Ann Coulter Gets ‘Demonic’
Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America 
By Ann Coulter
Crown Forum (June 7, 2011)
Reviewed by Christian Toto
Liberals eager to find offense with Ann Coulter’s latest book need only thumb over to page 4, where the blond provocateur lumps left-wing protestors in with the Maoist gangs looting villages and impaling babies in China.
Or they can simply read the title.
Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America is yet another pull-no-punches tract from the Right’s Queen of Mean.
She’s as divisive as ever, lobbing red meat to her base while driving the Left to fits of rage. It’s in her DNA. But her tabloid style distracts from a larger truth. Few can illuminate the chasm between Right and Left like Coulter. You just have to endure her baiting prose to see it.
Demonic feels as packed as her political columns, and often nearly as riotous. At nearly 300 pages long — not counting the bibliography and various appendixes — it’s hardly a rush job. It’s the breadth of her examples which will leave readers gasping. Thank goodness for her fiery sense of humor. It’s a mandatory release valve for the anger her prose is sure to inspire.
What conservative wouldn’t get red-faced over the Left’s tactics, what Coulter describes as an amalgam of hate, insincerity, and outright deception.
Coulter ties the Left in knots via her mob mentality description, based on the 1896 book The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind by Gustave Le Bon — who might as well get a co-author credit here.
“Democrats activate mobs, depend on mobs, coddle mobs, publicize and celebrate mobs — they are the mob,” she writes. And if that weren’t scabrous enough, she’s just getting started.
“The Democrats’ playbook doesn’t involve heads on pikes — as yet,” she writes.
It’s Coulter being Coulter, and if you’re offended it would probably make her day.
Coulter boils down support for ObamaCare via the “mob mentality” lens: “it will provide health care for 30 million uninsured Americans, everyone’s health care will improve — and their plan would save money! … Only the mob could believe it,” she writes.
In “The Historical Context of the Left,” Coulter fashions herself a politically incorrect professor out to label the Left as the heirs to the French Revolution, a topic previously explored in Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism.
“Liberals don’t like to talk about the French Revolution because it’s the history of them,” she writes, before recalling the beheadings and other atrocities from the era.
It’s an imaginative, if incendiary, way to view the likes of MoveOn.org and the union thugs, but Coulter wastes far too much pulp on the matter. A Coulter book should be read in a few intoxicating sittings.
She later turns her attention to the American Revolution, delivered in her own inimitable style. The text does support tea partier Sarah Palin when it describes how Paul Revere warned the British they would be massacred if it they went near Lexington Green.
One tenuous connection between the two revolutions was Thomas Paine, who inexplicably supported the mob-like tactics practiced by the French.
“He was a historical one-hit wonder, desperately trying to find that follow-up single that would put him back on top,” she writes.
If there’s one figure in the Punditocracy who’s indispensable to conservative politics, it’s Ann H. Coulter. She’s our speaker of unspeakable truths: the ugly facts other commentators attempt to dress decently in circumlocutions and oblique avoidances of direct attributions of motive. It is inconceivable that the American Right would have mobilized as it has without her, and perhaps Rush Limbaugh. No one else compares to either of them in intelligence, pungency, or wit.
Exactly, Mr. Porretto. Most of the supposedly conservative pundits of today are cowards. Coulter and Limbaugh deserve a huge thanks from all of us.
I would just add that Mark Steyn, Roger Kimball and Andrew McCarthy are three more indispensible pundits who deserve our respect. And noone writes better than Steyn.
I’d echo your comments about Steyn. I appreciate Limbaugh now, but haven’t always felt that way about him. Steyn, on the other hand, always makes his points very effectively, and he’s much easier to sell to “moderates” and “independents” who aren’t always receptive to conservative ideas when they come from a Limbaugh or a Coulter.
Ditto on all of the above, and I would add Thomas Sowell as well.
Yes, I agree about Thomas Sowell, and would add him to my list.
