What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter
Librarian's Note: This is an alternative cover edition
ISBN 10: 1400054184
ISBN13: 9781400054183
See: Original Cover Here
Welcome to the world of Ann Coulter. With her monumental bestsellers Treason, Slander, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Coulter has become the most recognized and talked-about conservative intellectual in years—and certainly the most controversial. Now, in How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), which is sure to ignite impassioned debate, she offers her most comprehensive analysis of the American political scene to date. With incisive reasoning, refreshing candor, and razor-sharp wit, she reveals just why liberals have got it so wrong.
In this powerful and entertaining book, which draws on her weekly columns, Coulter ranges far and wide. No subject is off-limits, and no comment is left unsaid. After all, she writes, “Nothing too extreme can be said about liberals because it’s all true.” How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) offers Coulter’s unvarnished take on:
•The essence of being a liberal: “The absolute conviction that there is one set of rules for you, and another, completely different set of rules for everyone else.”
•John Kerry: “A reporter asked Kerry, ‘Are you for or against gay marriage?’ As usual, his answer was, ‘Yes.’ ”
•Her 9/11 comments: “I am often asked if I still think we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. The answer is: Now more than ever!”
•The state of the Democratic Party: “Teddy Kennedy crawls out of Boston Harbor with a quart of Scotch in one pocket and a pair of pantyhose in the other, and Democrats hail him as their party’s spiritual leader.”
•Her philosophy for arguing with liberals: “Tough love, except I don’t love them. My ‘tough love’ approach is much like the Democrats’ ‘middle-class tax cuts’—everything but the last word.”
•The “Treason Lobby”: “Want to make liberals angry? Defend the United States.”
In this full-on Coulterpalooza, you’ll find the real, uncensored Ann Coulter. A special concluding chapter even includes the pieces that squeamish editors refused to publish—“what you could have read if you lived in a free country,” says Coulter. How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) is a stunning reminder of why Ann Coulter’s commentary has achieved must-read status.
Note: All information herein, such as number of pages, publisher, etc., refer to this alternate cover edition and may or may not coincide with the main entry for this ISBN or any other alternate covers.
~
ISBN 10: 1400054184
ISBN13: 9781400054183
See: Original Cover Here
Welcome to the world of Ann Coulter. With her monumental bestsellers Treason, Slander, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Coulter has become the most recognized and talked-about conservative intellectual in years—and certainly the most controversial. Now, in How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), which is sure to ignite impassioned debate, she offers her most comprehensive analysis of the American political scene to date. With incisive reasoning, refreshing candor, and razor-sharp wit, she reveals just why liberals have got it so wrong.
In this powerful and entertaining book, which draws on her weekly columns, Coulter ranges far and wide. No subject is off-limits, and no comment is left unsaid. After all, she writes, “Nothing too extreme can be said about liberals because it’s all true.” How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) offers Coulter’s unvarnished take on:
•The essence of being a liberal: “The absolute conviction that there is one set of rules for you, and another, completely different set of rules for everyone else.”
•John Kerry: “A reporter asked Kerry, ‘Are you for or against gay marriage?’ As usual, his answer was, ‘Yes.’ ”
•Her 9/11 comments: “I am often asked if I still think we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. The answer is: Now more than ever!”
•The state of the Democratic Party: “Teddy Kennedy crawls out of Boston Harbor with a quart of Scotch in one pocket and a pair of pantyhose in the other, and Democrats hail him as their party’s spiritual leader.”
•Her philosophy for arguing with liberals: “Tough love, except I don’t love them. My ‘tough love’ approach is much like the Democrats’ ‘middle-class tax cuts’—everything but the last word.”
•The “Treason Lobby”: “Want to make liberals angry? Defend the United States.”
In this full-on Coulterpalooza, you’ll find the real, uncensored Ann Coulter. A special concluding chapter even includes the pieces that squeamish editors refused to publish—“what you could have read if you lived in a free country,” says Coulter. How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) is a stunning reminder of why Ann Coulter’s commentary has achieved must-read status.
Note: All information herein, such as number of pages, publisher, etc., refer to this alternate cover edition and may or may not coincide with the main entry for this ISBN or any other alternate covers.
~
353 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2004
About the author
Ann Coulter
27 books429 followersAnn Coulter is the author of seven New York Times bestsellers — Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America (January 2009);If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans (October, 2007); Godless: The Church of Liberalism (June 2006); How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)(October, 2004); Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (June 2003); Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (June 2002); and High Crimes and Misdemeanors:The Case Against Bill Clinton (August 1998).
Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate.
She is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including The Today Show, Good Morning America, The Early Show, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Hannity, The O'Reilly Factor, The Glen Beck Show, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, and has been profiled in numerous publications, including TV Guide, the Guardian (UK), the New York Observer, National Journal, Harper's Bazaar, and Elle magazine. She was the April 25, 2005 cover story of Time magazine.
