Attorney and legal affairs correspondent Coulter lays into the liberals. Here is a female version of street-fighting Rush Limbaugh. Refreshing to hear conservative ideas defended and liberal pretensions burst. A special strength of this book is Coulter's lawyerly scrupulous care in documenting each and every accusation she makes, proving she's not just blowing smoke!
Liberals Unhinged (1): "As there is less to dispute [i.e. conservatives are winning debate on the issues], liberals have become more bitter and angry" (1). "One side is making arguments and the other side is throwing eggs ... the liberal catechism includes a hatred of Christians, guns, the profit motive, and political speech and an infatuation with abortion, the environment, and race discrimination ... perhaps if conservatives had had total control over ... [media] for a quarter century, they would have forgotten how to debate, too, and would just call liberals stupid and mean ... (later, dumb and ugly too) the public square is wall-to-wall liberal propaganda ... we read letters to the NYT from pathetic little parakeet males and grim, quivering, angry women ... merely restat[ing] the position of the Times with greater venom" (2). Liberals hate conservatives with "a primitive religious hatred" (6).
The Gucci Position on Domestic Policy (27): Here, Coulter makes the fascinating claim (also explored in Joseph Epstein's Snobbery) that snobbery plays a huge role in liberalism's appeal. "Only when you appreciate the powerful driving force of snobbery in the liberal' worldview do all their preposterous counterintuitive arguments makes sense" (27). "They promote immoral destructive behavior ... embrace criminals ... oppose tax cuts ... adore the environment ... to prove how powerful they are. Liberals hate society and want to bring it down to reinforce their sense of invincibility. Secure in the knowledge that ... [they'll be immune], they giddily fiddle with the little people's rules and morals. While the rich are insulated by their wealth from the societal disintegration they promote, the rest of us are protected ... only by our abiding belief in God. That's why religious people drive liberals nuts. Bourgeois morality allows people to have happy lives without fantastic wealth" (27). "The whole point of being a liberal [is] to feel superior to people with less money" (29). Liberals have become "a caricature of the old reactionary WASP establishment, swatting down the social-climbing middle class" (29). "Liberals use the environment as a battering ram against the acquisitive middle class bumping up against the prerogatives of the fabulously wealthy" (30). "Only people who are grounded in a sense of their own value and who do not think the good life consists of being able to sneer at other people as inferior can resist the lure of liberal snobbery. If liberals couldn't exercise their adolescent sneers through their control of the mass media, there would be no liberals at all ... Anyone can by validated by saying what the cool, good-looking, rich people say" (32). "Liberalism's leverage is not that it has broad support but precisely that it doesn't ... [appealing to] people who are desperately eager to associate themselves with [elitist, minority] 'respectable opinion' - [v.] actual, widespread, local opinion believed by the riffraff ... If liberal propaganda didn't work, it would be impossible to comprehend bimbo starlets and uneducated slobs [e.g. Michael Moore] attacking the intelligence of the man who won the Cold War [Reagan] ... to point out that Moore is a [junior] college dropout is not to adopt the classism and snobbery of the left ... but try [reversing] that scenario. Imagine a no-account college dropout attacking Al Gore's intelligence on national TV. The audience wouldn't get that. It would be strange and confusing" (33). Large numbers of liberals are Hollywood zeros and college dropouts; e.g. Moore, Martin Sheen flunked entrance exam, Larry Flynt never finished grade school. "Liberal snobbery is no more rational or factually based than the 'in' crowd in junior high school" (41).
