (pg 137)
There’s a link to access a pdf of Le Bon’s book here:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/crowd-control-manual-for-successful-candidates/
Thanks, but I’ve read it. I’m not knocking Le Bon at all, merely quibbling mildly with a phrase whose parts strike me as poorly matched.
Along similar lines, see Ortega y Gasset’s The Revolt of the Masses.
What we need is the ANTIDOTE to this phenomenon.
I remember reading a book called “Clear Thinking” when I was a little pipsqueak. I had to go through a lot of trouble to get it. It was in the school library, but one of the teachers took it away from me, because she said that it was a book on “how to sway people on thought” (her words, not mine).
Actually, it was precisely the OPPOSITE: it was a book on how to detect and debunk logical fallacies.
People used to be taught logic in school, for use in debating. Those who attempted to use fallacious reasoning would lose. It’s high time we went back to that.
“But the candidate who hits on a new formula as devoid as possible of precise meaning, and apt in consequence to flatter the most varied aspirations, infallibly obtains a success.”
… Hope and Change …
But this is the author her book is based on.
“All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be…The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points, and must harp on these slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan”.
“The people in their overwhelming majority are so feminine by nature and attitude that sober reasoning determines their thoughts and actions far less than emotion and feeling.”
A couple of quotations from “Mein Kampf” on ‘mob dynamics’. The phrase that always sticks in my head is, “the power of their forgetting is enormous”. Demonic.
You write, “Demonic is, indeed, a splendid work. It’s simultaneously entertaining and terrifying, a tough combination to pull off.” Yes, it is. Mark Steyn can do it too.
I recently bought “Demonic” at Indigo, Canada’s Barnes and Noble. There were only two copies–and not because a horde of Canadians had bought it. A “tolerant, diversity loving” Jewish lady (who was actually once very nice to me)owns Indigo.
Honestly, I’m SO tired of the politically correct idiots who seem to run most things these days. Philip Larkin, the British poet, famously wrote about parents, “They f*ck you up, your mum and dad./ They may not mean to, but they do.” The same cannot be said about progressives. Yes, they “f*ck us up” and it’s all part of their plan.
Thank God for the Ann Coulters of this world. Go, Ann, go!!
Mum & Dad didn’t f*ck us up nearly as much as the “politically correct,” “diversity” -loving Progs have done. Ann is seldom off the mark.
Oh, come on. Coulter’s first book was about bias in the press. Then about bias elsewhere. Over time she started writing books claiming liberals are in reality mass murderers.
Now, suppose you know someone is *both* a mass murder *and* biased in his political view. Which one will you warn the world of first? Of course, that he’s a murderer. Which one Ann warned us first of? Of the biased worldview.
So it seems most likely that she is simply making more and more extreme claims since that’s her “game” — once you accused someone of X, you can only sell more books if you keep accusing them of worse and worse things.
It’s a show. She doesn’t believe it herself, or else she would have written the books in reverse order.
Blah-blah-blah-blah…
No one word of proof, no one citation disproving Ann’s statements, just highly negative bloviating. A real “skeptic”!
For those who forgot what “skeptic” in this particular case means, I want you to smell it: doesn’t it astonishingly smell “Liberast”, a trivial and primitive Coulter-hater?
I suppose if you believe in the Devil or think that Freud’s book on mob passions (influenced, unfortunately by Gustave Le Bon, or think that you can draw a straight line between Robespierre to the Democratic Party, then Ann Coulter is your cup of tea. I see her, as some others do here, as a dangerously polarizing figure. I wrote about demonizing here: http://clarespark.com/2009/09/14/historians-journalists-and-polarization/, and http://clarespark.com/2011/06/11/bad-history-and-hypocrisy-on-the-radical-right/. The social democrats of the Left have a different genealogy than Coulter paints, and they are organic conservatives, all Christians, not godless atheists.
“The social democrats of the Left have a different genealogy”…..
It doesn’t matter anymore what the “social democrats of the Left” came from. What does matter is where that kind of individuals brought this country to.
And this is the main point Ann so brilliantly outlines… if you can read not only the letters, but the meaning, too.
Decay, cultural and economical.