In 2001, Coulter was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner.
A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.
Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.
After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.
Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate.
She is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including The Today Show, Good Morning America, The Early Show, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Hannity, The O'Reilly Factor, The Glen Beck Show, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, and has been profiled in numerous publications, including TV Guide, the Guardian (UK), the New York Observer, National Journal, Harper's Bazaar, and Elle magazine. She was the April 25, 2005 cover story of Time magazine.
In 2001, Coulter was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner.
A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.
Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.
After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 219 reviews
July 26, 2007
I hovered between giving this a "1 star" rating or a "5 star" rating; the moment of truth came when i let my cursor hover over the fifth star, at which point a little box informed me that five stars means "it was amazing."
And I think we can all agree Ms. Coulter is somewhat amazing.
I don't know why it is, but nothing stimulates my political tickle button like crazy right wing entertainers. Maybe it's some kind of ego thing, and I really just love Bill O'Reilley, Michael Savage, Coulter, etc. because they make me feel so gosh darn smart in comparison. Maybe I like horrifying my peers when I refuse to switch the station. I don't know.
But isn't it fascinating to observe the folks at work? It's as if someone- either us or them- is missing a crucial part of the brain, and thus the two groups will never see anything in the same way. Ann Coulter calls John Edwards a faggot, and she's immediately praised by one sector and reviled by the other. Nobody has to spend a lot of time trying to decide whether he or she likes Ms. Coulter- you either do, or you don't. And you do so with a passion.
The moral of the story? In a world where pretty much nothing is black and white, right or wrong, blah blah blah, Ann Coulter and her innate desire to bring back the word "pinko" give us something around which we can unite.
And i hate to say it, but she's kind of hot- for a fag-hatin' Commie-slayin' warmongering wench.
And I think we can all agree Ms. Coulter is somewhat amazing.
I don't know why it is, but nothing stimulates my political tickle button like crazy right wing entertainers. Maybe it's some kind of ego thing, and I really just love Bill O'Reilley, Michael Savage, Coulter, etc. because they make me feel so gosh darn smart in comparison. Maybe I like horrifying my peers when I refuse to switch the station. I don't know.
But isn't it fascinating to observe the folks at work? It's as if someone- either us or them- is missing a crucial part of the brain, and thus the two groups will never see anything in the same way. Ann Coulter calls John Edwards a faggot, and she's immediately praised by one sector and reviled by the other. Nobody has to spend a lot of time trying to decide whether he or she likes Ms. Coulter- you either do, or you don't. And you do so with a passion.
The moral of the story? In a world where pretty much nothing is black and white, right or wrong, blah blah blah, Ann Coulter and her innate desire to bring back the word "pinko" give us something around which we can unite.
And i hate to say it, but she's kind of hot- for a fag-hatin' Commie-slayin' warmongering wench.
June 24, 2010
Every time I read a positive review of this, or any one of Coulter's books, I start to cry. You think I'm kidding, don't you? I'm sure you think I'm just being glib. Let me assure you, I'm not being glib at all. Every time someone says that this hypocritical and bigoted idiot's points are 'sound,' or anything of the sort, I quite literally feel my eyes well up with tears, and am overcome with the urge to go back in time and bring Socrates or Cicero to America so he can argue down every flawed, holey argument she made.
I'm not going to degenerate into capslock, though it's tempting, and I'm not going to go so far as to say this book should be burned, along with the two others I've read (both of which I just don't have the courage or stamina to review), but honestly: if you're going to go so far over to one side of any spectrum that an extremist who barely believes half the merde she spouts seems reasonable to you, even to the point that this proof of the existence of Socratic Irony seems intelligent, well-researched, or beautifully thought out, then...
Do you know, I have no end to that statement. It floors me. It's like the people who are so liberal they become vegans and only clothe themselves in hemp - except a lot more people read her books than makes that analogy feasible.
I'm just going to finish up this review (which is quickly becoming incoherent, I know) by saying that this book would make a logician cry; and not only that, but become so despondent at the state of humanity that he had no choice but to fling himself off something very high and onto something very hard. Please, for God's sake, this woman is nothing but a manipulator, and a terrible writer on top of that. Half the 'facts' in this must have been gotten off of Rush Limbaugh alone, because they have no basis in reality - or have been skewed to the point that, though real, their actual meaning has no basis in the meaning she assigns to them.
I'm not going to degenerate into capslock, though it's tempting, and I'm not going to go so far as to say this book should be burned, along with the two others I've read (both of which I just don't have the courage or stamina to review), but honestly: if you're going to go so far over to one side of any spectrum that an extremist who barely believes half the merde she spouts seems reasonable to you, even to the point that this proof of the existence of Socratic Irony seems intelligent, well-researched, or beautifully thought out, then...