Coulter then discusses how the extremely gifted (but hated and ignored by liberals) Phyllis Schlafly launched (with her book A Choice, Not an Echo, sold 3M copies, avg non-fict bk sells 5K) Barry Goldwater's nomination (and the movement leading to Reagan) and almost single-handedly defeated ERA, "derail[ing] the left's precious sexual revolution ... Schlafly is a serious intellectual, [while her liberal opposite Gloria] Steinem is a deeply ridiculous figure" (37) with no real accomplishments, only failures (ERA, followups, Ms. magazine [she slept w/Mort Zuckerman to keep it afloat], anti-male campaign, feminist movement). Schafly became (and still is) a senior statesman in the GOP, Steinem the harpy now prattles about how unhappy her life has been (38). Feminists celebrate abortion, lesbianism, prostitution as liberation from "father knows best" '50s, the road to Hollywood success is by playing a prostitute (7 e.g.s), "whatever feminism is alleged to have accomplished, it did not create a world in which women are admired for something other than playing or being sluts" (40).
"John McCain ... championed the media's utterly self-interested demand for campaign finance restrictions ... the sinister, powerful interests McCain confronted were little old ladies sending $20 checks to the Christian Coalition ... no special interest group in the history of the universe has wielded the power of the modern media in America" (43). The media believes only they should be able to influence voters. "Only the mind-boggling resources of the left could persuade so many people that these elitist snobs speak for the little guy" (44).
How to Go from Being a "Jut-Jawed Maverick" to a "Clueless Neanderthal" in One Easy Step (45): Focusing on Robert Packwood's 1993 dethroning, she makes the point that only liberals (or sympathizers) can continue in power with something to hide. Other protectees: Bill Clinton (wild promiscuity), Jim Jeffords (stupidity), Ted Kennedy (Chappaquiddick), Robert Byrd (former KKK'er), Christine Todd Whitman (far-left state supreme court appointees). Typical praise: "courageous" "maverick" "flinty" "enlightened" "progressive" "sophisticated" "political savvy" "tolerant." Pro-choice is the key protected position. For this reason, "any politician who is pro-life has proved that he needs no camouflage" (54). "The media will tolerate any disreputable behavior in order to win. Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything" (55). "There is no intellectual honesty ... Journalism is war by other means" (49). "Support for abortion is the last refuge of Republicans who cannot rely on native intelligence or good living to avoid being destroyed by the media" (52-3).
Creating the Psychological Climate (56): (on media bias, leftist propaganda, i.e. repeating lies until they sink in) In 1992, "43% of Americans voted for Bill Clinton ... [and] 89% of Washington bureau chiefs and reporters [did]. Only 7% voted for George Bush" (56). When liberals claim "the NYT has a conservative bias" it reflects their sheer joy in telling lies [see, we can get away with it!], their "insolent pleasure in saying absurd things" (57). "Democrats in the media are editors, national correspondents, news anchors, and reporters. Republicans ... are [labelled, token] 'from the right' polemicists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth" (60). Conservative views are carefully designated "opinion," liberal ones seen as neutral. "'Balance' is ... a liberal host[ing] a debate between a liberal and a moderate Republican" (60). Media "approved" conservatives like Buchanan, Safire (voted for Clinton in '92), Gergen (worked for Clinton), Will are noticably higher-IQ than Rather. "Only Republican politics is deemed 'partisan'" (64). Having worked for Democrat causes is considered good training for journalists and is very common (she gives numerous examples of "the revolving door"), whereas the opposite (R causes) is seen as scandalous and is extremely rare (67). "Walter Cronkite was a pious left-wing blowhard" (70). The one exception to the liberal media monolith is Fox News, resulting in "a vicious stream of inventive" (74) from liberals.