As the overwhelming majority of Americans, you – intentionally or unintentionally – express your fondness for Lefties.
I lived under “Lefties” (aka Soviet Commies) 50 years and with my huge life experience, I see Lefties (I call them Liberasts) with no romantic pink glasses, but as if under a microscope. And it’s a very unpleasant view.
Thus, I completely support Ann in her splendid writings (by the way, to my opinion, she writes a lot better than speaks.)
As for your statement that Ann is “dangerously polarizing figure,” let me ask you: are you sure that you would like to embrace a person who brings you a gift, let’s say – a very expensive necklace, that he stole from your neighbor?
Ann definitely doesn’t want to join victims of robbery and robbers. You may call it “dangerous polarizing.” It’s up to your conscience.
“a straight line between Robespierre to the Democratic Party”
Straight lines in philosophy’s influence on culture are rare, but there’s definitely a genetic connection between Rousseau – one of the prime authors of the French Revolution – and the Democratic Party. Most Progressive intellectuals are far from shy about acknowledging that, since they largely believe Rousseau’s views were correct.
There are other important roots, such as Hegel and Dewey, but to suggest there’s no link between Robespierre – who was self-admittedly influenced by Rousseau – and the contemporary Democratic Party is simply wrong on the evidence, whatever your political philosophy.
Several comments try to justify Coulter’s demonic mob with Robespierre and his proclivity for the guillotine. Rousseau’s influence is on the Left, especially those in the counter-culture who like primitivism. But to imagine that today’s liberals have any connections to the French Revolution is ludicrous. Their genealogy is entirely aristocratic and Anglo-Catholic. Read the responses of English and German attendants upon the aristocracy: Goethe, Disraeli, Carlyle, Charles Kingsley, Bismarck & Co. For them capitalism was above all, Jewish and materialistic, and religion would be the solvent that dissolved class antagonisms exacerbated by industrial development. Today’s “liberals” are not looking for mobs to play with: quite the opposite. As for my alleged love for the Left, go to my website and read my Pacifica memoirs. Or read my Ayn Rand blogs.
In the first place, “Social Democrats” have long since ceded the control of the Democrat party in the U.S., and “liberal” parties in Europe, to the lunatics of the Far Left, and are therefore beneath inconsequential in the current political milieu.
In the second place, Robespierre’s inspiration Rousseau, as described by British Historian Paul Johnson in the excellent The Intellectuals (1988), was spoiled, untruthful, filthy in his habits, and lived off women. His patrons he unashamedly sponged off and publicly despised, and he lived his entire life awash in self-pity.
If that’s not a “straight line” to today’s liberals, I’ve never seen one.
Not surprisingly, factually incorrect.
Coulter’s first book was High Crimes and Misdemeanors, a meticulously researched and brilliantly argued case for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It was published almost 10 years ago, and was the first in a string of best-sellers.
To characterize her work as simply about “biased worldviews” is stunningly simplistic. Maybe you should read all of it.
Some people make the assumption that all ideas and arguments occur to authors at the same time. Others, more realistic, see that, of course, the mood of the times and the life (personal, proessional and political)of the writer decide what memes she is currently enthusiastic about and wishes to share with her readers.
Anyone old enough to have seen the dire, changing mood of the American left since George W. Bush was elected would not doubt that the necessity for such a book AT THIS POINT IN HISTORY mandated her choice, not the urge to make more dramatic points as one’s career evolves (which I doubt serves as motivation for many political pundits/writers such as Coulter.)
Perhaps some people find Ann Coulter a little too honest about the lawlessness (whether in the media, the courts, or on the streets) of the left and are therefore moved to discredit her publically. (Giveaway: exposed leftists often use an unmistakeable Allinskyesque tone of scorn and ridicule.) unnecessarily.)
Where exactly did she claim the left are mass murderers?
IF you are talking about Stalin and Pol Pot and Hitler etc… then she is correct.
Ann is a pretty smart gal. She needed to establish herself prior to pointing out the more alarming and disturbing truths. Your logic makes no sense..hmmmmmm.
