Ann Coulter, Exorcist

Pages: 1 2

Referencing the prevalence of leftist sloganeering, Coulter turns to Le Bon who understood “Hope and Change” long before Barack Obama arrived:

[L]iberals thrive on jargon as a substitute for thought. According to Le Bon, the more dramatic and devoid of logic a chant is, the better it works to rile up a mob: “Given to exaggeration in its feelings, a crowd is only impressed by excessive sentiments. An orator wishing to move a crowd must make an abusive use of violent affirmations. To exaggerate, to affirm, to resort to repetitions, and never to attempt to prove anything by reasoning are methods of argument well known to speakers at public meetings.”

After developing and establishing this line of analysis over Part I’s hundred pages, Coulter shifts to show how these themes apply beyond the back-and-forths of the last two years’ partisan political fights. Part II, “The Historical Context of the Liberal,” begins with two frightening chapters on the French Revolution.

It’s here that Coulter as prose stylist shines through more than ever. Removed from the standard subjects we’re accustomed to hearing from her on – the political nonsense of the day – Coulter’s ability to craft a powerful paragraph is more noticeable. Consider her description of the execution of Marie Antoinette, a victim of the mob:

To protect France against a beaten, half-starved, prematurely gray, tuberculosis-ridden, hemorrhaging widow, the full cavalry was called out and the streets and bridges throughout Paris were lined with cannon and bayonet-toting soldiers. Shackled to a rope held by the executioner and surrounded by armed guards, Antoinette rode to the guillotine on a rough cart used to transport hardened criminals. The drive was long and slow, the better to allow the mob to taunt her. Her face was placid, as she continued to pray quietly, showing neither fear nor defiance. On the scaffold, Marie Antoinette uttered her last words after accidentally stepping on the executioner’s foot: “Monsieur, I beg your pardon.”

After the guillotine fell, the executioner lifted Antoinette’s head from the basket and the crowd cheered, “Vive la Republique!”

Coulter then juxtaposes this horror show (and it gets even worse) with our own country’s revolution, which most certainly did not involve inciting mobs to murder innocent women and destroy property.

Coulter uses the most certain terms possible: “The French Revolution is the godless antithesis to the founding of America.” She then goes down the line comparing the symbols and events of each revolution, comparing the Jacobins’ brutality and lawlessness to our founders’ caution and respect for the individual. It is in this comparison of origins that the vital concept of American Exceptionalism takes on a new understanding. The unique greatness of the United States is simply the logical product of centuries in which the American Idea, enshrined in law by the founders, has been permitted to (mostly) run its course, producing wealth and prosperity. Compare that to France, a country so fragile that it would have been swallowed whole by Nazi totalitarianism if we had not stepped in to win World War II.

This same parallel emerges as Coulter transitions into an era she regards as the closest our nation has gotten to the Reign of Terror: the 1960s.

Coulter’s chapter on the Civil Rights Movement is a brilliant rhetorical construction: she picks two civil rights icons beloved by the Left and pits them against each other to argue for conservatives’ political principles. It’s Martin Luther King, Jr.’s mob tactics vs. Thurgood Marshall’s legal victories. Coulter argues that Marshall’s approach was not only the morally correct one, but also far more effective. She even quotes Marshall himself identifying King as an “opportunist,” “first-rate rabble-rouser,” and even “a boy on a man’s errand.”

Civil rights scholar Juan Williams agrees with Coulter’s characterization:

Coulter and I disagree most of the time, especially on her regular use of harsh, partisan hyperbolic language to caricature people. Her tirades against liberals get lots of media attention and sell books but they overshadow the serious insights she has into American history. And when Ann is right, Ann can be devastatingly right.

Coulter concludes with a return to her demonic theme. She draws from the work of one of my favorite writers – psychologist M. Scott Peck – who observes that there is no creativity to be found in the devil; all he seeks is annihilation. Then the pieces Coulter has laid out – ACORN riots, SEIU thugs, the French Revolution, the ‘60s New Left, the poisoning of the national debate with ad hominem slurs, an administration loading up the deficit higher than all his predecessors combined – fall into place and her exorcism is complete.