Do you know, I have no end to that statement. It floors me. It's like the people who are so liberal they become vegans and only clothe themselves in hemp - except a lot more people read her books than makes that analogy feasible.
I'm just going to finish up this review (which is quickly becoming incoherent, I know) by saying that this book would make a logician cry; and not only that, but become so despondent at the state of humanity that he had no choice but to fling himself off something very high and onto something very hard. Please, for God's sake, this woman is nothing but a manipulator, and a terrible writer on top of that. Half the 'facts' in this must have been gotten off of Rush Limbaugh alone, because they have no basis in reality - or have been skewed to the point that, though real, their actual meaning has no basis in the meaning she assigns to them.
February 17, 2021
A Chattanooga (TN) librarian has been fired for burning this book. After being tasked with deaccessioning it due to publication date criteria (more than ten years old). Are his 1st Amendment rights being violated?
December 31, 2008
Her nonsensical rantings are surprisingly easy to read, which probably speaks to the literacy of her audience.
Lies, contempt, nastiness, and a complete disregard for anything resembling humanity. Even Joe McCarthy would have been uncomfortable around this creature.
Lies, contempt, nastiness, and a complete disregard for anything resembling humanity. Even Joe McCarthy would have been uncomfortable around this creature.
January 23, 2016
The essence of being a liberal:
Well, well. I thought that this was the essence of being Ann Coulter.
“The absolute conviction that there is one set of rules for you, and another, completely different set of rules for everyone else.”
Well, well. I thought that this was the essence of being Ann Coulter.
January 10, 2008
Okay, this book is seriously funny! If you're a conservative, you'll laugh until you can't catch your breath! If you're a liberal, you'll probably set this book on fire and send hate mail to the author! Don't take this book too seriously. Many good points are made and she really nails the liberal thought process, which can be helpful in a heated debate but everything shoud be taken in moderation and "moderation" isn't one of her strong points! Just enjoy the ride and take some notes! :)
May 1, 2009
I saw this book on a library shelf and brought it home. I knew nothing about Ann Coulter, and I thought the book was something of a joke. You know, "Ha, ha, liberals are the worst people in the world. Now, seriously, getting down to business: let's discuss, in an academic and productive way, what makes a liberal tick." But no. It wasn't a joke. There was nothing productive about the book. She only used insults to appeal to the hatred inside people. I know someone else who used this tactic well.
Ann Coulter should make Conservatives ashamed to claim her.
I think Ann Coulter might be insane. If she's not, she's simply mean and spiteful and angry and ... wow. I just can't put into words the amount of pity I feel for a person as one-sided and mean as Ann Coulter. Get a therapist! Or is that too hippy liberal for you?
Ann Coulter should make Conservatives ashamed to claim her.
I think Ann Coulter might be insane. If she's not, she's simply mean and spiteful and angry and ... wow. I just can't put into words the amount of pity I feel for a person as one-sided and mean as Ann Coulter. Get a therapist! Or is that too hippy liberal for you?
October 13, 2013
In this book Ann Coulter mouths off against feminists, liberals, and whoever else depending on what she had for breakfast.
December 20, 2010
Ann Coulter truly outdoes herself in this ridiculous screed against a spectre of an opponent. She fails to grasp even the most basic tenets of either conservatism or liberalism (even dating back to inception within 17th century Europe) and instead replaces true definitions with her own, which of course, are outlandish and nothing more than pure propaganda. In her eyes, a liberal is someone who hates America, hates God, and hates applie pie. If Ann Coulter was ready to have a proper debate without acting like a young child, as she often acts in debates and in her writing, it would be possible to read her books. Unfortunetely, that is not the case. Her continual use of hyperbole to the extent of incitement of felonies is particularly frightening. One must ask oneself if this type of dialogue is for the benefit of the nation, or simply Ms. Coulter's wallet.
November 20, 2007
The woman the left loves to hate gives them plenty of material in this book. Ann Coulter is provacative, funny and on point with respect to many issues. But because she can sometimes express her point of view in such biting tones, she takes a way from some of her substantive arguments. But instead of throwing pies at her or heckling her speeches, the left would be well advised to take her point of view and consider. She makes some very interesting and provocative points, but I guess the left doesn't really care to enforce the First Amendment unless it applies to their point of view.
May 15, 2009
Most people won't agree with everything Ann Coulter has to say. In fact, most people would probably like to set her on fire. I can't say I agree. I enjoy Ann's writing, and politics included, I enjoy her commentary. She's controversial, she says mean things. I like her.
There is one article in here that wasn't printed in a women's journal, that I wish readers could disconnect from her political philosophy. The base of the argument was like attracts like, and if you think something is socially acceptable, you will flock toward others that feel the same. Ann was on a radio talk show and a caller was trying to say marital cheating happens everywhere, because she had been cheated on, and it's a common thing. Ann argues it is only common around cheaters, and that doesn't make it okay.