No, I have her first book. It was a reasoned (and lively and sarcastic) study of impeachment grounds, using English history and applying it to W.J. Clinton. First time I understood the context of “misdemeanor”.
I found these on the first page of a Google search for reviews of Demonic so either you lied about not finding any or you didnt even look.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2011/06/ann-coulter-book-demonic-liberal-mob.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Politics/ann-coulter-conservative-commentator-takes-liberal-mob-read/story?id=13773013
Thanks for keeping us honest here.
I just read the two “reviews.” Since you didn’t actually read them the first isn’t really a review at all, but a tongue-in-cheek reprinting of what she wrote. No attempt at analysis was offered. The second was purely a reprint of an excerpt from the book with absolutely zero analysis.
And, Joshua, we continue to appreciate your support.
Neither of these are reviews of the book. They basically announce the book, give a little about it, and ABC excerpts the book.
Oh, a Klavan typo! “marshal facts” not “martial facts!” Great review, though.
Sorry, but Andrew’s absolutely correct.
marshal:
–verb (used with object)
to arrange in proper order; set out in an orderly manner; arrange clearly: to marshal facts; to marshal one’s arguments.
Ann Coulter is one of the few writers who can take the war to the main stream media and beat them at their own game. Only instead of just throwing out propaganda, which is what the main stream media and George Soros always do, people like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck destroy the main stream media, the New York Times, liberals, and George Soros using well researched facts. The number of conservative writers is growing, but I still think Ann is the best.
” … some of her writing will be taught in schools long after the work of more sober and ‘respectable’ journalists is forgotten.”
There would have to be a major revolution in education, Andrew, for Ann Coulter’s writing to be featured in classrooms. Unfortunately — and I know, I’m in classrooms every day as an itinerant teacher — the educational establishment is all about the “accredited” left-lib Kool-Aid, which they’re providing students by the pitcher load. A good description of the educational establishment and its mindset is “the mob mentality.” Our educators, for the most part, are the mob.
Ann’s too savvy, too saucy, and too right (in all the meanings of that word!), for most teachers to even consider her writing in their classrooms. They’d have to bring her book to school in a brown-paper wrapper and photocopy sections early in the morning or late at night so as not to invite the opprobrium of their brainwashed colleagues.
I lived in San Francisco 21 years and can testify to what you say. In the early 90′s I was reading “The Bell Curve” and finally had to put a plain brown cover over it. I like to think I learned to catch spears during that time. That was a great book and Charles Murray is still doing great work. Brilliant man.
Ms. Coulter’s discussions with people on Fox are particularly sure-footed and informative. She is quite brilliant on these occasions, particularly in a give and take with O’Reilly when he is in his ‘independent’ mode, playing devil’s advocate for whatever liberal nonsense is up for discussion. For the most part real liberals challenge her with silence, which means they can’t challenge her at all.
“But she is, I’m convinced, one of the essayists of the day, possibly of the age, and some of her writing will be taught in schools long after the work of more sober and “respectable” journalists is forgotten.”
I wasn’t aware of the fact that Coulter’s work is or will be available in Chinese. Assuming that Americans keep on electing intern molesters and radical Islamic Muslim sympathizers to be their president, Chinese will be the common language of whatever is left of planet Earth.
To be fair there might be a chance that Israel rides to everyone’s rescue like it always did in the good old days.
Coulter, or ANY other conservative’s work taught in America’s schools…?
“…Chinese will be the common language of whatever is left of planet Earth.”
Just as long as it’s not Arabic.
The woman is brilliant. She commands so much vitriol and dismissiveness because she throws light on hypocrisy and the craven nature of politicians, celebrities, faux intellectuals and the downright evil. God bless her.
Coulter’s mission is not to persuade—something beyond the power of a columnist—but to encourage the virtuous and enrage the wicked. At her best she encourages the first and equips them with sharp, witty put downs, while the second she leaves tossing and turning sleeplessly in impotent rage. This shortens their lives and removes them from the voting rolls—a valuable service. She seeks out hostile audiences. Give me the name of a left-lurcher who routinely and willingly exposes himself to large numbers of critics.
Andrew Breitbart.
Whoops! I misread the question! Reply withdrawn.