Coulter’s broad integration of these universal themes is important. In infusing her political analysis with historical, psychological, and spiritual layers she reminds her readers of the depth and seriousness of the problems at hand. These are not just political contests and policy debates. In many instances the root problem is far deeper: the pain that comes from being free and having to think for yourself.

Pages: 1 2

  • trickyblain

    You start with the French Revolution, and you sure can make the left look bad, David. Ann is no fool. But Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Franklin and Jefferson (well, Jefferson, sort of) were not French leftists.

    The American experiment wasn't carried out by French leftists; it was sealed by liberals. By the very definition of the term. Liberals founded the US.

    You start your book report by telling us that Coulter's book is set up with a strawman. Nothing relevant can come after.

    • fritzidler

      Dear trickyblain-
      Back then, liberal meant individualist. Today, liberal means collectivist. Grow a blain, will ya?

      Oh, and Mr. Swindle, good review. Particularly your observation, about how Miss Coulter shines in a whole new way when interpreting history. Makes me want to re-read it, because I'm tired of waiting for everyone else to finally get to it.

      • trickyblain

        Dearest fritzdler,

        Liberal means collectivist?!

        Well, I'd never call myself one if that were the case. I'm a liberal. I reject your definition. And I have better (the US Founders) authority than you do (FPM/Savage) to back it, bro!

        • olddog

          Do your homework libtard, even Rep ..Dem have switched names during our as a liberal guess you filed for public housing, wic, caid, free cell and of course. parking first?

          • Damien


            Insulting people will get you no where.

          • trickyblain

            Got that right olddog. How did you know? I am also a welfare queen who hates America, loves terrorism and abortions (preferably carried out simultaneously). I love Obama because he's a Islamocommiefascistboo. And of course, I want — I desparately want — to force everyone to live under Sharia, even though I don't believe in God.

            And I especially love how 14 people voted "thumbs up" for a post evidently written by a rhesus monkey with dementia. Really shows the serious intellect of the FPM readership!

        • Maxie

          So what's your definition of being a 'liberal'?
          I've always thought of the contemporary liberal as a person who's happy to give you the shirt of someone elses back.

          • WilliamJamesWard

            Love it……………….William

    • tarleton

      The american founding fathers were CLASSICAL LIBERALS and NOT the collectivist idiots of today
      The FR promised equality and freedom …you cannot have both

    •!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

      I did not start with the French Revolution. The first six words of your comment are a lie.

      • trickyblain

        Oh, I'm sorry. Your fawning, uncritical, book report quoted the Bible, then began the strawman of the French Revolution/international left, that, in reality, has absolutely nothing in common with American liberalism — demonstrated by the liberals that created the Constitution (which was seen by its fierce opponents — anti-federalists — as "big gov't) and today's moderate Democrats. Conservatives were overwhelmingly Torries.

        No mobs during the time of the American Revolution? Really?

        •!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

          Ann has a whole chapter refuting this argument that you're making.

          • trickyblain

            I'm sure she does. Regardless, history vadidates my position. American liberalism has always been a far diffent animal than the international left. Liberals don't look fondly upon extremes.

          •!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

            History does not validate your position. The so-called "liberalism" of today has more to do with the philosophical tradition of Rousseau which inspired the French revolutionaries than the limited government philosophy of the founders' CLASSICAL liberalism.

          • trickyblain

            Explain how. What policies do modern liberals support that would fall in line with Rousseau? Not leftists that call themselves liberal (much like Breivik calling himself a Christian), but liberals.

            Rousseau, at his essence, felt that the ideal is a society without gov't. People, as rational beings, would see what benefits them as individuals and society and do the right thing without gov't mandates. Isn't that totally contrary to conservative complaints about liberals?

          •!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

            I've just reviewed a book that spends 300 pages explaining how. If you want to argue with me about the book's claims you should read it first. But here's one example that Coulter provides of how modern so-called liberals have more in common with Rousseau than the founders, on page 225:

            The two main impulses of the Legal Left in America appear totally contradictory to a normal person. On one hand, they act as if judges are all-seeing visionaries capable of expressing the "general will" in accordance with Rousseau. But at the same time liberals don't trust judges to do their jobs, which is to hold trials.