Advance as if Under Threat of Attack: Fox News Channel and the Election (75): Although liberals control every major media outlet except the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and now Fox News, they brazenly complain of "conservative bias" at Fox. Fox may lean conservative, "but the idea that its anchors betray their political predilections more than Jennings or Rather do is absurd" (76). While liberals tried to make a scandal of Bush cousin John Ellis at Fox [claiming it gave Bush a post-election psychological advantage, creating the "impression" that he won], "the networks' open partisanship on behalf of Al Gore on election night was far more egregious ... by prematurely and incorrectly calling FL for Gore, the networks actually cost Bush votes" (78, Ellis' FL call for Bush was after the polls closed [2:16am] and also correct). "Like most liberal propaganda, the accusation against John Ellis started with a wee little wisp of truth and immediately dovetailed into an ocean of lies" (82). "The accusation against Ellis is a pristine example of left-wing scandal-mongering. The allegation is meaningless, even if true. But the truth of the charge doesn't matter once it has ricocheted through the media sound chamber ... this is propaganda by the book: The incessant, mind-numbing repetition 'exceeds the individual's capacities for attention or adaptation and thus his capabilities of resistance'" (84, quoting Ellul). "In paranoid liberal fantasies, this is pretty much how McCarthyism worked" (86). We learned that "liberal [networks] ... announce election projections tactically, as political strategy. Naturally, they assumed Fox News had to be doing the same [and not for the simple reason that he had in fact won, they assumed a hidden agenda, like their own]. We would never have known this, but for their vicious attack on John Ellis" (87). Liberals' attack on Ellis, seeing his action as "creat[ing] an unstoppable Zeitgeist, a psychological boost, an impression that began the steamroller for Bush, exposed their own motives behind the[ir] quick projections for Gore [and slow ones for Bush]. Liberals conceive of news reporting as political propaganda and assume, therefore, that everyone else does too. Their entire election-night coverage was an aggressive partisan campaign on behalf of Gore" (88). "The Supreme Court, normally revered by the left for its capacity to bypass democracy, had thwarted the will of a determined liberal press [and of SCOFLA, the Supreme Court of FL]" (90). "Liberals have used their control of the media to force one US president to resign and to prevent another president from being removed - despite the far more scandalous conduct of Bill Clinton compared to Richard Nixon" (90). Vicious, leftist, hysterical, media campaigns have thwarted Bork and many other conservative lower-court judges, Gingrich and the Contract with America [and nearly sunk Clarence Thomas]. But 2000 was the first time leftist media attempted to "trump the electoral college" (90).
Samizdat Media (91): "Liberals don't try to win arguments, they seek to destroy their opponents and silence dissident opinions ... [but] in the 3 media where success is determined on the free market - radio, books, and the internet - conservatives rule" (91). Although it irritates them to no end that Americans prefer to hear and read conservatives, they never stop trying to force their views onto consumers. "There is absolutely no dreary leftist to come down the pike who will not instantly be acclaimed as a poet" (92). "Finally, the self-appointed champions of free speech come to the realization that hectoring alone will not shut down the Samizdat [i.e. rebel] press. It must be regulated ... When liberals warn that free speech imperils 'the capacity of citizens to govern themselves,' you know conservatives must be opening their yaps again" (92). Of course, while liberals hate and criticize Rush and others, they'd love to do the same (and have tried and failed many times [Coulter lists examples], due to lack of listener interest). Although book publishers hide sales data, it is clear that conservative books sell much better than liberal ones. "Indeed, the empirical evidence does not contradict the thesis that conservatives read books and liberals don't" (97). A best-selling non-fiction book sells 30K or more:
Hayak's Road to Serfdom, 206K
WFB's God and Man at Yale, 70K
Chambers' Witness, unknown, but instant best-seller
Kirk's Conservative Mind, 38K
Rand's Atlas Shrugged, 4.1M
Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative, 3.5M
Edward C. Banfield's The Unheavenly City, 100K
Simon's Time for Truth, 150K
Friedman's Free to Choose, 1.2M
Gilder's Wealth and Poverty, 350K
Schaeffer's Christian Manifesto, 312K
"Pravda once called Henry Regnery 'the most dangerous man in America' ... the elite media invariably describe the frequent conservative best-sellers as 'surprise best-sellers'" (98). Leftist bookshop owners have even resorted to hiding these books. "These great opponents of 'intolerance' are so fanatically intolerant of conservatives they will sacrifice the bottom line to prevent conservative books from being published" (104), noticed or bought. "Liberal [authors] succeed by impressing an oligopoly of fellow liberals [editors, publishers] rather than winning in the marketplace of ideas" (107). "Books that become publishing scandals by virtue of phony research, invented facts, or apocryphal stories invariably grind political axes for the left" (108, e.g. I, Rigoberta Menchu, Bellesiles' Arming America, "stink bombs" like Fortunate Son claiming a George W. Bush cocaine conviction, author a convicted felon, another claiming Nixon was a wife-beater, another claiming J. Edgar Hoover was a gay cross-dresser, Kitty Kelley's Nancy Reagan claiming affairs, pot-smoking, feminist books w/invented stats). But then liberals don't believe in truth, only in power struggles. They admire totalitarian ability to enforce "truth" and wish they could too (they try).