There is one article in here that wasn't printed in a women's journal, that I wish readers could disconnect from her political philosophy. The base of the argument was like attracts like, and if you think something is socially acceptable, you will flock toward others that feel the same. Ann was on a radio talk show and a caller was trying to say marital cheating happens everywhere, because she had been cheated on, and it's a common thing. Ann argues it is only common around cheaters, and that doesn't make it okay.
November 19, 2009
I'm having to read this one in small spurts, because that's about all I can stand. I was looking for a bit of comedy (as well as some insight to the conservative mind), but mostly it's just pissing me off. The woman talks about how liberals don't have their facts straight, but neither does she! The part that irritated me most thus far was her misinterpretation of Ex Parte Milligan as a Supreme Court opinion in order to further an argument about military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay. I'll elaborate more on this as I continue reading, but I'm tempted to get on her website and write a rebuttal.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 12, 2016
Ye gods, why the ever loving fuck did I think reading this would be a good idea?
Full disclosure: I only read the first chapter. Maybe I'll come back and finish it someday, but for now I need to lie down and take a break from this.
I, quite frankly, wonder if Coulter actually believes the shit she wrote or if she was just trying to piss people off. Maybe it's both.
Let me share a few lovely gems (major sarcasm) that can be found in chapter 1.
If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you said- unless you were, in fact, talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist (Page 3).
Come to think of it, since our side does not accept Klansmen, murderers, or rapists, this rule maybe be simplified to: don't be defensive (Page 10).
Start with the maximum assertion about liberals and then push the envelope because, as we know, their evil is incalculable. They stand for the godless rule of dictators. They apologize for abortion, adultery, and everything bestial in society. They support al Qaeda and the Taliban as they once supported Stalin and Mao (Page 10).
We just don't think they should get married. Liberals actually hate homosexuals (Page 15).
Coulter accuses all liberals of always making baseless assertions that can't be backed up with evidence and painting all conservatives with the same brush. Then she turns around and does the exact same thing to liberals. She is guilty of the very thing that she accuses all liberals of doing, and I can't stand it.
So, Ann Coulter (and people who are just like her): Fuck you. I can have a certain level of respect for people who disagree with me and are steadfast in their beliefs. But I have no respect for hypocrites.
Full disclosure: I only read the first chapter. Maybe I'll come back and finish it someday, but for now I need to lie down and take a break from this.
I, quite frankly, wonder if Coulter actually believes the shit she wrote or if she was just trying to piss people off. Maybe it's both.
Let me share a few lovely gems (major sarcasm) that can be found in chapter 1.
If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you said- unless you were, in fact, talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist (Page 3).
Come to think of it, since our side does not accept Klansmen, murderers, or rapists, this rule maybe be simplified to: don't be defensive (Page 10).
Start with the maximum assertion about liberals and then push the envelope because, as we know, their evil is incalculable. They stand for the godless rule of dictators. They apologize for abortion, adultery, and everything bestial in society. They support al Qaeda and the Taliban as they once supported Stalin and Mao (Page 10).
We just don't think they should get married. Liberals actually hate homosexuals (Page 15).
Coulter accuses all liberals of always making baseless assertions that can't be backed up with evidence and painting all conservatives with the same brush. Then she turns around and does the exact same thing to liberals. She is guilty of the very thing that she accuses all liberals of doing, and I can't stand it.
So, Ann Coulter (and people who are just like her): Fuck you. I can have a certain level of respect for people who disagree with me and are steadfast in their beliefs. But I have no respect for hypocrites.
November 8, 2017
I consider myself moderate, and know decent conservatives who are truly concerned about the state of affairs our government is in and want what is best for people without being religious bible-thumpers or the like.
Unfortunately, Ms. Coulter is not one of these sane conservatives. Some of the things that come out of her mouth just befuddle me. One thing that stuck in my mind is how she said that the best way to solve the problems in the Middle East is to force everyone there to convert to Christianity.
... Really? Really? And yet this woman has plenty of followers who just love and agree with her. This is not the only wacky thing she says in this book... read this book as a joke to laugh at the things she says... or just shake your head in sadness that someone could believe such stupid and hateful things.
Unfortunately, Ms. Coulter is not one of these sane conservatives. Some of the things that come out of her mouth just befuddle me. One thing that stuck in my mind is how she said that the best way to solve the problems in the Middle East is to force everyone there to convert to Christianity.
... Really? Really? And yet this woman has plenty of followers who just love and agree with her. This is not the only wacky thing she says in this book... read this book as a joke to laugh at the things she says... or just shake your head in sadness that someone could believe such stupid and hateful things.