          • trickyblain

            Sounds fairly unconvincing, to be honest. How can you ascribe thoughts to a wide-ranging group of people? Seems collectivist. I, for one, have never had a thought remotely resembling what you've ascribed to me (being a liberal).

            But I will read the book. I've actually grown to like Ann, despite disagreeing with her work.

          •!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

            "How can you ascribe thoughts to a wide-ranging group of people?"

            Because identifying yourself with a certain group means that it's likely you hold to the group's core ideas. I can say that "Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead" without always putting in a caveat that a minority of people who identify as Christians don't actually believe in Jesus' resurrection. Same deal in politics. We can talk about "conservatives" or "leftists" and make generalizations about how most members of that group think because we're grown-ups and know that there are always individual exceptions to everything.

            I haven't ascribed any thoughts to you.

          • trickyblain

            Agreed that generalizations are needed. But they need to be right generalizations. It is a correct generalization to say Christians belive that Jesus rose from the dead. But incorrect to say that liberals love abortion (you didn't say that, of course, but I think Ann has).

            The core problem with many conservative writings — including this website, is that they use hard leftism (in the international sense) to generalize liberals. Not that you've personally done this, but conflating American liberals with communism is exactly the same faulty reasoning as conflating American conservatism with the Nazi Party.

            The thoughts regarding legalism is not only something I have never thought, but it's never come up in any of the many discussions I've had with many liberals.

          •!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

            "Liberals love abortion" isn't a generalization. It's a hyperbole and a provocation from someone who knows what buttons to push to provoke a reaction. And adults are smart enough to recognize it as such instead of claim that conservatives actually believe that all leftists "love abortion." (Though I will certainly say that some do.)

            "Not that you've personally done this, but conflating American liberals with communism is exactly the same faulty reasoning as conflating American conservatism with the Nazi Party."

            No, it's not. American conservatism has absolutely nothing to do with National Socialism. But communist ideas have clearly infiltrated the mainstream of the Democratic Party. David Horowitz explains how this happened in the section titled "The Mind of the Left" from his book "Unholy Alliance." He shows how the same worldview that his communist parents had has shaped the modern day Left. Also see "The Shadow Party" for more information about how hard leftists in the late '60s who were openly pro-communist shifted their tactics in the early '70s and chose to instead appear more moderate and infiltrate the Democratic Party.

            "The thoughts regarding legalism is not only something I have never thought, but it's never come up in any of the many discussions I've had with many liberals."

            Get beyond your own limited experiences. Saying "You're wrong about the Left because none of the 'liberals' I know have said anything like that" is the same kind of irrational thinking as the racist who says "Black people can't be smart because all the black people I know are idiots."

          • trickyblain

            More on this later…work calls! Good discussion. DH was kind enough to send me a copy of Unholy Alliance a while back but I confess it's been sitting unread on my bookshelf. I'll be interested in reading the section referenced in your post and continuing this….

          •!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

            I look forward to your thoughts on it. Glad I could motivate you to pick it up.

          • trickyblain

            "You fish monge, off a 'guillotine
            with you 'chop your head to show
            how empty it is…..folly (or a more aggressive insult) ………"


          • Maxie

            " How can you ascribe thoughts to a wide-ranging group of people?"

            Ask Rousseau – wasn't that his idea of a "genral will"?
            Again, what is YOUR definintion of a liberal?

          • trickyblain

            My definition of a liberal can be found in the latest edition of Webster's.

          •!/daveswindle DavidSwindle


            "a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways"

            Webster's definition describes me and most conservatives I know.

            "c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights "

            The definition of liberalism doesn't do you any favors either:… Note how the two definitions within it are in direct conflict and you'll be able to see how "liberal" has conflicting definitions depending on who wants to use it to further their political agenda.

          • Maxie

            Not surprisingly Tricky just punted. Most liberals I've known just have a compulsive need to feel morally superior in any given situation. Maybe there's a word for that.

