Ann Coulter may be the most important conservative in America. A review of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans.
If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans
by Ann Coulter
published by Crown Forum (October 2, 2007)
Hdbk., 288 pgs.
ISBN-10: 0307353451
ISBN-13: 978-0307353450
I am the illegal alien of commentary.
I will do the jokes that no one else will do.
— Ann Coulter
It sounds kind of silly to imply that a conservative has the status of a rock star, but Ann Coulter might be the closest rightists come to a figure who makes the news merely by breathing. In recent years she has become an icon, and just about everyone interested in politics has an opinion about her . . . and usually those opinions are emphatic.
The Amazon.com reviews for her latest book, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, a collection of quotations from her sizable oeuvre, aptly reveals the split in the public’s perception. At the time of this writing, the compendium has 121 Five-Star (excellent) ratings and 105 One-Star (terrible) ratings with not a whole lot in between. This is entirely appropriate and Coulter wouldn’t want it any other way.
For conservatives the reasons to admire her are readily apparent. Coulter is a one-woman battalion who says things most of us may think but are too civil (or fearful) to say out loud.1 Yes, although it is unfortunate, the side wishing to preserve western civilization is largely populated by kindly, deferential types who eschew conflict. The majority of us make for poor combatants in the culture war. This state of affairs makes Coulter’s value all the more pronounced. Furthermore, her enemies, for the most part, are our enemies as well, and such a commonality has forged the basis for countless political alliances over the centuries.
Coulter’s fame and esteem among rightists is cause enough for the Left to hate her. Indeed, to say she is the Democratic Party’s least favorite conservative is not an understatement. The ever bloviating Ted Kennedy remarked this spring, “Ann Coulter's words of hate have no place in the public sphere much less our political discourse.” Well, there’s no hate in her statements, but clearly she has as much a right to offend as anyone else in America — particularly if she is provoking outrage from our cowardly, statist politicians. In comparison to Senator Kennedy, I find her observations downright soothing.
At least the monstrous drunkard from Massachusetts was content to attack her with rhetoric alone. In the past, other radicals have thrown pies at her, sabotaged her biographical entry on Wikipedia, arranged to have jumped on television shows, and spun rumors that she is a transvestite.
Pseudo-liberal outrage over her utterances is but self-parody as Coulter says what she does in the hopes of provoking her enemies. Her tactics have been enormously successful. PC automatons line up on television to express their self-righteous condemnation practically every time she opens her mouth. Their animosity and invective showcase that it is they, as opposed to the blond Page Six entry, who are the real haters in our society. Their faux indignation only serves to highlight their own shallowness and conformity, however.
The Left’s ire in regards to Coulter is chiefly a result of two factors. First, emotion — as opposed to detached logical evaluation — is the essence of her fame and reputation. Despite the outstanding intellectual arguments she sometimes makes, her effective responses are the reason why she is a household name. This is deeply resented by pseudo-liberals because they see her style as one which subsumes their own. Without emotion and conclusions based on irrational premises there would be no Democratic Party and no political Left whatsoever.
Coulter’s humorous advice, “[j]ust call them traitors and let them sort it out,” inflames her foes as she uses their methods against them. Where would sensitivity statists in America be without the brandishing of isms? Answer: out of office. If they could not dub their opponents names like racist then they would have to explain why they hold government and “the poor” to be synonymous terms. That’s the second to last thing they want. The first are opponents every bit as rude as they are.
Her ridicule is something they cannot handle. Radical feminists are well known for their obtuseness and lack of wit, so imagine how irate they become after hearing Coulter describe an ideal abstinence kit as containing “an 8×10 glossy of Susan Estrich.” That is a hysterical quip, but also one that is highly accurate.