Sadly, many of the rest are too afraid or too much in bed with the In-Crowd to confront Islam, disastrous nation-building efforts, illegal immigration, racial pandering and a variety of other PC shibboleths. And the rise of the Neocon faction was a disaster for conservatism.
I’ve almost completely given up on National Review, except that Bill Buckley’s ghost seems to be requiring that they still employ a few of decent writers, such as Steyn and McCarthy.
“The Democrats’ playbook doesn’t involve heads on pikes — as yet,” she writes.
That’s funny. Mine involves theirs. They can hardly compalin about the terms of engagement they’ve set for themselves.
Ann, you’re a saint!
The reviewer puts himself too much in the picture with words that insinuate that he occupies an elevated position vis a vis Ann Coulter. According to the reviewer, Coulter is a “provocateur, the Right’s Queen of Mean, divisive, incendiary,” etc. The phrase “damned by faint praise” comes to mind in assessing this reviewer’s review. The only time he mentions the word “truth” is in reference to Coulter’s undoubted ability to elucidate the difference between the totalitarian behavior of contemporary Democrats and the Constitutional conservatism of Americans like Coulter. But Coulter is all about seeing and speaking truth. And while she speaks with a sharp tongue, her words are both witty and sagacious. To review a book by Coulter and never once mention that it is all about piercing to the heart of contemporary socio-political realities in order to get at the truth is to miss the zeitgeist of Ann Coulter altogether. It reveals more about the reviewer than the book he reviews that he altogether misses this point.
Bingo.
I’m tired of mealy-mouthed moderates posing as conservatives.
Anybody who can’t tell it like it is should get off the podium.
Just thinking, . . .
And I think rather, that, if we could maybe get some kind of reasonable thinking pill down those of your thought type, you might come away with a much different opinion; and for instant example—to my count, one of at least five, possible—what you’re trying to say in: “. . . . is to miss the zeitgeist of Ann Coulter altogether.” would better in form as: “. . . . is to have altogether missed the zeitgeist of Ann Coulter.”—correcting for tense and positional emphasis.
But just one more: “It reveals more about the reviewer than the book he reviews that he altogether misses this point.”.
If your short critique is acceptable, in their own mind, is any reader of your comment not able to derive “It reveals more about the reviewer than the book he reviews that he altogether misses this point.” as his own conclusion? Then, be that so, why not allow a big empty space for that regard toward power of thought in others of our kind?
And all this to such an end that, if in several instances the critique of the review is wrong, the logic then is, that, the intended point in thrust also, is wrong; and so—if only from your end of the thing—much to the reverse, the most likely probability is that, this book review could well withstand analytical critique done by a team of thinkers, . . .
Sorry…but your point eludes me.
A review of a review of a review…ad nauseaum, as in, I think I’m nauseous!
Leftists always take offense to Coulter because leftists don’t actually read, nor do they actually do any work without whining about it. Anyone notice that President Obama never reads and never lets work get in the way of his incessant electioneering? They are a mob, and their only feelings of security are gained from being a member of a mob. This is more politely called collectivism. Mob rule = collectivism. Ann likes the synonym, Mob. You go, Ann! I will be adding your new book to my collection soon.
I own Ann’s books, and appreciate her thoroughly researching any subject that she writes about.
I do wish she would drop some of the hardness in her tone of voice. I think the message would be better received by listeners when they watch her being mockingly interviewed by the fish-wife mouthpieces of the left.
I think that Ann’s angry – that’s what may account for her acerbic tone. And who wouldn’t be angry at modern American liberalism’s Morlocks for their willful and persistent attempt to destroy the very civilization that supports their existence?
This, it would appear, is a lesson largely forgotten and/or ignored by many of us who live in what’s left of our civilization. It’s a forgetfulness that carries a terrible price.
How about if we defend Israel, ban discrimination based on race, end circumcision and send all the liberals back to France?
It is required of Jews that they be circumcized, is it not?