          • trickyblain

            No, Maxie. This website is David's job. I have my own to worry about. It's a good, serious discussion; not throwing out a one-liner and going back to my own work. It deserves my attention and I fully intend on continuing when I can give it.

            Morally superior? Nah, most folks I know would get a good laugh if they read that. I'm just educated in this area and it interests me.

          • trickyblain

            "a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways"

            That's me, too! The antonym of the term is "conservative" (i.e., orthodox, traditional, and established). They've meant the same thing, politically, for centuries.

            The entry for liberalism gives definitions very close to 'c' in. They are not in conflict.
            "c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights."

            Hey, that's me, too!

            As far as political agendas , I doubt those interns are constantly thinking about how to advance them while they are writing dictionaries.

          • coyote3

            They hate themselves? I know, they are the most generous people in the world, with other peoples' money.

    • Rifleman

      That's why I don't use the term "liberal" as a label for the socialists running the democrat party, tricky. By today's pop standards even the most liberal of the Founding Fathers were "ultra right wing extremists." Did you mean to use a strawman argument to try and make your point on strawman arguments? I know you're tricky like that;-)

      • trickyblain

        In context with the times, they were anything but right-wing extremists, RM. At the same time, they weren't French Revolution-style radicals. They were rational, inquisitive liberals unconstrained by tradition and prior authority.

        • coyote3

          And they created their own authority.

    • umustbkidding

      I really feel that it is an oxymoron to call you folks liberals. You don't believe in liberty at all. So to use the term that liberals founded the U.S. with the understanding of who liberals are today is utterly ridiculous.

    • Steve

      Modern Liberalism vs Classical Liberalism…opposites.

  • Steeloak

    I agree with Tricky that our country was founded by Liberals – Classical Liberals that is. What a Liberal is today is nothing at all like a Classical Liberal.

    Prior to the theft of the word Liberal by socialist progressives, it mean a political philosophy that stood for natural rights, limited government, protecting personal and property rights, free markets, and political power flowing from the people to government.

    Today Liberal means a political philosophy where government defines individual rights, property rights are not respected, government is not limited, markets are tightly controlled, and power flows from government to the people.

    Doubt my word Tricky? I suggest you read "Road to Serfdom" by Hayek or "Essays on Political Economy" by Bastiat. There are many others, but those two are a great place to start your education.

    • trickyblain

      Ack. I poseted a reply thanking you for your reasoned reponse, and trying to clarify some things, but it's not showing. Maybe it will later….

  • davarino

    The "liberals" of today have been infiltrated by Leftists. I am not saying all liberals in the Dem party are Leftists, but they have become useful idiots. My grandmother is a Dem only because she is an old style liberal. She cares about the poor and civil rights and …etc. and thinks the Dem party is the only party that cares also. You cant talk politics with her because she has already made up her mind, but if she knew the kind of people that run the Dem party and the Leftist take over she would leave in a heart beat. I actually believe it might be a good thing that Obama got into office, this way everyone can see the naked Leftism in the party rather than the stealth leftism we have seen for the last 60 years. There is still hope for those old time liberals.

  • StephenD

    Davarino, you are on to something here. But I wonder, if the Left is allowed to unquestioningly dictate the terms…. For instance, the popular belief is that the Democrats care for the less fortunate, for equality under the law, elderly and sick. As if to say of the Republicans it is the opposite. The facts prove distinctly otherwise. Continued entitlement programs along the same path they are on and there won't be anything for future generations. Does this indicate "caring?" We let them define the verbiage also. I maintain there is NOTHING Liberal about wanting a few elite to dictate to the balance of us how to live our lives. This to me is Totalitarianism. “Progressive” to them is reverting back to Woodrow’s ways. THIS is progress?!? Going backward? I hope you see my point. We should at the least, take back the terminology and not let them re-define the meaning of words because it matters.

    • Rifleman

      Good points from both of you. I'd rather have justice and prosperity out of malice than injustice and poverty out of good intentions (which pave the road to…).

    • davarino

      Yes, I agree with what you said. I meant to make your point, that liberals have good intentions but I believe in the end the conservative way is the best and most sustainable. The liberal/Leftist way is to keep giving people fish at ever faster rates and adding to the number of people you give fish. Whereas the conservative way is to teach those people to fish, making them self reliant. Thats not to say there arent people that still need fish given to them.