Truth is the second reason for the Left’s disdain. Nothing infuriates them more than the truth and Coulter pronounces it publicly on a regular basis. “Veritas parit odium,” the truth begets hatred, which is exactly what happens when one shares reality with our elites; those same elites who look down on us from their perches atop government, the universities, and the mainstream media. They prefer not to be reminded of the fact that most of their state-sponsored “solutions” only manage to exacerbate existing social pathologies. These magnates prefer to play pretend games wherein their every socialist inclination ends up “helping” someone.
Coulter elucidates this eventuality in the following sentence: “[E]very time the government tries to help the poor it ends up removing the marvelous incentives life provides to do things like buy an alarm clock, get a job, keep your knees together before marriage, and generally become a productive, happy member of society.” Short, irreverent, funny, and also more descriptive of the dole than anything ever spun by Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama.
Yes, calling someone a traitor is not an effective argument in itself, but it does aptly describe the mindset of the PC-nik. These individuals regard America as being a racist, sexist entity so why on earth would they ever want to defend it? Answer: they wouldn’t. They pray [sic] that our shores soon become inhabited by new diverse peoples who will assuage their pseudo-liberal guilt by transplanting our indigenous culture with charming societal accoutrements such as Sharia or election via coup d’etat.
These leftists care nothing for our Constitution and wish to breathe life into it . . . until it is dead. To them, America will always be “Amerika.” With sophist ease they have redefined patriot with its antonym. The word now refers to a person who reflexively criticizes their own country whenever possible. Clearly, traitor is a term which embodies them.
The mainstream media responds to Coulter the entertainer, but makes a point of ducking her logical arguments. They depict her as being an airhead yet she knows her foes far better than they know themselves. Even her intentionally outrageous stuff — “Most newspapers in the red states — even nice states like Mississippi — are run by loser liberals who rub their foreskin while reading the New York Times” — illustrates the depth of her analysis. Journalists and yuppies are the only two remaining groups of Americans who retain any admiration for the slanted operation that once dubbed itself, “the paper of record.”
I am very grateful for her presence in the public square; although, duty necessitates my providing prospective purchasers of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans with a warning. Those readers who already own her books would be wise to pass on this one. There’s precious little here that hasn’t been said (and excoriated) before. Besides, one can access her online columns for free.
In summation, in regards to Ms. Coulter, I have said it before but will say it again — she may be the most important conservative in America. Not only is the scorn she showers upon the Left well-deserved, it also enables her peers to speak freely. Like Valderrama, Ballack, Zidane or any other brilliant soccer midfielder, Coulter’s thrusts and counterstrokes create space within which the rest of us can roam and prosper. We should be allowed to say what we want in our private lives without fear of termination, prison or banishment.
I will concede that the uttering of verboten syllables is not a cause for celebration, but by lampooning PC she helps roll back the invasive boundaries of the sensitivity state. We badly need her. Whatever one thinks of her personality, all rightists owe her a debt of gratitude because everyday she acts as a lightning rod . . . on our behalf.
If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans is available on Amazon.com.
veritaseducation@gmail.com
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22chapin%27s+inferno%22&search_type=
Read more articles by Bernard Chapin
Ann instead of being called a lightening rod should be dubbed a laser rod. Her keen insight and wit are certainly what the real hate mongers on the left fear. Wonder why it is that the cnn or msnbc bunch are so afraid of her. Come to think of it, has Fox started being a little pc itself? Her exposure there has abated a shade.
If Ann is so wrong, why do the libs run and hide. They should expose her for what they think she is. Confront her mouth with answers and ideas instead of the touchy-feely garbage. The nyt's, cnn's, msnbc's and public radio should hang their heads in shame. Do they not have the talent and ideas to combat Ann? Apparently not.
Comment by hvance | December 3, 2007
Thank G-d someone on this website has the courage to talk about Ann Coulter, since no one else is. Meanwhile, if you want to look at the effects of public figures on our future, I'd spend less time commenting on the results of her rapier wit, and more time on the results of the blood lust that is driving the Republican party, of which she is a prime representative.
