Tag Archives: Ronald Reagan

Foundational Errors in @AnnCoulter’s Demonic!

Naomi Wolf’s latest book, Outrages: Sex, Censorship and the Criminalization of Love, has been proven to be fatally flawed. It’s entire foundational premises and “evidence” was recently proven wrong in the space of a very short interview.

Ann Coulter’s book, Demonic, suffers from similar, even more egregious flaws than those contained in Wolf’s book.

Demonic is replete with projection and the hallmarks of addictive thinking. Her assessment of and contrast between the American and French Revolutions is largely accurate, though hyperbolic, however, she conflates cause and effect. Her exclusive focus upon mob mentality ignores the far more important factors of the disparate ideological goals and spiritual milieus of the respective revolutions. The objective of the American Revolution was liberty; that of the French version was equality. The former was birthed in a Judeo-Christian environment; the latter in a secularized atheism.

Both revolutions had mobs (crowds). Ours sought freedom in a Christian environment; theirs pursued equality in an anti-religious (and anti-intellectual) one. By focusing exclusively on mob-like behavior, Coulter can condemn the motives and character of her targets. In acknowledging intended (noble) goals, she would have to concede to a certain degree hearts that are not necessarily evil and foes who are not intrinsically demonic. Further, her behavior-focused analysis prevents her from accepting that people can and do peacefully assemble in large assemblies without exhibiting the mob-like behavior Coulter decries.

Are Americans in a French-like revolution now? One would think so given the tenor and tone of her tome. When was the epidemic of beheadings in America and who were the perpetrators. Did we miss passage of the Build the Guillotine Now! Act or the Off With Their Heads Protestor Reduction Act?

Who exactly is advocating violence and the mass murder of innocent people? Oh, that would be Coulter.

Coulter advocated carpet-bombing Iran (“Well, I keep hearing people say we can’t find the nuclear material, and you can bury it in caves. How about we just carpet-bomb them so they can’t build a transistor radio?”[1]) and launching a nuclear attack against North Korea (“I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning. Boom! … I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning … to the world.”[2]).

Foundational Errors in Demonic

When asked, on C-Span’s In Depth, why she began her book with Scripture, Coulter analyzed Mark chapter 8 and asserted, “There you have it – from the Holy Bible – the mob is demonic!”[3] Wrong!

Coulter preceded her claim by saying that her book began with Scripture because it is central to her thesis and spiritually foundational to her book. But neither the words of Jesus nor the gospel she cites make the claim she asserts. The Gospel of Mark tells us a story about a man who was possessed by a “Legion” of demons; it is neither a political treatise nor a psychological evaluation of what happens when a number of people assemble together into a large group.

The quoted Scripture is a descriptive narrative of an event, not a prophetic pronouncement of the future nor a psychological textbook on human nature in isolation or in large groups.

Still, Coulter claims – based on her cited Scripture – “That really is the theme of the whole book: that the mob is demonic and the demons are always a mob.[4]

Unfortunately, people who don’t know any better are very likely swayed by her assertions, ones which are untrue.

Definition of a Mob

Coulter’s definition of “mob” is problematic at best – both intrinsically demonic and uniformly liberal in nature. She relies heavily on the seminal work of Gustave le Bon,[5] whom Coulter regards as the definitive expert on mobs. Le Bon doesn’t even use the pejorative word “mob” in his work. Rather, he wrote of “crowds.”

That’s right: Coulter turned non-judgmental term “crowds” into the more pejorative term “mobs.”

Le Bon observed, “Without a doubt criminal crowds exist, but virtuous and heroic crowds, and crowds of many kinds, are also to be met with.” Le Bon reiterated, “A crowd is as easily heroic as criminal.” Again, “Doubtless a crowd is often criminal, but it is often heroic.”

These nuances are lost on Coulter. One must wonder what Coulter made of this passage from The Crowd: “Still, this does not mean that crowds, skillfully influenced, are not capable of heroism and devotion and of evincing the loftiest virtues; they are even more capable of showing these qualities than the isolated individual.”

But Coulter’s theme requires that individuals assembled into large groups inevitably lose their rationality, yet she makes exceptions for some (Tea Party) and not for others (Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.) and she altogether ignores many (Promise Keepers) – with no coherent differentiation among them. Indeed, Coulter ignores the largest “mob” in American history – the Promise Keepers’ Stand in the Gap in 1997 (estimated to be as many as 2 ½ million people, mostly men, on the Mall). I was there! Also, as flawed as the Nation of Islam is, the Million Man March was a peaceful “mob.”

