Ann Coulter articles are about 40% facts and 60% sarcasm and satire. For conservatives who actually know how to read we have no trouble separating one from the other. For liberals who do not know how to separate sarcasm from fact her writing just drives them nuts, and we enjoy laughing at how they’re getting upset over nothing. She refers to herself as a “polemicist,” that should tell you right away that most of what she says isn’t to be taken completely seriously.
Now her books fall into two categories. The first is her collections of articles from the last year or two (a practice I fully intend to follow…and given how much I seem to write on a daily basis for this blog, I should have no trouble getting a book out of the last two years of writing…said volume will of course be published after “Republicans and Reincarnation” hits the bestseller list and not a moment before). The second kind of book she writes are her more serious topic books, Slander, Treason, Godless, and of course Demonic. As with these books the formula is more 70% facts and 30% sarcasm. As usual just about everything she says has numerous citations and references so it becomes very easy to see that everything she says is factually accurate, except of course for the sarcasm. All the books follow a well thought-out pattern. Coulter lays down a central thesis. In the case of Demonic it is that the liberal masses are ruled by the psychology of mob rule. Here she quotes heavily from classic psychology and sociology texts on the way mobs work (and fail to think) tying each and every point that makes a mob a mob to the way the modern liberal movement works. She then goes over this historical nature of the phenomenon. In Treason she went back to WWII and worked her way up to the present looking at ways liberals consistently undermined this country. In Demonic she goes all the way back to the French Revolution and looks at how the mob rule destroyed the nation. Now, I would like to think I’m a better reader than the average person when it comes to history, but even I picked up quite a few new points I never knew about the French Revolution. Namely in how sick it was! This only had to add to my general dislike of the French.
After the historical side however, as with all of her books, she launches into modern examples of the phenomenon she is describing. For Demonic this involves looking at how mobs go by slogans not depth, are driven by emotion not reason, hold blatantly contradictory ideas, are violent, base, and vulgar and always without question and exception destructive to the society they infest. The first third of the book proves this. After that, if you’ve followed the news, her examples while to the point and excellent, get a little repetitive as she is just brining in evidence that you’re already familiar with and have already made the connection to her thesis without her help. The problem is that she is laying out a case for the opposition (who will never read the book) and preaching to the choir (who already knows all of this). But there is her sarcasm, and the joy of that will get you another 20%-30% of the way through the book. But by the time you hit two-thirds of the way through you’re just skimming looking for the flippant remarks. This is the problem I find with all Coulter books—the case gets so repetitive that is becomes pointless to read. I realize she’s writing for her critics, for whom no amount of proof will make them stop, but she makes sure that their denials are farcical when she has so much evidence against. (It’s like watching the O.J. trial, after the first week we all knew he was guilty, but someone how the jury never got that fact.)
Overall I would say read the book, but if you can, borrow it from a friend, as I’m not sure if the repetition at the end is worth the full cover price unless you’re a fan of Coulter’s vinegar prose. If you’re familiar with Ann’s work you can wait for the soft cover. If you’re not familiar with it, but conservative, borrow it from someone. If you’re a liberal and have the guts to truly challenge your beliefs (and mature enough not to try and throw her flippant sarcasm back at me for proof of how she is wrong) then I would challenge you to read it and tell where, in the serious parts, she is wrong.