And, why France? Would Guyana not do?
Would it not prepare them for the very warm eternal weather they are about to experience?
Daxypoo, the facts validate her conclusions; not her techniques.
Sule errs in lacking appreciation of direct, poignant criticism. In the Bible Bad Guys are referred to as “sons of the devil”, “vipers”, “liars”, etc. Coulter puts accurate nametags on the Bad Guys. She doesn’t water down her criticisms with ambivalence or understatement.
Perhaps, it isn’t always easy to maintain composure when confronting the ‘wild beasts of Ephesus,’ i.e. today’s liberals, and since you seem familiar with scripture;
Proverbs 15:23 “A man has joy by the answer of his mouth: and a word spoken in due season, how good is it!”
16:21: “The wise of heart is called discerning, and sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness.”
16:24 “Gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body.”
25:11 “A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver.”
Ravi Zacharia states an Indian proverb, “there’s no point in cutting off a person’s nose, and then handing them a rose to smell.”
Ann is smart and capable, and has the good fortune of attractiveness for handing out roses. She has enough going for her not to have to fling the left’s poo back at them to make her points. Let the leftists snarl and rage, it only reveals them more so the obnoxious barbarians that they are.
Instead of Guyana, how about Haiti? Then they spend every minute of every day with the poor downtrodden blacks they claim to love so much.
Now if by Guyana you mean having the libs repopulate Jonestown, then you’ve got a point. How about a Kool-Aid party headed by Pelosi & Reid?
Sure hope Ann dedicated a page or two to the recent “flash mob” phenomenon. Note how they’re always composed of leftist savages.
The differences between tactile sensation and hydraulic pressure has been mentioned or discussed—on air—by G. Gordon Liddy, nationwide; by “Liz, The Lez With An Attitude” on KBOO; and by Dr. Laura, and by Sally J. Raphael.
In my experience with sodomites and with men who are not circumcised, the not circumcised condition is primary to the fact that, so many men prefer non-vaginal sexual experiences—demeaning or degrading both to the woman and to the man, and making existential exercise of life as a societal experience, more difficult. I would marvel to know just how you might have come up with ending circumcision, . . . but then, no. Don’t tell me.
correction: “. . . . pressures have been mentioned or . . . .”.
the left hate ann coulter because she matches their vitriol but has the facts to validate her technique; thus, ann coulter is someone the left wishes they had on THEIR side
Last I checked, she is blonde, not blond….
Thank you! Even the S.F. Chronicle is finally getting it right.
I have not yet read Ms. Coulter’s latest but will be buying my copy in the next couple of days. I hope that she also cites the invaluable insights of Eric Hoffer’s indispensable book, “The True Believer”, where the longshoreman/philosopher elegantly dissects and describes the nature of “mass movements” in the 20th Century. (He also describes the misery these have left in their wake.) Hoffer’s prescient analysis is almst a perfect description of the (mob-like?) movement that lifted Barack Obama to the Presidency in 2008. What makes it even more amazing is that Hoffer was writing in 1951. Truly a classic work,
While I admire Ms Coulter I live in fear she might turn her Adder’s tongue on me. Never the less I second the nomination (title of one of her tomes) of Justice Anne to the Supreme Court.
I can’t read “Demonic” until the Bamster is out of office. I need to avoid giving myself a stroke at least until then.
I’ve read a couple of her books as well as all her columns and I thoroughly look forward to watching her on TV. She along with Mark Steyn are not only great writers but entertaining and just enjoyable to read. Of course she has a biting sarcasm and a blatant contempt for the left,but the liberals deserve it because we are inundated with the banal, p.c., predictable, phillistine liberal agenda of the establishment and the media. ” Demonic” should be a great read.
Make sure you villify and ignore us “birthers” whom have now proved beyond reasonable doubt,no, wait, DEFINITLY,
Us “Birthers” have now proved without a doubt that the birth certificate presented by the messiah as his is a total fraud, caught the same way dan rather was outed as the lying pos shit he is when he tried to smear GW Bush.