Coulter’s definition of a mob is uniformly one-dimensional (it is large and unruly) and unipolar (it is always liberal). Indeed, her definition of a mob defines nothing. It is purely circular logic: “the mob is demonic and the demons are always a mob” – the mob is liberal and only liberals are a mob. Remember, from the very first words of her book, Coulter got it wrong: her citation referred to a possession and an event that was neither a description nor definition of a mob.

Returning to Scripture, in the Old Testament (which transpired before the Holy Spirit was universally dispensed) the nation of Israel frequently gathered into large groups that would be considered “mobs” under Coulter’s definition, but yet they were godly religious assemblies. Indeed, the unconverted Israelites were required to assemble annually in Jerusalem for specific holy days. Did God sanction “mobs?”

In yet another inconsistency, Coulter equates “mobs” with “factions” in the Federalist Papers, but the Founders regarded “factions” as a natural outgrowth of human nature. In Federalist 55, James Madison observed the universality of factions, writing, “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.” Madison would be the first to deny Coulter’s claim that “the mob is demonic and the demons are always a mob,” just as he would decry the notion that only liberals can become mobs.

In Federalist 10, Madison clarified his views on factions, writing:

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

Madison poetically expressed a universal reality: “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires.” A free people in an open society will necessarily – from their own human nature – form factions. When the freedom to form factions is denied, liberty dies. Madison continued: “The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.” Thus, factions are not intrinsically evil just as the Left is not ipso facto demonic.

Characteristics of a Mob

What defines and determines a mob? Coulter does not really provide the answer. She quotes at length one author and claims to have read a dozen books on a similar theme, yet what emerges from Demonic is more a diatribe than a dissertation.

Per Coulter, what factors define a mob in Coulter’s view? First and foremost, they are liberal. Second, they are violent. Third, they may be large. Fourth, they use slogans. Fifth, they have revered leaders.

What about the character of the individuals involved? She says people [all people] lose control in a mob – but this is demonstrably untrue and not a predetermined outcome. Other factors ignored by Coulter include the temperament of the crowd, the ethos of the existing environment and culture, the goals of the gathering, and the purposes of the leaders.

In fact, Le Bon’s analysis of the adverse behaviors of crowds contains a disclaimer:  “… what crowds may become, but not what they invariably are.”[6]  He explains, “All depends upon the nature of the suggestion to which the crowd is exposed.” Moreover, Le Bon does not suggest barbarous crowds are peculiar to a particular political persuasion.

Coulter herself participated in the March for Justice, an anti-Clinton rally held on Halloween, 1997. She was there. She spoke from the dais. She felt compelled to attend and compelled to speak.

I said I wouldn’t talk. … God bless you. … I promised my publisher that in the interests of appearing non-partisan that I would not be speaking today but I had to come and see my fellow Freepers. Um, I can’t tell you what a wonderful thing it is to go on Free Republic – which I do every day and I did about 17 times a day when I was out of the country for a while – um, God bless you all. Thanks.[7]

That rally incorporated countless signs and slogans with many protestors attired in costumes of one kind or another. Seeking the impeachment of a president, it was remarkably calm and, indeed, lighthearted – even jovial in atmosphere. Speakers and people from across the country participated in this mob before whom Coulter spoke – a mob videotaped by C-Span with no reports of violence. This is but one example of many raised for which Coulter is unable to explain the differences between “good” mobs and “bad” mobs, other than that the former are conservative and the latter liberal.

This author has attended annual March for Life marches populated by individuals and organizations running the gamut of political perspectives, including feminists, Democrats, and atheists – all gathered together in unity for one cause: the pro-life movement. They are always, always, peaceful.

Would Tea Party rallies or Trump rallies be regarded by Le Bon as “crowds?” Yes!

Slogans

Per Coulter, slogans are evidence of a mob and unique to liberals. Coulter preposterously claimed, “It is striking how many slogans liberals have and how pathetic conservatives are at even coming up with slogans.”[8] Yes, she claims that only the Left uses slogans. This is demonstrably false.

The American revolutionaries, whom Coulter holds in such high esteem, certainly used slogans as political shorthand: 1) No taxation without representation, 2) Don’t tread on me, 3) United we stand, divided we fall, and 4) If we don’t hang together, we’ll all hang separately.

Moreover, today’s Tea Party, of whom Coulter considers herself a member, uses slogans![9] A multitude of slogans (here’s a flavor of what’s out there): 1) Born free, taxed to death, 2) Cut taxes, not deals, 3) Don’t mortgage the future, 4) Don’t stimulate … liberate, 5) Fair tax or no tax, 6) Foreclose the White House, 7) Give us liberty, not debt, 8) More taxes = less jobs, 9) No more bailouts, 10) TEA – Taxed Enough Already, and 11) Where’s the fence?

Let’s not forget – “Read the Bill!”

Or … “Build the Wall!” Coulter incessantly tweets, writes, and opines about “Build the Wall!”

