Ann Coulter. Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America. Crown Forum, 2011. See here to purchase the book.
Ann Coulter is a conservative columnist and bestselling author. She has a background in law.
In Demonic, Coulter essentially argues that liberals have a
mob-like mentality. They idolize liberal leaders as messiahs, viciously
attack anyone who disagrees with them, engage in violence, embrace
conspiracy theories, think themselves intellectually superior, and rely
on images rather than reasonable, factual arguments. Conservatives are
not perfect, but at least they have a realistic view of political
leaders, back off when they are found to be factually inaccurate (i.e.,
on birtherism), and refuse to treat conspiracy theorists and disruptive
activists as mainstream, celebrated members of their movement. In
addition, while liberals have accused conservatives of violence, either
there are no facts backing up the accusations, or the “conservatives”
who engaged in violence are not conservative at all but have liberal
viewpoints.
Coulter draws from Gustav Le Bond, a French physician, scientist, and
social psychologist, who in the late nineteenth century wrote a
critique of mob behavior entitled The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind.
Coulter also contrasts the French Revolution with the American
Revolution. The French Revolution, which is an example of a liberal mob,
was a violent, chaotic, and bloody outburst against a system that
actually provided a voice for the middle and lower classes. The
characterization of Louis XVI as a tyrant and of Marie Antoinette as a
spoiled brat who said “let them eat cake” is a lie, Coulter argues. The
French Revolution resulted from a food shortage, and it rested on
atheism and a belief in the “general will” rather than the rule of law,
so it came to eat its own. The American Revolution, by contrast, was led
largely by theists, was orderly, and was even polite, at times. While
there was a Boston Tea Party, leaders of the American Revolution
distanced themselves from that. The American Revolution, in short, was
not a mob.
Coulter applies her analysis to concrete examples, as she describes
liberal conspiracy theories and uprisings. Her critique covers factual
errors on MSNBC, liberal smugness, Al Sharpton, the attempt to
rehabilitate the Central Park Five in the mass media, Southern racism,
the Civil Rights movement, the anti-war movement, and the alleged Duke
lacrosse rape.
The book is a rant, unsurprisingly, but, as is usually the case,
Coulter raises facts that deserve consideration and maybe even some
place in the historical narrative. Coulter lays out what she believes
are indications of the Central Park Five’s guilt and critiques the legal
report that contradicted that. She critiques the conspiracy theory that
Ronald Reagan in 1980 struck a deal with Iran so that President Jimmy
Carter would not get the hostages released. On racism in the South,
Coulter points out that Republicans in the twentieth century had a
strong record of supporting civil rights, while many supporters of
segregation were liberal Democrats who remained Democrats until their
death. She attributes to South’s switch to the Republican Party, not so
much to racism, but rather to the increasingly radical positions of the
Democratic Party. Then there are other factoids, here and there: George
W. Bush made better grades than Al Gore, not many people knew what the
“Bush Doctrine” was after Charlie Gibson grilled Sarah Palin on it, many
Vietnam vets testify that anti-war protesters did spit on them after
they returned (“fact-checkers” notwithstanding), and many more.
It is on account of the book’s facts and arguments that I am giving
the book five stars, not because I accept Ann Coulter’s narrative as the
end-all-be-all. There are facts that one can cite that seem to support
some of the narratives that Coulter critiques, or at least indicate that
there is something to them. In terms of the “Southern Strategy” on the
part of the Republican Party, there are the factors of conservative
rhetoric about states’ rights and Nixon’s opposition to busing. While
liberals have made factual errors in support of their grand narrative,
that does not mean that their grand narrative is wholly inaccurate, for
there are inequities in society, and a government that fails to provide
sufficient funds for infrastructure places people at risk. Liberals
indeed can be mob-like, as they shout down speakers at college campuses,
yet there are many liberals who appeal to facts.
On some topics, I am open to more information. Coulter argues, for
example, that some of Martin Luther King’s marches were unnecessary, for
Bull Connor’s career had come to an end. She also points out that
Thurgood Marshall saw MLK as an opportunist and supported using the
courts rather than the streets to address civil rights problems. MLK
probably had reasons for his approach, however, plus I recall reading a
book in a poli sci class that argued that courts were largely
ineffective in implementing civil rights; in addition, whereas Coulter
presents the legal approach and the street approach as at odds, NAACP
lawyers provided legal assistance to people in the civil rights movement
who were arrested.
On some of what Coulter says, I wonder how it holds up eight years
later. For instance, Coulter argues that liberals are adulatory towards
their leaders, treating them as messiahs. They did that with Bill
Clinton, and they especially did that for Barack Obama in 2008. Since
2016, however, there have been a number of Democrats who see
establishment Democrats as not sufficiently progressive; Coulter herself
in the book briefly refers to liberals who turn on their own. At the
same time, progressive Democrats do tend to idolize their own leaders:
AOC, Bernie.
I do not want to read too many books, at one time, that sarcastically
demonize and shred an entire group of people. Liberals, like everyone,
are made in God’s image. Coulter still raises thought-provoking
considerations, however, and does well to question prevalent narratives.
I checked this book out from the library. My review is honest.