  • tarleton

    political terminology is never firm and set in stone , but flexible, morphing and changing with the times..just look at the history of the rep/dems in the USA

  • kafirman

    "In infusing her political analysis with historical, psychological, and spiritual layers she reminds her readers of the depth and seriousness of the problems at hand."

    This is natural law. I wonder if Demonic examines the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexuality and elective abortion are likewise clearly seen to be evil by both a psychological and spiritual examination. The toleration of these evils moves a culture from America during 1776 to France during 1789. Sadly America at 2011 have slouched closer toward France at 1789 than she is to America during 1776.

    "These are not just political contests and policy debates. In many instances the root problem is far deeper: the pain that comes from being free and having to think for yourself."

    Outstanding prose. This is the best I've read of Swindle. touche!

    •!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

      Thanks for your kind words. :-)

      • kafirman

        Great article on a great book. The notion of "layers" is big. Any narrative should have corroboration. A political ideology is expected to have an air of moral greatness to it. There should be a fantastic synergy with the "layers" of something as big a mature understanding of "unalienable rights," natural law and yes, "Nature and Nature's God."

        Unfortunately, the folks at FPM–and Miss Coulter too–are closing their minds about the dissonance between the layers in the Obama narrative. Does a Connecticut SSN strike anyone as out of place?

  •!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

    My friend Ron Radosh just sent me this comment which he said I should add here:

    "As one who has in the past criticized Coulter, and had a serious disagreement with her on the issue of Joe McCarthy, I hereby want to post a response and indicate my agreement with David Swindle's review. In her new book, Coulter devastatingly dissects how leftists and liberals analyze the reality of the psychology of the mobs. From the French Revolution on, she does a magnificent job of exposing the double-think, obfuscations and rhetoric of the Left. (I prefer that characterization to liberals, although often, there is little difference between the two.) This is definitely the single best contribution Ann Coulter has made to sane dialogue. Congratulations, Ann! Ron Radosh"

    • Rifleman

      If I always agreed with my friends, we'd be an echo chamber, and our thinking would advance much slower. People I disagree with help me develop my arguments as much as people I agree with. Good job.

  • Mike Giles

    I believe Ms.Coulter is wrong on MLK. I think that the "activists" who came afterward, and stole his mantle have done a great deal to tarnish his name. MLK's followers while he was alive were never a "mob". Normally the were a group of well behaved demonstrators assembling peacefully to petition for redress of grievances. The reaction to them was often mob violence. Marshall on the other hand, did much to create our current court system that see itself as above the people, as represented by their legislative bodies. MLK sought to show the unfairness of laws by challenging them in public, and appealing to his fellow citizens conscious. Marshall sought to change them by appealing to a self elected "elite".

    • R. Walton

      Martin Luther King acheived in 13 years what Thurgood Marshall and his legal team had been working on since the 1930s'. Granted that Marshall's most significant breakthrough was the 1954 Supreme Court decision; but without King no significant intergration would have happened. Even the journalistic status enjoyed by Ms. Coulter most likely flowed from MLK and his acheivements.

  • Ozzy

    Those dawg gone pesky Blacks always wantin' their 'Civil Rights'. I just knew the French had something to do with it.

    • Ghostwriter

      Ozzy,that has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site. If you're trying to be funny,it's not working.

    • Supreme_Galooty

      Well, I got a chuckle out of it, although my sense of humour has always been oddly situated.

    • pavan

      If this is your way of objecting to the criticism of MLK, it's not effective. Try putting together an actual argument next time.


    William E. Gladstone wrote, "Liberalism is trust of people, tempered by prudence; Conservatism, distrust of the people, tempered by fear". Let us rewrite this quote, for today the roles are reversed.

    • Supreme_Galooty

      Of course that observation is simplistic while examined out of context. There is some merit to it, but it falls short – by some considerable bit – of defining the two terms whilst lounging around on its own. Given its ambiguities and possible shortcomings, it would make an entertaining conversation starter at a party where most attendees didn't know each other.