Americans have always used slogans (and mottos) to encapsulate their points in a memorable fashion. Consider just these three alone: 1) Duty, Honor, and Country, 2) Liberty and justice for all, and 3) Remember the Alamo.

Snappy slogans and revered leaders are natural ingredients of any large group of people gathered together with a common purpose.

Conservative Heroes

Being the recipient of hero worship herself (literally!), it is astonishing to hear her assert that only liberals have adoration for their heroes. Isn’t Coulter a Conservative Idol and a Goddess? Still, on Hannity, Coulter claimed, “We don’t worship our leaders. We don’t turn them into idols, probably because we have a real Savior.”[10] A few days later, she said, “The most striking aspect of liberal behavior that is stunningly a part of mob mentality is their creation of Messiahs and their tendency to demonize all those that disagree with them.”[11] (Ironically, it was only a few years later when Coulter would repeatedly – over a period of years – refer to Donald Trump as the “Emperor-God Trump.”)

What is Coulter’s evidence for this “most striking aspect of liberal behavior?” Ronald Reagan!

For example, creating Messiahs, a crowd very quickly goes to extremes, they’re simple-minded, they will create Messiahs and I have a hilarious chapter because I quote liberals on what they say about FDR, JFK, about Clinton, about Obama, fainting at his speeches, they’re pledging their loyalty to him. Same thing with Clinton, go back to him and meanwhile, Ronald Reagan wasn’t even the most popular conservative his first year in office. My newspaper, Human Events, which was Ronald Reagan’s favorite newspaper was attacking him so much. The Washington Post reported at one point that Reagan said and I’m still reading you guys, but I’m liking you a lot less. And I’ve got headlines throughout all late years of the Reagan administration.[12]

But Coulter is deliberately deceptive when using Reagan as definitive proof that the Right does not have heroes. For instance, she uses polling data from 1983 (one of the Gipper’s roughest years) as cherry-picked evidence for her assertion. Rather, one need only look at the 1980 presidential election cycle to see that Reagan decisively defeated both of his Republican rivals and then the incumbent Democrat in the White House.

Reagan’s popularity among conservatives – and among Americans – was such that he won a third term with Bush 41’s presidency. Conservatives ever since have looked for a successor to Reagan, in character and in spirit. Yet Coulter knows that even as she tries to deny it.

When asked in 2004 what it was “like to meet a man you admired so much, Ronald Reagan,” Coulter beamed, “It was like an orthodox Jew meeting Moses.”[13] Sounds almost messianic to me. Just seven years earlier, Coulter was rapturous while speaking of the Gipper:

I went to Ronald Reagan’s first inauguration, and that, that really was something. I mean, nobody thought somebody that conservative could ever be president. He was denounced during the campaign, “Oh, this is gonna be Goldwater all over again,” If you read articles then, everyone thought it was gonna be another 1964 debacle. And people were just thrilled walking along the streets. It was a warm, sunny day, and to have conservatives take over the White House. … Ronald Reagan really just always set the standard at the first inauguration. And the next one, the only other one I remember getting sort of that choked up and emotional about was George Bush’s and that was only when Ronald Reagan’s helicopter flew up and flew away.”[14]

Scores of books have been written about Reagan and he remains, even in the 21st century, both the standard to which conservatives look and the model they seek to emulate. Coulter gives short shrift to Reagan just as she also ignores America’s devotion to and adoration of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, to name just two other presidential giants revered by generations of Americans.

In 2001, a captivated Coulter “swooned for” Bush 43: “When I began swooning for George W. Bush during the Republican primaries, my friends warned me that I was going to have to eat my words. It’s now a month into his presidency, and I’m even more doe-eyed about Bush than ever.”[15]

Now, Coulter has only hatred for the entire Bush family.[16]

Coulter’s scriptural foundation for her book is wrong; her definition of “mob” is wrong; and the characteristics that she ascribes to “mobs” is wrong. Some would rightly say that twisting truth into lies is itself demonic.

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis in this holistic exposé of how and why Coulter has become the polemicist whom people either love or hate.

Joker addresses the physical, mental, emotional, psychological, familial, sexual, and spiritual dimensions which have shaped the Ann Coulter that we know today and it highlights both the positives and the negatives of Coulter’s life and career.

Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity Show, ABC Radio Network, 7/21/06, http://mediamatters.org/items/200607240011.

[2]       Ann Coulter, New York Observer, 1/10/05.

[3]       Ann Coulter, In Depth, C-Span, 8/7/11.

[4]       Ibid.

[5]       Gustave le Bon, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, The MacMillan Co., 1896, http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/BonCrow.html.

[6]       Ibid.