The internet (largely Matt Drudge) has broken many stories that the mainstream media tried to suppress: Monica Lewinsky, the Nazi crusade against Christianity (v. impression of cozy relationship promoted by liberals), a gun rampage stopped by armed resistance (v. vague "helped subdue"), Paul Krugman's $50K from Enron (after criticizing Bush for same), Star Wars successes. Cass Sunstein's book openly advocates internet censorship; "'a commitment to consumer sovereignty may well compromise political sovereignty.' A clearer statement of left-wing fascism is hard to come by" (116). Though liberals see protection of pornographers, lawbreakers, traitors as central to First Amendment rights (and love to quote Justice Powell "under the first amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea" 120), they fear the internet will enable "fringe groups and reinforce extremism" (117, i.e. allow conservatives to be heard). Here they claim to see (and try to suppress) plenty of false ideas! They fear disruption of important liberal ideas like; anti-Reaganism, pro-Cuba-ism, ice caps melting, Gore won, Clinton/Elvis comparisons. Liberals treated "Drudge like a cancer that had to be excised so real journalists could get on with the important business of calling Reagan stupid" (120).
The Joy of Arguing with Liberals: You're Stupid! (121): As they run out of intellectual ammunition, liberals increasingly rely on name-calling. "Indeed, almost all liberal behavioral tropes track the impotent rage of small children" (122). If you try to use an analogy, they'll say you're changing the subject. "The surest sign that one is dealing with a liberal is his refusal to grant meaning to the word 'liberal'" (123). Instead of arguing, liberals create "semantic bedlam ... The myth of the 'dumb' Republican is no more rational than a cultural belief in voodoo or rain dances" (123). When its not possible to portray Republicans as dumb, they are portrayed as mean (Newt). "George Bush (43), with degrees from Yale and Harvard, is ridiculed for his stupidity by Hollywood starlets whose course of study is limited to what they've learned from bald sweaty little men on casting couches ... 'Stupid' means ... 'threatening to the interests of the Democratic Party'" (125).
Coolidge, Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan are all portrayed as dumb. "Coolidge presided over peace and prosperity, was successful with Congress, and wildly popular with the public ... In the most titanic military accomplishment since Alexander the Great, [Ike] marshaled the greatest military alliance in history, masterminded the D-Day invasion, and smashed the Nazi war machine. Liberals go around calling people fascists - well, this is the guy who beat them ... Gearld Ford had been an All-American football player and graduated from U of MI and Yale Law School ... Reagan ... won the Cold War [the gradual, if inevitable, outcome of Reagan's massive defense buildup, military invasions, support for anti-communist insurgents around the globe, and, finally, walking away from the table at Reykjavik 145]" (125). "FDR ... spent 8 years failing to get the country out of the Depression [Steve: indeed, making it worse] but then had the skill and foresight to allow the nation to be taken by surprise at Pearl Harbor ... Truman got the country into a war in Korea, and couldn't get us out for 2.5 yrs. Eisenhower was elected and ended the war in 6 mos. Kennedy got the country into a war in Vietnam after the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion and then sat passively by while the Russians built the Berlin Wall ... [Wilsonian peace lasted until the consequences of Wilson's partition of Germany led like night into day to WWII 131] [yet Dems compare the stupidity of Reps only] as if comparisons with a Rep's immediate predecessor and successor are inherently invalid because it wouldn't be right to comment on the relative competence of a Dem" (126).