  •!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

    "While political parties change positions with the times, the terms liberal and conservative are as consistent as the words "rock" and "water." "

    This isn't true at all as anyone who's studied history and the political terminology in other countries knows. These are just general terms that can be applied to all kinds of stuff outside of politics.

    • trickyblain

      Check your dictionary terms. They haven't changed through the ages.

      If you say you are the definition of a liberal, but identify yourself as a conservative, see our discussion about exceptions to valid generalizations. You are your Christian who is skeptical of Christ rising.

      • Supreme_Galooty

        That's just poppycock in a sock. Language changes constantly, and if you weren't so dead set on wrong-sided certitude you'd know that. America's founders were of all manner and stripe, but "liberal" would not be one of the attributes. Libertarian, perhaps, but not liberal. Just like the people one knows who are carefree and gay, but are not given over to homosexuality.


    I remember reading a piece last summer citing Le Bon from another writer on NRB-had never heard of him before – so word gets around.

    I can't buy the book, can't afford it but have read excerpts, seems interesting,

  • DeShawn

    LOL, "David Swindle." Now that's a jew name if I've ever heard one!

    • UCSPanther

      Let's take a collection to buy Deshawn a one-way ticket to Iran. I hear they are "100% Juedenfrei" as promised by Ahmadinejad, and our resident VNN varmint would be happier there.

    • tanstaafl

      I'm surprised that he hasn't left on his own accord.

      • trickyblain

        Thinking that the warden is in the way of that.

    • trickyblain

      LOL, "DeShawn." Now that's a f—– n—- name if I've ever heard one!

      Or is that not cool? I mean, to make fun of names and stereotypes and all that?

    • wsk

      You, sir are the ultimate mucking foron!! Away with thee!

  • tanstaafl

    Deshawn – A life full of hate is an empty life.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Viva Ann, la reine de l"Amerique……….great introduction David, I must get this
    book, best regards………………………………William

  • BS77

    Ann Coulter's books are well researched and written with conviction and style. She is
    one of America's greatest living journalists, despite the jackal howls from the left.

  • Guy DeWhitney

    I wonder if she has folded into her analysis the simple fact that the American Revolution wasn't, a revolution that is.
    It was a colony revolt by the cream of the Enlightenment who had abandoned Eurpean partisanship.

  • Guy DeWhitney

    Dave, ask Jamie to fill you in on why your statement about the US coming into WWII and winning it is both correct AND naive; short answer – WE supplied and financed the Soviet survival and most of the Soviet victories as well as conducting our own war in the West. Google Murmansk. But, also google Russian casualties and battles… it adds nuance to a common, black and white, view of history.

    • digdigby

      Russian casualties? They brought them on themselves. Do you forget that the Soviets STARTED the damned war with the Hitler-Stalin Pact and then went on to cheerfully dismember Poland? Stalin only trusted one man in his heinous career . Adolph Hitler. Big mistake. While Nazis were pouring into Russia they were still arresting and shooting people in Moscow for 'saying things against the Nazis' – someone forgot to change the rules.

      • Guy DeWhitney

        Yes, Russian casualties… the Russian PEOPLE who died in droves because their leaders (the ones you hate so much, with just cause) ordered them to stand, or die… and they stood and died or turned and died, but die they did.
        Were they not patriotic victims of invasion as much as any Frenchman?

  • Guy DeWhitney

    Regarding the US "winning the war" by liberally supplying the Soviets I think that we should have just fought our own war. The most heinous casulties occurred in the early assaults or, in long seiges. Imagine the joy the Germans would have had trying to OCCUPY Russia if they had managed to knock off Stalin and his Merry Men?
    Heck, even the FRENCH gave the Nazis a hard time; imagine millions of pissed, drunk Russians in your charge Herr Occupier!

    • axie

      Mistakenly or not, a great many Russians looked upon the Germans as their rescuers from Stalin and his NKVD-Communist regime. Russian history between the World Wars was every bit as bad, or worse, than Hitler's Germany.