[7]       Ann Coulter, March for Justice Rally, Washington, DC, 10/31/98.

[8]       Ann Coulter, In Depth, C-Span, 8/7/11.

[9]       See http://www.teapartyslogans.com.

[10]     Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 6/6/11.

[11]     Ann Coulter, Newsmax interview, 6/12/11.

[12]     Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 6/6/11.

[13]     Ann Coulter, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans, Crown Forum, 2007, pg. 236; 2004 interview with the American Enterprise Institute. See also Coulter’s tribute to Reagan at http://reagan2020.us/tributes/coulter.asp.

[14]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 1/19/97.

[15]     Ann Coulter, “How to Talk to a Liberal,” 2/22/01.

[16]     See Case Study: Politics of Death in Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged at https://bit.ly/2TttHtF.

RIP John V. Coulter

Ann Coulter’s world fell apart when her parents died: Father in 2008, Mother in 2009. Though their passing was long anticipated, one can never fully prepare for the death of loved ones. Their absence remains a deep void in Ann’s life.

rip-john-vincent-coulter

As Ann put it, “Your parents are your whole world when you are a child. You only recognize what is unique about them when you get older and see how the rest of the world diverges from your standard of normality.”

Her parents were Ann’s moral compass. From them, she derived her set of personal values, moral standards, political views, and religious beliefs. Since their passing, Ann has haphazardly abandoned those values, standards, views, and beliefs.

In 2008, the family patriarch – John V. Coulter – passed away. With his passing, Ann lost a sense of safety, security, and stability. Daddy passed away after years of declining health from dementia, a tragic and traumatic time for the whole family.

In her eulogy, Ann provided poignant personal anecdotes but also exploited her father’s memory to attack liberals and defend herself.

Ann wrote:

“John Vincent Coulter was of the old school, a man of few words, the un-Oprah, no crying or wearing your heart on your sleeve, and reacting to moments of great sentiment with a joke. Or as we used to call them: men. …

“He hated unions because of their corrupt leadership, ripping off the members for their own aggrandizement. But he had more respect for genuine working men than anyone I’ve ever known. He was, in short, the molecular opposite of John Edwards. …

“Of course, toward the end, he probably didn’t even remember he was a Catholic. But on the bright side, he didn’t remember that Teddy Kennedy was a Catholic, either. …

Within her moving eulogy, Ann repeatedly attacked liberals and concluded with a wish that liberals be smited: “Now Daddy is with Joe McCarthy and Ronald Reagan. I hope they stop laughing about the Reds long enough to talk to God about smiting some liberals for me.”

One blogger was inspired to pen this poem:

Now I lay me down to sleep,

I pray the Lord my Dad to keep;

I also ask liberals He kill,

What I can’t do, I pray God will.

Ann’s words – and the blogger’s interpretation of those words – suggest that Ann is unfamiliar with basic Christianity: our Father in heaven is a God of love who gave His only Son to save and redeem the lost and the broken (John 3:16).

May God grant healing in the deepest recesses of Ann’s heart. May He bring Ann’s internal compass into alignment with the North Star of Jesus Christ. And may His grace and peace be upon her.

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, examines the origins, worldview, and impact of the Alt-Right movement. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

Normal People

Ann Coulter’s definition of “normal” is someone just like her.

normal-people

In her latest column (11/16/16), Coulter argued that “the consequence of the Democratic Party’s decision in the 1970s [was] to get rid of all the normal people.”

Hearing Coulter – lover of words like “retarded” and defender of going “full-on spastic retard” – (for the sheer joy of being offensive) – use the word “normal” with regard to people almost be deemed Hitlerian.

Taken in the context of the Alt-Right’s rise to power this election cycle – an Alt-Right which would relish jettisoning the majority of mankind into the dustbin of history – Coulter speaking of “normal people” takes on far greater significance.

Remember, Coulter truly hates soccer – because it is “foreign” – and hates all foreigners and immigrants. especially Mexicans. Coulter even hates Christian missionaries for going to foreign countries.

She hates Gov. Nikki Haley for being an ignorant second-generation immigrant (meaning, she is a native-born American with foreign parents).

Coulter’s views can arguably be called anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic. She even attacks war heroes and Gold Star families.

Coulter’s hatred also extends to other Americans. She loves to call Democrats Nazis, crazy, and demonic.

Coulter hates Carly Fiorina and the GOP. Ben Carson does not fare well with Coulter. She has had a love-hate relationship with Ted Cruz. Once a Reagan-lover, Coulter now derides Reagan and his legacy.

For Coulter, “normal people” are just like her. But there aren’t too many of them because she is genetically superior to us.

The Alt-Right’s view of the world is distinctly nativist, racist, and supremacist. Ann Coulter is its high priestess and its muse.