Liberals assailed Reagan for his age, yet ignored older leftist Supreme Court justices Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun (131). "Reagan was re-elected in the largest electoral college total ever. He went on to end the Soviet Union [ending the 40-yr threat of nuclear annihilation and finally freeing liberals of their grave responsibility to frighten small children with tales of a coming nuclear holocaust 134], preside over a booming economy, and translate his immense popularity with the public into another landslide election for his VP (who then squandered it all by raising taxes). This is what liberals mean by 'senile'" (132-3). "In a Gallup poll taken in Feb 2001, respondents ranked Reagan as America's 'greatest' president, beating out Washington, Lincoln, and the left's beloved FDR. If that isn't enough for liberals to stop calling you stupid, it makes you wonder if maybe it isn't something else about Republicans they don't like" (134). "The media's fanatical obsession with Bush's [and all Reps'] minor slips of tongue says nothing about Bush's intelligence and everything about how liberals demean their political opponents rather than argue with them" (140). Of course, similar "Democrat errors are buried, forgotten, ignored, or lied about" (141). Usually lack of langauge skill in Reps is seen as evidence of low IQ, but in Reagan's case (highly skilled), it was seen as "the vocational faculty of a hackneyed actor" (144). R's can't win with these people.
In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush's masterful (decisive, visionary) wartime leadership proved the media wrong in their assessment of Bush's intelligence and leadership ability. "The media had lied and now everyone knew it" (146). Instead of admitted they'd lied, they claimed the attack had "transformed" Bush! Coulter says remember this next time a Rep is called "stupid" or "clueless" or "rhetorically, intellectually challenged" or "lacking gravitas." Makes me think of Jesus' warning that his followers will be hated and reviled (ref?). Another example; a neighbor calling conservative J. D. Hayworth a "blowhard."
Clever Is as Clever Does: The Liberal Dilemma (151)
"This is one of the grave injustices of the world: Democrats can run ridiculous and insubstantial men for important national offices and no one will ever know because the media [will shield and support them]" (151). Gore is only the latest (now Kerry). If the public still fails to be dazzled, the media will claim he's "'too smart' to connect with ordinary voters" (151). One of the first to be spun this way was Adlai Stevenson (later "discovered to be a lowbrow who rarely read books" 152). She lists with heavy irony many examples of Dem stupidity, focusing on how the facts of Gore (famous daddy got him into Yale, poor grades, lots of art classes) v. Bush (admitted to Yale when his father was virtually unknown, decent grades) contradict reality. "The easiest path to being recognized as a genius in America is to become a completely predictable, run-of-the-mill, redistributionist Democrat. Then no matter how dumb you are and how many ludicrous lies you keep telling, the media will only remark on your dazzling brilliance" (158). The liberal dilemma is that no matter how the media tries to spin Reps down and Dems up, the public sees through it (especially now with the "Samizdat" media), laughs and votes accordingly. This is why the media loves campaign finance reform. "They believe attacking politicians should be the sole prerogative of the press. A paid campaign ad might reveal unflattering information about a Dem the media had been hiding" (165).