Anthony Weiner
FTW!
+1 LOL
Another brilliant Coulter book. She leaves no stone unturned to insure everything is absolutely 100% true and correct.
Well done Ann!!!!
Ann rocks!
prominent former newspaper
Change the sequence of the adjectives and the sentence still makes perfect sense.
In 1995, everybody took the NY Times seriously regardless of whether you recognized the bias — even Rush Limbaugh once did a commercial for it.
Today the number who take what it says as authoritative are a rapidly declining fraction of what it was.
Ann’s next book should be titled, “Libralism, the great lie of the 20th and 21st centuries.” Ever notice that libs must lie at some point during a debate?
“…If you oppose the left on virtually any subject, you automaticlly become Hitler.”
So true that I begin to wonder: will such demonization become so much a mark of the left that shouting a popular conservation down will start to be seen as the same as using the word “racist”? Just rather sad and obvious to those in the know? (Of course, it is already to many, but perhaps the general public — those who do not follow politics — will begin to catch on? Although, come to think of it, I suppose most people never caught onto “racist,” either.)
Librulz worship Satan.
Never heard that one before. Yawn.
Yup, Ann is good, with a terrific sense of humor. However, I am surprised she continues to adore, and promote a sometimes conservative named Chris Christie.
no one is perfect
I like Ann Coulter because she will not be intimidated by the lure of acceptance by the Washington cocktail set. She got in trouble with Conservatives when she tried to rehabilitate Senator Joe McCarthy who by his demagoguery discredited anti-Communism. While McCarthy got it generally correct, his tactics and his excesses are partially responsible for the Communist revival in the 1960s. I agree with Bill Buckley that she was out of line with her defense. Just because he was correct, doesn’t mean he was right.
By the way, I think Eisenhower shot down McCarthy because he had unauthorized access to Venona and was in danger of compromising counterintelligence operations, not because “he went too far.”
The assumption that Sen McCarthy was “over the top” and injured the cause of anti communism is simply a canard, as I think you will find when you look a bit deeper. In reality no one, no matter their diction or antecedents or school of origin who dared address the issue of communist conspiracy in the US was not tarred both by active communist journalists (never admittedly) and the useful idiot liberals. I know it from the first hand experience of being involved deeply in leftist movements, many of which were fronts for the CPUSA.
I am only one of many, some of whom were able to come out, others of whom never did, (for various reasons). There are many more Whittaker Chambers’ and David Horowitz’s than you can imagine. When as a young man, I discovered (personally) the ubiquity of communists in institutions ranging from the Universities to the churches and of course, the Unions as well as many professional organizations, I was simply stunned, though it took me a number of years to shuck the foolishness of dialectical materialism
from my mind.
It may be too late for Old Joe McCarthy, but it is crucial to remember that we deal with people who lie believing it to be a moral act.
Yes: the Left is the product of the French Enlightenment and the Right is the product of the Scottish Enlightenment.
ahem,
thanks. you make an important point.
you might be interested in this:
http://www.conservative.org/wp-content/themes/Conservative/bl-archive/Issues/issue114/commentsfrench.php
If only she’d drop the eye makeup and the hair falls. Few listen to 60s hippies.
Yeah that’s why nobody’s interested in reading her books — Oh, wait! …
Liberals are like baboons, they enrage SO easily.
Hippies wore long, uncombed, DIRTY hair, and they stank.
You must not get outside very much, or you would see that many adult women these days wear eye makeup and long hair.
No matter what Ann Coulter wears, you’d quibble about it. Are you a perfect 10 yourself? Didn’t think so.
Great post.
Anne is a superb satirist rivaling the Roman Juvenal. Her writings are intelligent and provoking and she does it with artistic savoir faire. Her critics are rather dimwitted undereducated liberals who would not know satire if it hit them in the face; in fact it takes sophistication and intelligence to appreciate classical satire and most of her liberal critics were educated in dull anti intellectual univesities where dumb tenured professorial peacocks strut around issuing forth the talking points of the DNC. She is indeed a jewel in the conservative American arsenal of perceptive writers and commentators.