Welcome to Ann Coulter’s world.

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, examines the origins, worldview, and impact of the Alt-Right movement. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

#NeverReagan

Ann Coulter obviously never really knew the real Ronald Reagan.

Once a self-described Reagan conservative, Coulter now claims that Donald Trump is the new (and improved) Ronald Reagan.

neverreagan

In her best-failing book,[1] In Trump We Trust,[2] Coulter offers a caricature of the Gipper even as she lambastes conservatives for preserving his legacy.

Chapter 6, “You’re Not Reagan,” is replete with banalities, blunders, and bluster.

Speaking largely to those who never knew Reagan (and the politically disinterested, disaffected, and disillusioned), Coulter offers humor and false analogies in place of facts and reasons. Indeed, this chapter, in particular, employs rationalization instead of rational arguments.

Coulter’s False Claims About Reagan

Among the many ludicrous claims Coulter makes about Reagan, these two are especially laughable.

First, “Reagan was optimistic, but only after he’d been president.

To buttress her claim, Coulter proffered one quote from the Reagan-Carter debate in 1980.

Anyone who knew Reagan saw his eternal optimism. Coulter also asked, “Did Reagan ever blurt out something as insipid as ‘I have an optimistic message’?”

 In his one and only debate with Carter, Reagan actually said, “I am eternally optimistic.” He then addressed racial issues in America and pledged “that we will have total equal opportunity for all people. And I would do everything I could in my power to bring that about.”

Second, “Reagan had a few big ideas but, famously, was not a detail man.

In that same debate, Reagan was extremely familiar with not just the big picture but the details of the various subjects being debated. Reagan was an intellectual populist and visionary who thought before he spoke and his views were thoughtful because he’d given them due consideration. (One need only read his biographies or his journals to discern the depth of his knowledge, understanding, and discernment.)

Reagan could even hold his own with an intellectual giant like William F. Buckley, Jr.

Reagan, famously, knew the details and, more importantly, what those details meant and the underlying principles involved.

Coulter’s False Claims About Reagan Conservatives

Coulter derides Conservatism’s quest for the next Reagan because she does not understand or value the original. She dismisses Reaganism, writing, “(1) Reagan was president in the 1980s, and (2) today’s Republicans don’t seem to remember Reagan.”

 As to her second point, are we to consign to the ash-heap of history George Washington and Abraham Lincoln because many Americans are woefully unfamiliar with those giants?

 As to her first point, Coulter repeatedly reiterated ad infinitum (for Trump supporters, that’s “over, and over, and over again”) that Reagan’s era was 35 years ago and his solutions are old-fashioned, out-of-date, passé, from a bygone age, and no longer applicable to our modern, 21st-century, era. (Sounds remarkably 1960s countercultural, doesn’t it?)

 BT – Before Trump – Coulter claimed, “[Romney is] more conservative than Reagan.”[3] (Now the flavor of this election cycle is Trump.) Coulter also lamented, “These johnny-come-latelies to Reagan worship seem to think that he was Jesus Christ and could do no wrong.”[4]

Coulter added, “I don’t really like groupthink and mob-think. I liked Reagan a lot more when it was unpopular.”[5] (Reagan was always popular.)

 Now, Coulter reviles “Republicans [who] believe they can capture Reagan’s greatness by repeating his answers to the problems of three decades ago.” But Coulter fails to realize that Reagan governed by paying attention to eternal principles.

Human nature hasn’t changed since The Fall. People still want Liberty. The government’s primary legitimate function is security (law and order, national defense). The Constitution remains (nominally) the “law of the land.”

Yet, Coulter told the Miami Herald:

I sent the tweet halfway through a debate where there was no discussion of anything but Ronald Reagan, Israel and abortion.[6] Those things are all fine, but there’s no disagreement about them. All Republicans agree – who doesn’t love Reagan and Israel, and who doesn’t hate abortion? So what’s the point in talking about it? They all go on and on about Ronald Reagan. Yes, he’s great, but Ronald Reagan was 35 years ago. Can we move on?”

Actually, no. Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan were great American leaders, men of character, integrity, vision, and courage. The GOP is (or, at least, used to be) “the party of Lincoln and Reagan.” Trump has effectively jettisoned that legacy down a memory hole in his quest for power.

Nevertheless, Coulter argues, “It’s taken Republicans who aren’t Trump 35 years to become some Frankenstein monster of Reagan.”