Shadowboxing the Apochryphal "Religious Right" (166)
Coulter leads off this chapter with a quote from Jacques Ellul saying propaganda consists of two main techniques; conditioned reflex and myth creation. "There is no bogeyman that strikes greater terror in the left than the apocryphal 'religious right.' The very phrase is a meaningless concept, an inverted construct of the left's own Marquis de Sade lifestyle ... there is evidently no such thing as the 'atheist left'" (166). During the 2000 campaign (March), John McCain was praised by liberals "for attacking the relgious right" (167, I'd like to see a transcript of McCain's offensive remarks, but he attacked Falwell and Robertson as 'agents of intolerance' and 'forces of evil'). "Unlike the calm persuasion on display daily at the NYT, the religious right was eroding "the spirit of tolerance" (168). "In 1993, the Washington Post informed its readers that the religious right - or the 'Gospel lobby' - is composed of people who are 'largely poor, uneducated and easy to command'" (168, Michael Weisskopf, "Energized by Pulpit or Passion, the Public is Calling; 'Gospel Grapevine' Displays Strength in Controversy over Military Gay Ban, 1 Feb 1993). "For 20 years, evangelical Christians had been portrayed as toothless hicks preaching for a nickel in the Ozarks. Then - seamlessly, without remark on the shift in Orwellian propaganda - they were transformed into Howard Hughes money men, expertly manipulating the system [and having 'vast financial resources' and 'bullying influence']" (170). In fact, both realtors and lawyers outgave "the total for all 'Republican/Conservative' PACs combined" (171). Although liberals accuse the "religious right" of bloc voting Republican, voting records show that blacks, Jews, Hispanics and Unmarried women bloc vote Democrat to a much larger extent. Frequent targets are Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan, Gary Bauer. "The only commonality among the 4 is that they are all Republicans born south of the Mason-Dixon line. These purported 'leaders' of the 'religious right' are talismans, meant to inspire fear even as the public is trained to laugh at them reflexively" (175).
Interesting tidbits; Peggy Noonan is Roman Catholic, Bauer's support of McCain's campaign finance reform "led to his alienation from conservative Christians and dissociation from the FRC ... [which] he once led" (175). Although liberals seem to especially fear Robertson, he is actually quite moderate politically. When Robertson opposed impeaching Clinton, most conservatives ignored him. "The only politicians who seemed to respond with Manchurian candidate-like obedience ... were Democrats and the NYT's favorite Republicans - Senators John Chafee (RI), Susan Collins (ME), Slade Gordon (WA), Jim Jeffords (VT), Richard Shelby (AL), Arlen Specter (PA), Olympia Snowe (ME), Ted Stevens (AK), Fred Thompson (TN), and John Warner (VA) ... Not one Democratic senator disobeyed the NYT's command to acquit Clinton. Atheist liberals, it seems, are 'easily led'" (177).
Even many Republicans eschew the "religious right" label, which liberals refer to as their "Sister Souljah" (i.e. intra-party rebuke) moments. Sister Souljah is the rap singer who encouraged blacks to "kill white people" (178) during the LA race riots. When Clinton mildly rebuked her comments as "filled with hatred," some (not all, e.g. Jesse Jackson) liberals grudgingly accepted his "brave" rebuke and suggested Republicans should similarly rebuke their "religious right." They admiringly characterized McCain's anti-Christian comments in 2000 as his "Sister Souljah" moment. "Politicians may have few discernible real-world skills, but one talent they have in spades is the ability to ascertain who has power" (180). McCain's decision to attack the "religious right" probably indicates he knows its power is limited (and the power of the atheist, left-wing media to which he was pandering is in fact much larger). Incredibly, Bauer stood by McCain during this attack. Robertson had no comment and Falwell charitably forgave it as an uncharacteristic, moment-of-frustration slip. "Its not surprising that most politicians would prefer knocking over lemonade stands to standing up to real bullies. But must the media keep marveling at their bravery?" (180).