All excellent points, Mr Klavan, and Ann, when you read this (and you will), the next time someone points out the similarities between the French and American Revolutions, ask them this: who is the American equivalent of the Princesse de Lamballe? I’ve never been able to find one and I think that says it all about the differences between the two events.
I think this is her most substantial book. It pulls together so much: why supposedly humane and rational liberals are so prone to bullying, hero-worship and superstition, and why they’re impatient with argument — having to present a logical case is a bring-down, a loss of their adrenaline high.
Ann represents what the Conservatives need to be, the mirror image of the Liberals. Conservatives are always appologizing, it is time for that to come to an end. It is time for Conservatives to get ugly and in the face of Liberals. It isn’t just a matter of winning the arguments, but is essential if we want our society to survive.
Someone wrote here at PJM that Ann Coulter is a pure performer, a bombthrower. Not true if you listen closely to her points when interviewed.
They’re deep, baby.
She’s too smart and too blunt to be accepted into the Club of the Endless Talking Heads that permeates all sides of political discourse in the country today. (rather, what passes for political discourse)
You know she gets inside their talking heads given the depth of their attempts to dismiss her and belittle her.
We’ll call this The Sarah Palin Syndrome.
Where would she want to be but on the outside of the insanity ?
Ann is not mainstream conservative because she doesn’t know she is supposed to take vile abuse quietly. Nobody points out the crazed inconsistency and routine hate mongering of these power lusting loons better.
Gee, I didn’t do too badly there myself. Might as well say it while we still can.
I hate the labels conservative and liberal.
It reduces discourse to some kind of difference of opinion between equally valid opposing camps.
I think the distinction between those who believe in liberty and personal responsibility versus those who become conditioned to mewl and puke through life for government handouts is, really, a distinction between sane and insane.
A liberal writer recently paid lip service to Andrew Breitbart’s pursuit of Weinergate by describing Breitbart as the conservative’s rabble rouser, something like that.
Élites use such terms to avoid acknowledging that there are still individuals on the planet who pursue Truth at all costs.
Despite their best efforts to kill them off.
There really is a monstrous battle going on between the sane and the insane.
You can tell how effective a conservative voice is by the level of hate and invective that is given to them by the left. Especially women. Thatcher, Palin, Bachmann, Coulter are all vilified to the highest degree. Coulter and Mark Steyn make a devestating one two punch of witty, incisive conservative writers. Stalin would have (and Pete Seeger and his ilk do) call them fascists. High praise and as revealing as it is untrue. If you oppose the left on virtually any subject, you automaticlly become Hitler.
There is no woman on the Left, or even the muddled middle, who can come close to the intellectual acumen and incisive wit of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin & Laura Ingraham. Ann and Laura have law degrees, Michelle Malkin has unparalleled research and articulation skills
Our girlz is way smarter.
It’s just the way of things.
Our girlz is way smarter.
Ditto, tanstaafl. And I would add way easier on da eyes, to boot!
Yes, gag, and the relationship between physical unattractiveness and the angry version of feminism is certainly a topic some wannabe PhD should delve into one of these daze.
Just sayin’
And, à propos of something, I understand that Jew Hater extraordinaire Helen Thomas is trying to get her WH credentials re-instated.
tanst, I won’t explore the relationship of physical unattractiveness to angry feminism – that’s ‘above my pay grade’ but I’d love to see a study of it nonetheless. My initial guess based on observations during my half-century on this planet is that they are woven together like a Pawleys Island hammock . . . but I should tell you I don’t have a PhD, nor do I play one on TV. Of course, if I played one on TV, I’d be perfectly qualified to comment on the profound, inner psychological mechanisms of the modern American female.
The most telling thing is the angry liberal men throw like girls and can’t even hit Ann with a pie! I certainly wouldn’t want a limp-wristed, girly-thrower man like that guarding a post!
“Demonic” is a great read and Ann’s most substantial work thus far. Her analysis of the Left and mob psychology seems particularly apt in view of what is going on in Wisconsin and other states. Those who join in clenched-fist salutes always give off the whiff of a Nuremberg rally and Coulter calls them on it.