 Hailing Trump as the new and improved Reagan, Coulter concluded her Reagan chapter with these words:

 “If history is any guide, in the 2046 election, Republicans will all be campaigning on the issue of who most credibly promises to build a second wall on border, to fortify the Great Wall of Trump.”[7] (Except a President Trump wouldn’t build a Great Wall of Trump.[8])

 Trump is NOT Reagan

Attempting to position Trump as just like (or better than) Reagan, Coulter attempted to favorably compare the two with these claims:

  • “Reagan opposed both the media and his own party to do what was best for the country.”
  • “Reagan refused to accept America’s inevitable decline.”
  • “Reagan was ridiculed for announcing that he would solve seemingly intractable problems, specifically the Cold War.”
  • “Reagan aggressively opposed Republican orthodoxy on a slew of issues: SALT treaties, détente, and the Equal Rights Amendment, to name a few.”
  • “Reagan had a few big ideas but, famously, was not a detail man.” [False – see above]

But Coulter’s observations miss the salient point. Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan. Trump cannot be trusted to keep any of his promises. Trump lacks the requisite character and discipline to do so.

 Indeed, Trump’s only moral compass is his own self-interest.

 As reported by The Federalist, “[Coulter’s] solution – replacing one hero with another – makes even less sense. The Great Communicator had ideas, theories, and solutions; the Great Prevaricator has nothing but his hero project on the Rio Grande.”

After the first Trump-Clinton debate, James C. Capretta observed:

“Trump has sometimes compared himself to Ronald Reagan. But it is hard to imagine Reagan sounding anything like the Republican candidate who debated Hillary Clinton on Monday. Trump never mentioned reining in an activist federal government or cutting back on wasteful spending. He never talked about the power of free markets, or individual liberty, or the importance of the Constitution. On foreign policy, he spoke of American weakness and showed no interest in continuing the U.S.’s post-war role as the leader of the democratic West. When he talked with real conviction, it was about how trade agreements such as NAFTA were broken and he alone could bring the lost jobs back to the U.S., without offering any kind of explanation (even when invited to do so) of how he would accomplish this.”

Capretta added,

“Trump has sometimes hit on traditional conservative themes during the past year, but those themes do not come naturally to him because he spent much of his adult life supporting a very different worldview. What animates him is a determination to disengage America from the world through changes in immigration, trade, and foreign policy. A lot can be said about this agenda, including that it has the support of many Americans. What cannot be said is that it is consistent with what Reagan would propose if he were running for president today.”

 The Ronald Reagan Coulter Never Knew

In the 1990s, Coulter regarded Reagan as the greatest American president of the 20th century. Now, not so much. Indeed, it turns out that Coulter never really knew Reagan.

Just last week, Coulter claimed, “[Reagan] kind of came across as a bumbling old man [in his first debate with Carter].”[9] (There you go again, Ann. Reagan and Carter had only one presidential debate and Reagan won.)

Pardon me, Ann, but the Gipper[10] was brilliant, thoroughly conversant with the issues, utterly conservative, and articulated his principles better than most, including William F. Buckley, Jr. When Reagan spoke to the American people, they could relate to him and they could grasp his message.

Reagan’s legacy is as much who he was as what he did. He accomplished what he did because of who is was and what he became.

Reagan’s Legacy

Twelve years ago, the nation mourned his passing while celebrating Reagan’s life and legacy. Hundreds of thousands of people visited the Capitol Rotunda for his lying in state.[11]

Reagan biographer Craig Shirley[12] has declared that the Republican Party is dead but that Reaganism is alive and well and living in a populist-energized Conservative Movement.

In an exclusive interview at CPAC,[13] I asked about Ronald Reagan’s legacy[14] and its relevance today. Shirley replied, “Reagan’s legacy is intellectual conservatism, a belief in the future, a belief in young Americans, and an optimistic outlook – all the things that he brought to the Republican Party which had been missing since the time of Teddy Roosevelt.”

Asked whether there are any leaders on the stage right now who could fill Reagan’s shoes, Shirley bluntly replied, “No.” He added, “Leaders like Ronald Reagan don’t grow on trees.”

But then he offered hope, saying, “in defense of the current crop of candidates, Ronald Reagan wasn’t Ronald Reagan before Ronald Reagan was Ronald Reagan.”

Shirley went on to explain, “by that I mean that very few saw his greatness before he was actually president and then afterwards. He was actually derided by the Eastern elites and by the Republican establishment and by the liberal media in the Sixties and the Seventies. It took time to understand Reagan’s greatness.”

Consequently, “in defense of the current crop of candidates, we can’t peer into the future, so I would say, if they stick to their principles, if they stick to their guns, they make their argument, they might succeed and make history, and, if they do, then they will also be seen in a different light.”

[In recognition of his Reaganesque qualities, love of America, and devotion to the Constitution, BrotherWatch endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz for President of the United States.[15]]

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Coulter’s Big Fail” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-ia.

[2]               See “Alternative Ann Coulter Book Covers” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-gr.