The truth is a stubborn thing, you can keep denying it but this muslim marxist has been outed, and this country will pay the price for ignoring the Constitutional elgibility clause.
Let me try this again……..Us “Birthers” have now proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the birth certificate presented by obama is a complete and total fabrication.
Continuing to villify those that speak the truth will not dissuade us from insisting that the US Constitution be followed.
We now see the damage that is caused by ignoring the elgibility requirements specifically laid out by our founding fathers.
Truth is a stubborn thing.
I thank God every day for Ann Coulter, Palin, Bachman and so many informed, intelligent and stalwart women in America…..to counter the Fema nazis, code oinkers and deginerate baby killing femnists.
Wow, the lambs sure are bleating loudly today! You guys crack me up! Oooh those eevviill liberals… It’s funny to watch you all get into a space together and mentally masturbate about how you are oh so superior and untouched by sin so therefore all your ideas must be piles of golden feces that shine forth with the truth. Get a clue! You are still human and no matter how brainwashed or uneducated you may be there must be a still small voice inside all that hatred that tells you the real truth of history. Do you know what it is? Probably not… In your twisted little minds you think to use the government to shrink the government and to use ignorance to cure enlightenment. Good luck with that, sheep.
Nice one, corpsey.
Oooh those eevviill conservatives… It’s funny to watch you liberals get into a space together and mentally masturbate about how you are oh so superior and untouched by sin so therefore all your ideas must be piles of golden feces that shine forth with the truth. Get a clue! You are still human and no matter how brainwashed or uneducated you may be there must be a still small voice inside all that hatred that tells you the real truth of history. Do you know what it is? Probably not… In your twisted little minds you think to use the government to grow the government and to use false enlightenment to cure true enlightenment. Good luck with that, Weiner creeps.
Yeah, and just imagine those of us in the center who might try to have a reasonable conversation with EITHER group. Been there; done that.
Each side suspects that since you aren’t in the tank for them that you must be on the other side. You have no syncophants to watch your back, but you DO have (if you happen to know it) a history of the rhythms of the American political system, which lurches toward one side, then the other, somehow letting the extremists cancel each other out. It is a messy system, but no one has come up with a better one.
You and the rotted corpse of G.W.F. Hegel ought to get a room together. Your attempts at ‘synthesis’ always lean heavily to the left. And not very convincing to those who know the game.
I think Ayn Rand had your number long ago.
I can only conclude that Ann Coulter is a secret plot by James Carville to make conservatives look stupid. Nothing else makes sense.
/sarcasm.
Sure, she throws out good red meat for the crowd. “Go Ann! Yeah, Yeah! You tell ‘em!” (see above comments for examples)
But the average person on the street, and more importantly the average voter (you know, the one who decides elections) thinks she’s an idiot. And if you say you like her, they’ll think you’re an idiot. And if you say your candidate is a fan of hers, they’ll vote for the other person.
Just saying.
I agree.
Elections are decided by the independent aka moderate voter. I have my doubts about whether Ms. Coulter’s hyperbole has any positive influence on these voters. I suspect it’s just the opposite.
I hope I’m wrong.
Coulter once again pitching cunningly ill-timed DIS-traction.
While we’re sure her writing on the Freemason instigated
‘French’ Revolution is some of her best —-WHY NOW?
Just as the Rockefeller front CNP, and RED China TREASON
apologist Pat Buchanan feeds us demoralizing WW2 revisionism
—at the very time when we’re having to face up to the Globalist
created, US taxpayer funded RED Chinese ‘miracle’
—SO Coulter brings in the largely staged Jacobin mob terror,
at a time when the world is begining to awaken to Globalism
and contrived debt serfdom —and EUGENICS.
Beyond even that, Coulter has never said much of anything on
this, THE key, core issue of the century.