October 30, 2023
“Coulter’s favorite target, hands down, is the New York Times, which she claims distorts the truth, ignores the facts or gets them wrong altogether.” (Publishers weekly)
One would not, on the face of it, expect Ann Coulter’s views to have much in common with Noam Chomsky’s, but this is only one of several delightful similarities I noticed while reading Ms. Coulter’s mind-stretching opus.
In a country becoming (so I’m told) increasingly politically polarised, it is clearly a major advantage to be able to communicate with people of different persuasions; and since my own skills are modest, the ability to talk to liberals certainly seemed worth acquiring. Consider the following, for example:
“If your workplace is safe; if your children go to school rather than being forced into labor; if you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a 40-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights — you can thank liberals. If your food is not poisoned and your water is drinkable — you can thank liberals. If your parents are eligible for Medicare and Social Security, so they can grow old in dignity without bankrupting your family — you can thank liberals. If our rivers are getting cleaner and our air isn’t black with pollution; if our wilderness is protected and our countryside is still green — you can thank liberals. If people of all races can share the same public facilities; if everyone has the right to vote; if couples fall in love and marry regardless of race; if we have finally begun to transcend a segregated society — you can thank liberals. Progressive innovations like those and so many others were achieved by long, difficult struggles against entrenched power. What defined conservatism, and conservatives, was their opposition to every one of those advances.”
This is from a gentleman called Joe Conason, and it seems not unreasonable to hypothesise that he considers himself a liberal. How should I respond? I hoped that Ms Coulter would enlighten me, especially after reading on the dust-jacket about her “incisive reasoning”. The ensuing experience was certainly interesting, although I’m not sure I’d call it enlightenment.
Recipe for success?
It’s considered customary for authors of “How to” books to possess some demonstrated competence in the field under discussion. For instance, Fencing with the Foil is by the British national fencing coach, and Indian Cookery is by one of the foremost Indian chefs of the 20th century.
What Ms Coulter’s qualifications in talking to liberals may be, is by no means made clear. Furthermore, neither is the objective. One may safely assume, after all, that people read Fencing with the Foil to become better swordsmen, and Indian Cookery to produce meals that win the approval of family and friends. But is the objective of talking to liberals to convert them? Or to win over the audience? Or to achieve workable compromises with them? It certainly doesn’t seem to be the last-named, at any rate.
In fact, if the objective of talking to liberals is to communicate with them at all, then such comments as I’ve seen indicate that the author is as catastrophic a failure in her field as it’s possible to be.
To talk to anyone, after all, you have first to convince them you’re worth listening to.
Keeping it simple
But, you will say, what if the problem is not Ms Coulter’s dialectic, but wilful obtuseness on the part of liberals? After all, there are as many, or more, reviews praising this book as there are shrieks of liberal outrage. How shall we decide who is right? Of course, we could toss a coin. But if we decide to evaluate logically, then things start to look gloomy for Ms Coulter.
In her alarmingly convincing book Endangered Minds, Jane M. Healy makes the case that the problem in our schools is not only that Johnny can’t read — it’s that he can’t think. The reading difficulty is merely a symptom.
“Approximately 90% of young people can read simple material. Yet the majority have difficulty understanding text above elementary school level, drawing inferences beyond simple facts, following an author’s point or the sequence of an argument, or using facts to support an argument of their own.” (p.22)
As this was written in 1990, Johnny is of course now an adult; and whatever else you say about Ann Coulter, she certainly seems to understand the market. Simple declarative sentences are her forte: words such as “because” and “therefore” (which belong to what are called elaborated codes) are kept to an absolute minimum.
For instance, we are told that “liberals hate America” (p.47), but not how the author arrives at this conclusion; (the conflation of the country itself with the creatures currently running it is of course a standard ploy of party hacks world-wide, but let it pass). We learn also (for example) that “Osama bin Laden is probably dead” (p.33 — this is in 2004, mark you) and “the invasion of Iraq has gone fabulously well” (p.70).
Now, facts are certainly fine things, if properly established. And the general absence of statements of assumptions, references or relevant arguments does lend the author’s prose a certain simplistic charm. But if incisive reasoning is to be the order of the day, then before we get to facts, we need definitions. And here we hit an immediate snag: not only is no definition of “liberal” offered, there is no hint of awareness that one might even be required.
There is certainly a lengthy shopping-list of supposed liberal characteristics. If you ever wondered what was meant by the old phrase the pot calling the kettle black, here is where you can find out. For instance, we’re told that liberals shout conservatives down (but perhaps Bill O’Reilly is a closet liberal?)
There is indeed no fallacious reasoning in much of the book, simply because there is no reasoning of any kind: a fallacy at least requires an attempt, however feeble, to muster some supporting logic.