[3]               Ann Coulter, Joyce Kaufman Show, WFTL, 5/8/15.

[4]               Ann Coulter, Ricochet, 6/4/15.

[5]               Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham Show, 6/3/15.

[6]               See “Jews: Quality, not Quantity” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-al.

[7]               See “Trump’s Phony Wall” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cn.

[8]               See “Coulter Logic (she wants candidate who won’t pursue her agenda)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dQ.

[9]               Ann Coulter, Good Morning Britain,  ITN, 9/27/16.

[10]             See “Remembering Reagan” at http://t.co/GYAescwhYa.

[11]             See “My Pilgrimage to Reagan” (5 pp.) for a first-hand account of that experience. See also a 1997 “Ronald Reagan Special Edition” (28 pp) with tributes from people who knew him best.

[12]             Mr. Shirley’s latest Reagan biography, Last Act, is available on Amazon and elsewhere.

[13]             See “CPAC: Reagan’s Legacy Endures” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-e1.

[14]             See “Remembering Reagan” at http://t.co/GYAescwhYa.

[15]             See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

Only Trump Can Lose!

In a farcical column (“It’s Only Trump”), Ann Coulter contends that the GOP’s only hope “lies with Trump and only Trump.” The exact opposite is true!

Trump Loser

Donald Trump would be our George McGovern!

Coulter presumes that people who voted for The Donald in the primaries and caucuses will vote for him in the election, just as she also presumes that Hillary and Bernie voters are locked in to their respective candidates.

If anything, we have seen a remarkable fluidity in voting patterns. On the GOP side, in many states, early voters went with Trump, late voters with Cruz. With an effectively two-man race, anti-Trump votes will be consolidated in the Cruz corner. Had the GOP field, from the beginning, been much smaller than it was, Cruz would likely have been the clear Republican front-runner.

Political campaigns and elections are dynamic, not static.

In the general election, we can expect the Left and the Media to come out with tons of yet-to-be-released opposition research against Trump while continuing to cover-up for Clinton (or Sanders). Trump is, in reality, the one GOP candidate who could lose to Clinton (or, even, Sanders). (Ironically, many of Trump’s positions parallel those of Sanders, vis-à-vis the role of government, the economy, and taxes).

Do the math! Trump has historic and insurmountable negatives, a vast and growing cadre of #NeverTrump Republican opposition, and ephemeral grassroots “support” that will vote Democrat in November.

Throughout her column, Coulter compared current GOP candidates with Romney (who lost!), instead of Reagan or another actually conservative standard-bearer. (Romney – not a conservative – lost, just as Trump – not a conservative – will lose.) Why pit another RINO against a Democrat and expect a different result?

Looking to Reagan as a model[1] (not based on specific issues but, rather, his character, vision, grasp of how the world and government work, and other perspectives), Cruz is the most Reaganesque.[2] Cruz has proven his credentials as a constitutionalist, federalist, anti-establishment warrior, liberty-lover, and moral Christian.

Even if Trump were to win, as Coulter contends is necessary for the salvation of the Republic,[3] we still lose.

Trump and Clinton share ideological beliefs, political persuasions, character flaws (hubris, lying, bullying, corruption, etc.), secular New York values, and a disdain for the Constitution. As president, neither one would govern as a constitutional conservative, but either one would employ their pen and phone to the service of their will, not the will of the People.

As I’ve said from the beginning, a Trump nomination and/or presidency would spell doom for Conservatism and for the Country![4]

May God have mercy on our souls!

Update: Rich Lowry put it nicely, “He’s running against the Republican party from within the Republican party.” In the end, he may well destroy the Party, Conservatism, and the Nation.

[NOTE: This essay was originally posted on BrotherWatch athttp://wp.me/p4scHf-es.]

Endnotes:

[1]               See “CPAC: Reagan’s Legacy Endures” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-e1.

[2]               See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

[3]               See “Meet Ann Coulter’s Savior” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bM.

[4]               See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

Coulter Bashes Cruz – Again!

In a remarkable interview on the eve of Thanksgiving, Ann Coulter again bashed Ted Cruz, calling him a “midget” “compared to Trump!”

Extolling a Trump-Romney ticket, Coulter rejected Cruz for even the V.P. spot. The reason is astonishing!

CruzMidget

Coulter explained her logic, claiming that Trump is being self-sacrificing in running for President while Cruz and the remainder of the candidates have “got nothing else to do.” The other candidates have “nothing else to do?”

Coulter declared (emphasis added):

“I would put Reagan, Romney, Trump in the same category in this way and that is all three of them – unlike everyone else running for President – their lives are made worse by running for and becoming President. They have fantastic lives. They’re wealthy. They have beautiful families. The fact that they run for President at all suggests to me that these three genuinely love America and would like to save it.”