Comment by felix | December 5, 2007
felix:
You apparently don't see through the veneer of abrasiveness that Ann loves to use. If you would just look at her points then you might be able to appreciate the message. It is her way of being noticed and I give her kudos for finding a way to get her message out. Now if you want to attack her style then that's ok, but don't pretend that her arguments are for blood just because she is an unabashed conservative. Take any of her points, tell her where she is wrong and how you would fix the point she is addressing. Try not to be angry (I realize that is a badge of honor with liberals) with your solutions, just state them and let the marketplace of ideas sort them out.
Comment by hvance | December 5, 2007
"Whatever one thinks of her personality, all rightists owe her a debt of gratitude because everyday she acts as a lightning rod . . . on our behalf."
Nonsense. She is the actualization of the caricature liberals have constructed of conseratives. Liberals are as justified in criticizing the conservative movement for paying her respect as conservatives are in criticizing liberals for being solicitious of Al Sharpton. Her books are exceptionally unfunny, and they certainly make otherwise respectable conservative opinions seem deranged.
Political correctness is best challenged by people who understand that it has some good points. Using the word "faggot," for instance, to describe a Presidential candidate is rightfully frowned upon because it is rude. It's when political correctness demands more than mere politeness that it needs to be opposed. Coulter opposes any decorum whatsoever, but whines about liberals calling conservative's names. After all, she'll say, they started it.
And so that's what this comes down to: a dispute between those who think that the best way to respond to name-calling is to respond in kind and those who would rather not become the thing they despise. In other words, nine-year-olds versus adults.
Comment by Katzen | December 5, 2007
Katzen: Your assessment of Ann is sadly shallow. Can you not see that she is using rough humor to expose the liberals? If you would get out of your ivory tower and try to come up with a solution you might find that she is correct in her assault on the left. Big government is all that you apparently know and that is sad. Have confidence in your fellow American that he can do better than being saddled by government. Do you not recall the story of Jamestown where they all nearly starved because of no incentives? Cut through her veneer, listen to her message, attack the message by coming up with an answer and then let the market decide. When you do this she will go away. By attacking her style, is and should be, beneath you. I don't attack Sharpton personally, I attack his message with solutions. If I am found to be right, then Sharpton will sink into oblivion, if not, I will.
Comment by hvance | December 5, 2007
"Can you not see that she is using rough humor to expose the liberals?"
P.J. O'Rourke, Mark Steyn, and Jonah Goldberg use humor to "expose the liberals." Coulter's attempts at humor (1) are usually not funny and (2) impossible to distinguish from her serious points. General rule for would-be satirists: if you constantly have to explain to people when you are joking, you're probably doing something wrong.
The stuff about "big government" and my "ivory tower" and starving colonists is hilarious, but irrelevant and/or wrong (i.e., I don't have and ivory tower, and I don't support big government). But feel free to throw in whatever.
Here's an idea: Ann Coulter is a disgrace, and everyone should stop buying her books and reading her columns. Is this a good idea? Let the market decide. I don't understand why attacking someone's style offends you so much: If my style were to respond to your post by calling you names (or by absurdly demanding that you "get out of your ivory tower"), of course you would object. And it would be rank hypocrisy for me or one of my defenders to get all sniffy about "personal attacks" and how hvance isn't "attack[ing] [my] message with solutions" in the "marketplace of ideas."
Comment by Katzen | December 6, 2007
…"Ted Kennedy remarked this spring, 'Ann Coulter's words of hate have no place in the public sphere much less our political discourse'."….
That was an obscenely ridiculous remark for Kennedy to make. Of course. Agreed.
…"Ann Coulter may be the most important conservative in America."….
If this is true, then conservatism has already gone the way of liberalism, the way of all flesh.
Comment by felix | December 6, 2007
Felix:
Glad to see you read my post. Buy yourself an ivory tower and then get out of it. If you are going to blast Ann or anyone else in the manner you did, you should expect comments like mine. I fully anticipated yours.