But when subordinate clauses start entering the picture, things change drastically. If you look up Logical Fallacy in Wikipedia, you will find these common types cited:
Ad hominem
Affirming the consequent
Appeal to the majority
Argument from ignorance
Begging the question
Correlation implies causation
Equivocation
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Straw man
How many can you find, kiddies? Here’s a starter:
Ad hominem
“Scott Ritter, former UN arms inspector turned peacenik, erstwhile suspected pederast...” (p.53. We may note also, in passing, that not only does our Law School graduate apparently not know the difference between slander and libel, she doesn’t know the difference between pederast and pedophile; and that the charges against Mr Ritter had been dismissed* — although of course it would still be ad hominem, whether or no...)
The rest will have to be left as an exercise for the reader. Don’t expect to get done anytime soon.
*At that time (2004). According to Wikipedia, Mr Ritter “was convicted of sex crimes involving a minor in 2011”.
Conclusion
It doesn’t take much doing to find errors in such assertions of Ms. Coulter’s as are precisely-enough stated to permit falsification, and some people (such as Al Franken) have actually done it.
But for the most part, as Thomas Sowell has remarked in a different context:
“It would take pages to refute each sentence, because the implicit premises would have to be elaborated first. Even if they then collapsed of their own inconsistencies, it is not clear how many readers or listeners would have been willing to stay the course as the argument tediously unfolded. That is why it is a politically clever argument. Demagoguery flourishes where something can be said in a few catchy words that would take volumes to disprove.”
In a word, this is a 500-page tantrum.
One would not, on the face of it, expect Ann Coulter’s views to have much in common with Noam Chomsky’s, but this is only one of several delightful similarities I noticed while reading Ms. Coulter’s mind-stretching opus.
In a country becoming (so I’m told) increasingly politically polarised, it is clearly a major advantage to be able to communicate with people of different persuasions; and since my own skills are modest, the ability to talk to liberals certainly seemed worth acquiring. Consider the following, for example:
“If your workplace is safe; if your children go to school rather than being forced into labor; if you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a 40-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights — you can thank liberals. If your food is not poisoned and your water is drinkable — you can thank liberals. If your parents are eligible for Medicare and Social Security, so they can grow old in dignity without bankrupting your family — you can thank liberals. If our rivers are getting cleaner and our air isn’t black with pollution; if our wilderness is protected and our countryside is still green — you can thank liberals. If people of all races can share the same public facilities; if everyone has the right to vote; if couples fall in love and marry regardless of race; if we have finally begun to transcend a segregated society — you can thank liberals. Progressive innovations like those and so many others were achieved by long, difficult struggles against entrenched power. What defined conservatism, and conservatives, was their opposition to every one of those advances.”
This is from a gentleman called Joe Conason, and it seems not unreasonable to hypothesise that he considers himself a liberal. How should I respond? I hoped that Ms Coulter would enlighten me, especially after reading on the dust-jacket about her “incisive reasoning”. The ensuing experience was certainly interesting, although I’m not sure I’d call it enlightenment.
Recipe for success?
It’s considered customary for authors of “How to” books to possess some demonstrated competence in the field under discussion. For instance, Fencing with the Foil is by the British national fencing coach, and Indian Cookery is by one of the foremost Indian chefs of the 20th century.
What Ms Coulter’s qualifications in talking to liberals may be, is by no means made clear. Furthermore, neither is the objective. One may safely assume, after all, that people read Fencing with the Foil to become better swordsmen, and Indian Cookery to produce meals that win the approval of family and friends. But is the objective of talking to liberals to convert them? Or to win over the audience? Or to achieve workable compromises with them? It certainly doesn’t seem to be the last-named, at any rate.
In fact, if the objective of talking to liberals is to communicate with them at all, then such comments as I’ve seen indicate that the author is as catastrophic a failure in her field as it’s possible to be.
To talk to anyone, after all, you have first to convince them you’re worth listening to.
Keeping it simple
But, you will say, what if the problem is not Ms Coulter’s dialectic, but wilful obtuseness on the part of liberals? After all, there are as many, or more, reviews praising this book as there are shrieks of liberal outrage. How shall we decide who is right? Of course, we could toss a coin. But if we decide to evaluate logically, then things start to look gloomy for Ms Coulter.
In her alarmingly convincing book Endangered Minds, Jane M. Healy makes the case that the problem in our schools is not only that Johnny can’t read — it’s that he can’t think. The reading difficulty is merely a symptom.
“Approximately 90% of young people can read simple material. Yet the majority have difficulty understanding text above elementary school level, drawing inferences beyond simple facts, following an author’s point or the sequence of an argument, or using facts to support an argument of their own.” (p.22)
As this was written in 1990, Johnny is of course now an adult; and whatever else you say about Ann Coulter, she certainly seems to understand the market. Simple declarative sentences are her forte: words such as “because” and “therefore” (which belong to what are called elaborated codes) are kept to an absolute minimum.