When you look at American popular culture, "the peril of religious values infecting the culture would seem to be somewhat overrated ... [yet] "liberal dogma instructs that public displays of religion are inimical to democracy, a threat to freedom ... religious people are self-evidently fanatical. Religious values are hateful, homophobic, sexist, racist ... [while failing to see that restricting religious influence] is more hateful and intolerant than any views attributed to the apocryphal 'religious right'" (181). "All-powerful American institutions speak as one against the menace of morality in American life. Yet liberals behave as if they are under constant threat of extermination from the 'religious right'" (182). Their lack of originality shows in their uniform use of the cliche "organized religion" as "the proper malediction" (184). Jesse Ventura "attacked 'organized religion' [as] 'a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers.' This is in contradistinction to the herd of individualists condemning 'organized religion'" (184). Ventura, the intolerant anti-Christian bigot, later clarified that he simply can't stand intolerance (his approval ratings immediately plummeted with voters, soared with elites). There are thousands of religions and ways of organizing and practicing them, Coulter notes, "if absolutely none of them float your boat, it may not be a problem of organization" (184, i.e. its liberals' problem! Of course, their religion is atheist leftism). For Clinton and Ventura, "feminist hysteria can be silenced for the greater good of undermining the nation's morals" (185). "The media will continue gently and subtly directing mob hatred toward conservative Christians ... the fact that liberal propaganda succeeds is not surprising. What is fairly stunning is that the left's carefully nurtured devil term ... capable of producing hate on cue - essentially comes down to accusing someone of being a Christian ... liberals hate religion [especially Christianity] because politics is a religion substitute for liberals and they can't stand the competition" (194).
Conclusion (197)
"Part of the reason liberals prefer invective to engagement is that - as Richard Nixon said of Alger Hiss - if Americans knew what they really believed, the public would boil them in oil ... Liberals have been wrong about everything in the last half-century [i.e. Useful Idiots]" (197). With the failure of their beloved USSR, they've latched onto "global warming" ("conservatives won't be able to prove them wrong for a thousand years" 197) and abortion as their main causes. "Abortion rights would be an odd single issue for any political party. But it is nearly unbearable for a party that prides itself on moral self-righteousness" (198). "Where there is a vacuum of ideas, paranoia slips in ... the basic tenet of their faith is this: Maybe they were wrong on facts and policies, but they are good and conservatives are evil. You almost want to give it to them. It's all they have left ... Once you finally figure out what has propelled the tolerant crowd into frenzies of demonic rage, it invariably turns out to be a perfectly ordinary view held by many [usually a large majority of] good-hearted Americans [e.g. death penalty, abortion, prayer in schools]" (199). "Bereft of winning issues, persuasive arguments, or real ideas [and especially of majority support], liberals are bitter" (201). "The hate-mongering and name-calling on the left ["'Shut up,' they explained" 202] might be a droll irrelevancy, except that it has a debilitating effect on real issues ... if holding political opinions can itself be scandalous, fewer people are going to want to have any of those opinion things. Lies and personal attacks are deeply corrosive of public debate and democratic compromises. Of necessity, therefore, almost all serious political debate takes place exclusively among conservatives - out of earshot of the children so as not to upset them. Not coincidentally, for about 20 years now, all new ideas have bubbled up from the right wing [she lists 10; Vouchers, Welfare Reform, Flat Tax, Quality of Life Crimes, Privitization, Videotaped Criminal Confessions, SDI, Pollution Tax Credits, Enterprise Zones, Winning the Cold War]. (Its amazing how productive debate can be when one is not constantly being called a racist.) ... Where are the great liberal thinkers?" (202). While liberals are "narrow-minded and parochial ... hateful and vicious ... [seemingly] Ironically, regular church-going, middle-class Americans are far more cosmopolitan than the self-styled sophisticates of the left" (204). Unlike most liberals, "conservatives already know that people they disagree with politically can be 'charming.' Also savagely cruel bigots who hate ordinary Americans and lie for sport" (205, closing sentence of book)!
Books by Coulter:
1 High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton 2000? (NYT Bestseller)
2 Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right 2002 (#1 NYT Bestseller)
3 Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism 2003 (from jacket: ... named a
top-100 public intellectual by federal judge Richard Posner in 2001, weekly columns at www.anncoulter.org)
4 How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) 2004
5 Godless: The Church of Liberaliam 2006
6 If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans 2007
7 Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America 2008
8 Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America 2011 (cf Gustave Le Bon's 1895 'The Crowd')
9 Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the 70s to Obama 2012
10 Never Trust a Liberal Over 3 - Especially a Republican 2013
11 Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country into a 3rd World Hellhole 2015