Comment by hvance | December 6, 2007
Hey hvance man, I like ivory. It's just that I can't seem to find much of it anymore.
Comment by felix | December 6, 2007
"Liberals are as justified in criticizing the conservative movement for paying her respect as conservatives are in criticizing liberals for being solicitious of Al Sharpton."
I don't remember Ann Coulter ever accusing innocent people of rape and refusing to apologize for it (on multiple occasions spanning 25 years), or seriously and furiously spewing racist bile. So with all due respect, don't be a moron. You don't like Ann Coulter, and that's great. But don't be one of these idiots who draws insane comparisons to horrendous historical figures for people who clearly are not the same, in any manner, as the horrendous historical figures they are being compared to. George W. Bush is not Hitler, the World Trade Center wasn't occupied by "little Eichmann's" and Ann Coulter is not a race-baiting bald-faced liar who strong arms people by leveraging her race.
"Political correctness is best challenged by people who understand that it has some good points. Using the word “faggot,” for instance, to describe a Presidential candidate is rightfully frowned upon because it is rude. It’s when political correctness demands more than mere politeness that it needs to be opposed."
Not calling people names is not political correctness. As you mentioned, it's "mere politeness". Political correctness is not being able, by threat of punishment, to say, or even think, a particular word because it is found to be offensive by one minority group. Wop, mick, honkey, whitey, white boy, cracker and redneck are all acceptable for use in the public square, but faggot, spic or, dare I even say it, the "N" word, are not. That is hypocrisy. That is political correctness. If you had been at all aware of some of the entertainment news headlines that were going around at the time when Coulter made the remark that so offended your sensibilities, you might understand the satirical and humorous undertones. You see, a prominent actor at the time was forced by his employers and pressure groups to seek rehabilitation because he called a co-worker "faggot" during the course of an argument. As it turns out, another one of his co-workers, completely unrelated to the argument, was homosexual, and so the remark apparently called into question his mental health. So when Ann Coulter responded to a question at the CPAC by saying "I would comment on John Edwards' campaign, but apparently you have to go to rehab if you say the word faggot", she was making what's sometimes called a social commentary, using irony to make light of a situation considered to be serious. Some people find statements that highlight some irony or hypocrisy in society (often done through analogy) to be humorous. In fact, some professional entertainers (called "comedians" within the entertainment field) base their entire careers on such commentary. There are even entire feature-length films based around the concept.
"And so that’s what this comes down to: a dispute between those who think that the best way to respond to name-calling is to respond in kind and those who would rather not become the thing they despise. In other words, nine-year-olds versus adults. "
Not at all, actually. Using that same analogy, what it really comes down to is some people being unable to recognize that it is not possible, nor desirable, nor necessary to have complex, deeply involved discussions about very serious issues with belligerent 9 year olds. Instead of inviting a belligerent 9 year old to a formal debate of academic standards and acting as if his belligerent 9 year old viewpoints are worthy of scholarly scrutiny, sometimes you just have to treat a 9 year old like a 9 year old. The fundamental reason for your rabid hate of Ann Coulter is a complete lack of understanding of her message and her methodology, and your irrational belief that we should treat illogical, hypocritical ideas, ideologies, and situations as if they are worthy of some higher level of debate when they in fact are not, all in the name of some perceived moral high ground.
"General rule for would-be satirists: if you constantly have to explain to people when you are joking, you’re probably doing something wrong."
That a satirist of a conservative political persuasion has to explain him or her self could be considered proof positive of the very object they are satirizing! Judging by your statements, I'm doubtful that you actually have a working knowledge of satire from any first-hand exposure to it, but in case you're ever exposed to it in all of its hideous vulgarity, it is often times defined by irreverence for, and breaking of, prevailing social taboos (defined in our present society as PC New-think orthodoxy). And, as you are illustrating quite humorously by your comments, it is often times rejected by people who hold the object being satirized as dogmatic social doctrine.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | December 14, 2007