For instance, we are told that “liberals hate America” (p.47), but not how the author arrives at this conclusion; (the conflation of the country itself with the creatures currently running it is of course a standard ploy of party hacks world-wide, but let it pass). We learn also (for example) that “Osama bin Laden is probably dead” (p.33 — this is in 2004, mark you) and “the invasion of Iraq has gone fabulously well” (p.70).
Now, facts are certainly fine things, if properly established. And the general absence of statements of assumptions, references or relevant arguments does lend the author’s prose a certain simplistic charm. But if incisive reasoning is to be the order of the day, then before we get to facts, we need definitions. And here we hit an immediate snag: not only is no definition of “liberal” offered, there is no hint of awareness that one might even be required.
There is certainly a lengthy shopping-list of supposed liberal characteristics. If you ever wondered what was meant by the old phrase the pot calling the kettle black, here is where you can find out. For instance, we’re told that liberals shout conservatives down (but perhaps Bill O’Reilly is a closet liberal?)
There is indeed no fallacious reasoning in much of the book, simply because there is no reasoning of any kind: a fallacy at least requires an attempt, however feeble, to muster some supporting logic.
But when subordinate clauses start entering the picture, things change drastically. If you look up Logical Fallacy in Wikipedia, you will find these common types cited:
Ad hominem
Affirming the consequent
Appeal to the majority
Argument from ignorance
Begging the question
Correlation implies causation
Equivocation
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Straw man
How many can you find, kiddies? Here’s a starter:
Ad hominem
“Scott Ritter, former UN arms inspector turned peacenik, erstwhile suspected pederast...” (p.53. We may note also, in passing, that not only does our Law School graduate apparently not know the difference between slander and libel, she doesn’t know the difference between pederast and pedophile; and that the charges against Mr Ritter had been dismissed* — although of course it would still be ad hominem, whether or no...)
The rest will have to be left as an exercise for the reader. Don’t expect to get done anytime soon.
*At that time (2004). According to Wikipedia, Mr Ritter “was convicted of sex crimes involving a minor in 2011”.
Conclusion
It doesn’t take much doing to find errors in such assertions of Ms. Coulter’s as are precisely-enough stated to permit falsification, and some people (such as Al Franken) have actually done it.
But for the most part, as Thomas Sowell has remarked in a different context:
“It would take pages to refute each sentence, because the implicit premises would have to be elaborated first. Even if they then collapsed of their own inconsistencies, it is not clear how many readers or listeners would have been willing to stay the course as the argument tediously unfolded. That is why it is a politically clever argument. Demagoguery flourishes where something can be said in a few catchy words that would take volumes to disprove.”
In a word, this is a 500-page tantrum.
May 11, 2009
I am neither liberal nor conservative, but...I would not put a dime in this whores pocket. Coulter is evil, she should be destroyed, the planet would be a nicer place without her ignorant presence on it.
And all this book is, is a collection of crappy pieces from the early 90's. Typical of this bitch to deceive people into thinking they were getting something new. Just a rehash of the same old hateful garbage, which wasn't particularly witty or entertaining to begin with.
Go to hell Ann, I am sure there is a room reserved for you.
And all this book is, is a collection of crappy pieces from the early 90's. Typical of this bitch to deceive people into thinking they were getting something new. Just a rehash of the same old hateful garbage, which wasn't particularly witty or entertaining to begin with.
Go to hell Ann, I am sure there is a room reserved for you.
October 20, 2010
Couldn't take it. I like to keep up with "the other side", but her writing doesn't add anything substantive to the debate. Her criticisms of liberals are just dripping with dehumanizing condescension. I may think some Republicans are naive or callous or sometimes even dumb, but I think they deserve respect as human beings. She doesn't and doesn't care if you know it. And if that's what you want to read? All power to you. And if you want to pick up her rhetorical style? I guess we have nothing more to say.
November 23, 2009
I really enjoyed this high speed read book. If you are reading or listening to ANYTHING from Ann Couler...you better buckle in and hold on....and if you are a liberal..... well, you may just implode! Ms. Coulter has a gift of sarcasm that is not only fact backed but she sugar coats NOTHING. Love her or hate her...she is a force to be reckoned with. Quick note...some may need a dictionary or thesaurus close by when reading....
May 26, 2013
Read for a laugh but after 1/4 I got bored.
The most unbelievable part is that Coulter's all serious. I've shelved this as humour but just as easily this book could be seen as horror.
The most unbelievable part is that Coulter's all serious. I've shelved this as humour but just as easily this book could be seen as horror.
September 22, 2007
Really, if you're going to give a book such an intriguing title, please don't just make it a compilation of old columns. With a title promising to teach the reader "how to talk to a liberal," if he or she must, this book is a huge disappointment when it's not even a guide. Nor does it redeem itself as a collection of outrageous Ann Coulter sayings. Instead, it's quite... boring. And I don't accept that from Ann Coulter.
September 30, 2007
I get so angry when I read this book, but yet I have trouble putting it down after I start...