  • Jelly

    Conservatism carries the connotation of clinging to “old” values, while liberalism carries that of being open to the dominant “new idea”. In the 18th century the dominant new idea was freedom, individualism and human rights. The dominant new idea of the last century has been the totalitarianism of the international left, radically opposed to the ideas of the enlightenment, which are today espoused mostly by conservatives, since they represent the “old” values relative to today. I think it is high time for true freedom lovers to reclaim the name “liberal”, hijacked by the very people who least value liberty.

    • Supreme_Galooty

      What you say is mostly accurate and I would not wish to quibble with it. I prefer, however, a term that eschews the pettifoggery of liberal vs. conservative discussion. That would be "Americanist." The founding of America marked the first time in history that the concept of Individual Liberty was institutionalized. Then, as now, there were collectivists or tribalists who placed the Group first, begrudgingly acknowledging the worth of the individual only in the context of his being part of the Group. But the Americanist held Individual Liberty to be the highest value.

      I also like the term Americanist because it is open to further nuance, such as including the concept of Thumos as being peculiarly American in nature. Also, Americans don't like to dink around – they prefer direct action, and when dealt a blow they tend to get back up and go to work rather than sit around licking their wounds.

  • Asher

    Coulter gets to the heart of what is taking over the planet…Pure Evil. 2 Thessalonians 9 says, The coming of the Lawless on will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of couterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and (in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing.) They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth, but have delighted in Wickedness. You can see this trait in alot of Liberals, they refuse to acknowledge truth, they are too committed to a Radical ideology of hatred, atheism, socialism, or Anti-Semetism. They will not be deemed worthy to know the truth or be saved by God in the End.

  • Amused

    What else would one expect from Coulter , an opinionated "know it all " who talks over any and all opponents to her "world view " , which just so happens to be the pablum of rhetoric sucked up by her sycophants . In addition , a very pooor analogy at best of vthe French revolution , which in fact was brought about by the behavior of Coulters "good guys " and the albeit savage reaction of the "citizens " of France . Comparison to Robepierre's group of absolutist revolutionaries , and their ignominious "solution " to "the left " in the US today , is borne of ignorance with agenda . Coulter will be the exorcist eh ? What she leaves out is , the French eventually came to ther senses ,Robespierre's end and that of his rogues , is I guess conveniently left out . Coulter incorporates a very old practice – "demonize your opponents " . The book's not worth the paper it's printed on .But there are enough fools to make her , yet richer .

    • Colin Oskappy

      Thank you for your horribly written rebuttal. Not a fact to be found in your keyboard vomit.

      • Amused

        Buy the book and suck it up Oskappy , Coulters BANKING on dweebs like you .

  • crackerjack

    Coulter rewrites history to accommodate for US exceptionalism and francobhobia. It makes one wonder who's more stupid. Coulter or those who read her dribble. The US is intellectually doomed.

    What a shame that good healthy trees were cut down to produce the paper this idiocy was printed on.

    • Colin Oskappy

      Another genius. 'jack, please. It's "drivel", not "dribble".
      The U.S. is not intellectually doomed. Some of us are willing to help you. Next time include a fact or two. Or give the laptop back to your mom.

      • Amused

        oh look ,a Coulter sycophant is mincing words , crackerjacks got more on the cap than you pal . Bow down to you guru fool .

    • wsk

      Obviously a product of the public school system.

  • Zam

    I heard Ann Coulter was a (girl) friend of Bill Maher. If this is true, it was just a little confusing for me.

    • Steve

      Unlikely….Maher is well known to have a lech for Black women.

  • Jim

    King was a tragic figure. While his first civil right march was for him a great success the next one did not turn out so well. The sheriff of the next town had read Gandhi on massive resistance.. He therefore reserved a great deal of jail space in counties around.
    The marchers were loaded on buses and placed in the reserved jails. End of march.
    Later he went to old mayor Daily who promised him every thing and delivered nothing.
    In the end he got connected with a garbage strike which was not of the same scale as a civil rights march.

    The media was his greatest ally and painted every thing just beautifully. How he himself felt we do not know.

  • Fumiko Cordiero

    Hello may I quote some of the information found in this site if I reference you with a link back to your site?