I like her politics but her religious views are disturbing. The concept that Jews need Christian ” perfecting ” displays a blind spot in her belief system that refuses to deal with historical facts when they are uncomfortable or when they reveal the inherent flaws in that belief system.
She is an interesting personality but pedestal material? I don’t think so.
Menachem, you might be making some important point about her penchant for supersessionism. I’ve thought about that heavily, too, as you can see by my (long-time) web nom du guerre; which I always hoped Ann would get a good laugh from, while most don’t seem to understand the satirical implications. There is an element of guilt related to her “attitude” which is mostly associated with her unabashed honesty, by exposing her personal theological beliefs; while on the other hand she is an ardent defender and advocate for Israel, not unlike Glenn Beck. Being a not-so-nice Jewish boy myself, I understand your emotional response, but when the Solomon in me weighs consideration for human imperfection at one end of the spectrum, to the comic relief which Ann spreads in her delightfully precocious manner, while salving my need for the (mostly) unabashed truth, I mostly think (when it’s 1938 all over again), thank-you, at least this time around there are some early, ardent and vocal defenders like Ann to give us, especially Israel, a fighting chance…
The world has never been stranger.
We have folks who love Israel but feel lukewarm about Jews and folks that are lukewarm about Israel that claim to love Jews.
And folks like Coulter who think we are somehow ” imperfect “. While I applaud her conservatism her blind spot, since it is my ox getting gored, weighs heavily.
I wish she would spend more time reading than writing.
Don’t let her belief bother you. This is just standard Christian Doctrine. Only Christ can get you into Heaven. Jews have their beliefs. I understand they do not believe in Hell? Or the Devil? Not sure. But I do not let Jewish beliefs bother me at all. You should not let Christian beliefs bother you.
And yes, there is this paradox where Doctrinal Christians believe Jews will not enter Heaven, but at he same time, we believe we are required by God Himself to defend you. Don’t sweat it. Coulter is on your side, as am I. We’ll let God sort out the details, for judgment is His.
It is of course natural for every human being to feel his or her own religion superior to other religions. However it is massive hubris to claim that ones own religion is superior FOR another.
Holiness is approached the more one helps others, irregardless of religious belief.
Menachem, why are you worrying about this? It’s part of the Christian faith that “The Way” is simply another step along the journey of the evolution of the Jews. These are people who love Israel because that’s where their faith comes from. Jesus was a Jew, it’s time to get past it. Learn about it.
Jews were ancient before Jesus was born. It is from our Holy Torah that the stories that fill your bible were taken.
I thank G-d every day for making me a Jew.
Ann Coulter is a wild rose. There’s another wild rose in Alberta – except this one is a political party.
Great review Andrew. Would love to hear what you think of Mamet’s new book.
My Wall St. Journal Review, PJ.
Mark Steyn goes right for the heart, Andrew Breitbart hits back square on your nose, Ann…is a kick to the groin.
If you are a leftist wallowing in a cesspool of arrogance, deceit, distortion and abject denigration of all non-believers… and are used to having your way with ridiculing non-leftists while scoffing at the Marques of Queensbury gentle replies softly tossed back at you …getting rocked by Attila the Pun, Joan of Snark and Drewzilla…has to be a bit jarring to your delicate sensibilities.
After all, this is supposed to be a “fixed” fight. The ref is bought off, the judges are crooked and all the wiseguy money is on you.
Oops. Bam! Pow! Crunch!
Look, Ann has a deadly combination for leftists…long legs and a short fuse. She doesn’t suffer their fools easily. Yes, she crosses the line from time to time. And the Bill Maher’s and Janeane Garafolo LIVE on the other side of that line.
No, she does not make the distinction between liberals and leftists that I do. Yes, her views on some topics make me cringe at times.
Still, I’m glad that she’s a warrior in the front lines against rampant, unchecked leftism. She takes their sacred cows and makes sausage out of them. Sometimes making sausage making can be a bit messy and not pleasant to look at…but, Ann has much more talent and wit than anyone on the other side. Most of the time I lean toward eloquence, reason, …but there are days I must freely admit, I enjoy seeing the other side taking a punch instead of always being on the receiving end of them. And Ann delivers many of the best haymakers.