Ann Coulter has way of sucking you in, making her points clearly if not at times repetitively.
She smears Democrats/Liberals and some Republicans/Conserveratives with what she calls the "truth" that doesn't appear in major news outlets, but also makes strong arguments and somewhat shows how the mainstream media is biased by liberal inclinations.
One point she makes which I disagree with is that she is an example of how the media is biased. Although she has three bestsellers, most magazines and newspapers still won't publish her work. I think the reason is more about how she writes than what she writes.
Her style is very unique and ... strong.
Ann Coulter has way of sucking you in, making her points clearly if not at times repetitively.
She smears Democrats/Liberals and some Republicans/Conserveratives with what she calls the "truth" that doesn't appear in major news outlets, but also makes strong arguments and somewhat shows how the mainstream media is biased by liberal inclinations.
One point she makes which I disagree with is that she is an example of how the media is biased. Although she has three bestsellers, most magazines and newspapers still won't publish her work. I think the reason is more about how she writes than what she writes.
Her style is very unique and ... strong.
February 11, 2008
A collection of columns from the craziest bitch on the planet. This is such whacked out over the top right wing mindpuke that it cannot help but be entertaining. And the best part is reading it years after the columns were originally published so you can see first hand how drop dead wrong Ann is on just about every issue. To hear her explain what a great decision it was to go into Iraq and how the war is going "swimmingly" is both hysterical and personally satisfying. The best part is the new chapters where she tries to defend her lunacy after the fact.
Ann Coulter is the most evil, bitter, hateful conservative puppet there is. She is a truly disgusting person...
But, yeah...
I'd do her...
Ann Coulter is the most evil, bitter, hateful conservative puppet there is. She is a truly disgusting person...
But, yeah...
I'd do her...
Read
December 16, 2022Coulter is a factually-challenged, unhinged right-wing analyst whose entire mission in life is to convince Americans that the liberals are the enemy and are ruining the country. It is people like her who have brainwashed millions to the point where they believe that collusion, obstruction, treason, and insurrection are all okay as long as right-wingers are doing it.
In truth, she's a failed journalist and a pitiful lunatic who is in desperate need of help. Alas, thanks to crypto-fascist people like Rupert Murdoch, crazed people like her have had their voices amplified and turned American politics into a complete joke.
In truth, she's a failed journalist and a pitiful lunatic who is in desperate need of help. Alas, thanks to crypto-fascist people like Rupert Murdoch, crazed people like her have had their voices amplified and turned American politics into a complete joke.
April 3, 2008
This book is probably quite dated by now, but this collection of articles she wrote in the year of the 2004 election campaign were just hysterical. I don't totally agree with Ann's politics, but she makes me laugh outloud, even when she is bashing my religion (Episcopalian) and political views (not as conservative as hers). I'd definitely buy another one of her books.
October 3, 2010
My son bought this for me as a joke-one day, out of books to read, I actually picked it up thinking it might not be a bad idea to be able to trash her and her books after having actually read one. I expected to be either seriously angry or laugh-out-loud at her outrageous lies. What I didn't expect was to be so BORED that I couldn't get past the first 20 pages or so. The woman's a one note instrument and only the most pathetically uninformed couldn't see through her lies and misrepresentations. I think her 15 minutes are over, but unfortunately, there's always a Glenn Beck to take her place...
June 2, 2008
Coulter for President (after me of course). Kerri, don't cyber burn my books!! Whatev!! The woman says what she believes instead of beating around the politically correct bush. no one does that anymore, we're all too scared of offending someone. She is articulate and an amazing orator when you see her debate live. So even when I don't agree with some of her ideas, I am fascinated with her rhetoric.
September 26, 2007
I didn't really like this book. Not just because I am a half-liberal myself, but because I think she writes a little irrationally--ironic considering she is bashing the "irrational, over emotional" liberal. It's entertaining if you want to read an opinionated journal of articles submitted over the years to various newspapers, but don't expect to learn much from it.
February 2, 2009
More of the same from Ann, disguised as a "how to" book, so people won't notice that it's the same old name calling, half truths, and pretense of serious political discussion.
I am amused by the idea that the voice of conservative America wears a leather halter top and mini skirt.
Says something about conservative america, but I'm afraid to over analyze it.
I am amused by the idea that the voice of conservative America wears a leather halter top and mini skirt.
Says something about conservative america, but I'm afraid to over analyze it.
March 9, 2009
One of Ann's better books. She is polarizing and, in my personal opinion, a bit rude. I do recognize that it is part of her shtick to come off that way so I give her some slack there. She is hilarious in her delivery. I listened to the Audible version and recommend it as Ann does her own narration.
February 7, 2009
If she was trying to be funny, she succeeded only in being ridiculous, and a little scary. If she was trying to be serious, she needs to put more effort into her research and less into trying to be clever.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 219 reviews