Precisely. Well put. While Ann occasionally crosses the line and makes me cringe, as well, the Praetorian guard of the left live on the wrong side of the line and revel in it.
“Most of the time I lean toward eloquence, reason…”
Yes, but we can’t afford the purely academic, white glove exchanges anymore.
This is down in the trenches, down & dirty warfare. A fight for survival.
Coulter’s analysis of the present day left as a Rouseauian mob ala the French revolution is right on and I don’t remember any other pundit or social commentator making that point as strongly. She neglects to point out, however, that this characteristic derives directly from the New Left/Vietnam war era – and the left political machinery is being run by the leaders of that movement or taught by same.
I’ve only read one of her books previously and it was pretty disappointing. This one is far and away a superior product.
Tex’s Axiom #1:
The louder the wailing from the Left, the more truthful the article.
Tex’s Axiom #2:
The greater the gnashing of teeth from the Left, the more effective the author.
———-
And nobody is capable of creating louder wailing and greater gnashing of teeth than Ann Coulter. In fact, Ann Coulter is so effective at exposing “progressive” weakness and mendacity, few from the Left will dare even step on the same stage for debate. The few that do, don’t bother for a second go.
Coulter, Whittle, and Klavan – three I never miss.
Amen, Tex.
With a name like “Tex” I had to reply in the affirmative.
I haven’t yet read Ann’s latest but with this recommendation I’m headed to Amazon.
I have always admired Ann and her work, but what caused me to love her was her article when her mom died. It was beautiful and sweet and brings me to tears even as I write this.
“a straight line between Robespierre to the Democratic Party”
Straight lines in philosophy’s influence on culture are rare, but there’s definitely a genetic connection between Rousseau – one of the prime authors of the French Revolution – and the Democratic Party. Progressive intellectuals are far from shy about acknowledging that, since they largely believe that Rousseau’s views were correct.
There are other important roots, such as Hegel and Dewey, but to suggest there’s no link between Robespierre – who was self-admittedly very influenced by Rousseau – and the contemporary Democratic Party is simply wrong on the evidence, whatever your political philosophy.
I’m about 1/2 way through ‘Demonic’ (I have 4 children who take up a lot of my time, but I’m going as fast as I have time to) and it is thoroughly researched and well-written. No one can accuse Ann of not having done her homework! When a kid in school, she probably always had all her tools ready (pencils, paper, eraser, paste, color-markers, scissors, etc.) and her homework ready to turn in, on time & flawlessly done.
As TexT points out, noboby is capable of creating louder wailing and greater gnashing of teeth than Ann, but I would hasten to add Sarah Palin as well. The two of them together drive the left absolutely bonkers and I love it. Rush says “If you want to made a conservative mad, tell him a lie. If you want to make a liberal mad, tell him/her the truth.” Ann tells the fact-based truth and they can’t stand it!
I have to take Coulter in small doses. One column per week is sufficient. One can have too much snark.
I also got tired of seeing her constantly selling her books. Yes, she has to sell books, but when she is on as a commenter, that is not the time to push your books. This tendency makes her take conflicting sides of things time-to-time.
And yes, she has a terrible track record of choosing Repub candidates for Prez.
She is plenty easy on the eyes, though.
even her little one-liner asides have source cites. I looked up all of them for one book. It was the first one I read. It sounded completely opposite of everything I had ever been taught, told or read. Her source cites were sound. Her throw- aways had source cites.
She is brilliant, and devastating and, for me, life-changing. I am looking forward to reading her new book, when it comes out in trade paper.
And, furthermore, if you mention her jokes to other people, but don’t say where they come from- those people say “ouch” and then change, as well. She’s effective up to three kevin bacon’s away, that I can attest. She might be able to do the whole seven degrees.
I have watched perhaps 30 interviews Ann has given. In each case the pattern has been the same. The “interviewer” hogs the limelight, asking paragraph-length questions, and then doesn’t give her time to answer. They play “gotcha” and ask her questions about being hot (she is) or about the most controversial things she says. In no case do they ask penetrating questions and let her make her points. Perhaps they guess she’s smarter and better read and has thought through her positions in greater depth than they have.
I agree with you that this is one of her best books. I also have to agree that her weekly commentary is without comparison – it is the first article I read every Thursday morning. If I were Rush, I would have pursued and married her.
A smashingly witty rephrasing of a plain truth, or of an idea which I agree with, carries a lot of heft in the cranial truth lobes. I enjoy zingers as much as anyone, but get worn down at ingesting book-length collections of them. I find that I can abide her offerings more if I remember that she isn’t arguing, she isn’t explaining, she isn’t debating, so much as she’s performing.
In the days after the 9-11 terrorist attack, Ann Coulter was fired by National Review, for writing comments like this one:
“We should invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”
I wouldn’t bother with conversion. Just inform them, in ways they will not forget, that we can either be your best friend, or your worst nightmare. If you’re the strong horse, then BE the strong horse.
Ann was right. Touchy feely political correctness with Islam will only lead to our defeat.
I love Ann and consider her the most prominent American polemicist, our own version of the late Jean-Francois Revel of France. He didn’t get proper ‘recognition’ either, for the same reasons of course, this despite the tradition of Voltaire and Montaigne which we do not have. We should not be surprised at the blanket of silence from a media invested in ignoring her. Does anyone recall strong media coverage of ClimateGate?
Just one thing. Joe Rago of the WSJ did win a Pulitzer for his very critical work on ObamaCare. The exception that proves the rule.
I have two staples for commentary: Ann Coulter and Charles Krauthammer. Of the right, Charles is the straight right punch, and Coulter the left hook. She is no joke, though she may come across, to the uninitiated, as blithe in style. So blithe that people think she just spews. She is always spot on, though, I think, because she doesn’t pussyfoot with her convictions. She knows where she stands, and isn’t afraid to show it, and that is significant these days.
This was the first Ann Coulter book I read . . . and I found it fascinating. There were only a handful of remarks I thought were perhaps a bit mean-spirited and over the top. The vast majority of the book, while a harsh review the the liberal left “mob” does present Ann’s case pretty well. This would be consistent with Andrew Klavan’s remarks about getting to the truth 90% of the time.
I haven’t seen a wit this ascerbic since Mary McCarthy. She nails it every time. Love her.
I love it when people out to impress* illogically misuse “It’s the exception that proves the rule” without knowing the non-contradictory Latin origin of the expression. Michael Quinion says, “You may reasonably infer from ['Parking prohibited on Sunday'] that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week.” “[T]he principle is arguing that the existence of an allowed exception to a rule reaffirms the existence of the rule.” You can thank me later.
*Yes, I’m one of them. But I do it mostly to impress a beautiful woman I correspond with. (She’s had it up to here with me.)
Well, thanks for that enlightening post. Now I don’t feel so bad about lecturing here on “beg the question.”
Read all of Ann’s books. This is the best one in my opinion: provocative thesis, well researched and clever writing (as always). Can’t wait for the next one!
I’m working my way through Demonic. So far – so good. Ann Coulter is a star indeed.
Coulters underlying thesis in this book is that most people are rotten. And that assertion is verified both biblically and experientially. “All have sinned, and have fallen short of the glory of God”; Speaking of Heaven, “…few shall enter there”; “None is righteous; no, not one.”
An example of evil incarnate is POTUS.Others include: the slothful, who live off government handouts, generation after generation; the scofflaws, who do as they please except in the presence of the police; the hateful, out to butcher as many unborn babies as possible; the greedy, multiplying personal profits even unto the destruction of our economy; the prideful, who set their personal opinions above our constitution; the envious, slandering, libelling, filing ridiculous lawsuits, sowing discord as they go; the ignorant, wilfully ignoring the facts and proceeding to unfounded conclusions; the demonic, working hard to turn this planet into a physical Hell: a communist polity and economy ruled by Sharia law.
Coulter is factually correct. Most of us are awful. But there is a cure.
We could all commit to behave lovingly toward one another at all times.
The new Testament word for that kind of love is AGAPE; a selfsacrificial love which is concerned solely with the longterm welfare of the loved ones.
Shall we give it a try?