That’s right, Trump is a good candidate because he’s got a “fantastic” life. In what way is his life fantastic? Well, he’s “wealthy” and has a “beautiful family.” (Don’t the other candidates have beautiful families, too?)

Coulter claimed that Trump “genuinely love(s) America and would like to save it.” Does Coulter mean that Cruz hates America and wants to destroy it?

As for the self-sacrificing nature of Trump’s presidential aspirations, doesn’t he want to be President for the sake of being President?

Coulter further asserted (emphasis added), “These guys who are running because they’re got nothing else to do, they really are such midgets compared to Trump.”

Coulter, ever the elite, knows no better!

Conservatives Diss Coulter!

Ann Coulter recently evinced surprise to be criticized by conservatives. Why? Is she just now noticing?

Diss

Since 9/11, many conservatives have frequently found fault with the substance and style of Coulter’s work, as well as with her integrity and veracity. In fact, conservative criticism of Coulter has increased dramatically in recent years.

Yet, Coulter grumbled, “I expect liberals to diss me, but not conservatives.”[1]

Playing the victim card once again,[2] Coulter added, “What is it with me? Is it because I’m a girl?”

No, Ann. It’s because you are not the conservative you claim to be.[3]

Coulter consistently attacks Christians,[4] the Tea Party,[5] pro-lifers,[6] and libertarians,[7] while promoting RINOs[8] – from Chris Christie, to Mitt Romney,[9] to Donald Trump.[10]

As she does so, she issues death threats[11] and tells lies[12] (often whoppers!) about individuals,[13] groups,[14] and even American war heroes.[15]

Ann Coulter – Not a Reagan Conservative

For years, Coulter idolized America’s 40th president, proclaiming herself a Reagan conservative – and proud of it.

No longer.

In her 2004 eulogy for the Gipper,[16] Coulter attacked his grieving family.[17]

Since the 2012 election cycle, Coulter has regarded Mitt Romney as the new and improved Ronald Reagan.[18]

Until Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President, Coulter was so obsessed with a Romney nomination that she engaged in historical revisionism, repeatedly claiming that “[Romney] did better than Reagan did.”[19] Quick to lie about one of the greatest American presidents and a hero to the Right, Coulter falsely asserts:

“In 1980, Reagan won the biggest electoral landslide in history against an incumbent president, Jimmy Carter. Without the last 40 years of immigration, in 2012, Mitt Romney would have won a bigger landslide than Reagan did. He got more of the ‘Reagan coalition’ than Reagan did.”[20]

Is it true? No!

With 1980 demographics, Romney would have received 52% to Obama’s 46% – a 6 point spread. But Reagan won in 1980 with a 10 point lead. In 1980, Reagan received 51% of the popular vote; Carter, 41%.

Immigration is Coulter’s single-issue this election cycle, and, therefore, immigration trumps everything else – including reason, integrity, and veracity.

Now, Coulter looks askance at Reagan and his admirers, bemoaning, “These johnny-come-latelies to Reagan worship seem to think that he was Jesus Christ and could do no wrong.”[21]

A recent Coulter tweet berates conservatives: “GOPs all trying 2 B Reagan in a nation that wld not elect RR today bc of post-1970 immigratn.”

Actually, Ann, Reagan was a visionary who knew what he was talking about and he had a way of connecting with people from all walks of life. He was truly a People’s President. (See my 1997 “Ronald Reagan Special Edition” (28 pp) with tributes from people who knew him best.) I suspect Reagan would have done well in today’s political environment.

Reagan, a charming and compassionate man with character and integrity, was a real winner. (But not good enough for Coulter, whose appreciation of those very qualities is decidedly lacking.)

Ann Coulter – Not a Conservative

As I noted in my CPAC 2002 press kit:[22]

“Let us dispense with this preposterous notion that Ann Coulter is arch-conservative or far-right. Adding arch or ultra to conservative implies more; Coulter is less. Coulter may be arch but she’s not conservative; she may be far but she’s not right.”

Endnotes:

[1]               Ann Coulter, YAF Conference, 7/31/15.

[2]               See Chapter 6: “I Am Victim, Hear Me Whine,” The Beauty of Conservatism, 2011, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

[3]               See “Delusional – New Ann Coulter Book” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-3z.

[4]               See “Ann Coulter’s Xenophobic Anti-Gospel of Hate” at http://t.co/aQGhLuWwtD.

[5]               See “Coulter Trashes Principled Patriot, Promotes Corrupt Incumbent” at http://t.co/4yJQgFLSJr.

[6]               See “Coulter Disses Pro-Lifers – Again!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8J.

[7]               See “Fifty Shades of Coulter” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-5E.

[8]               See “Coulter Discovers RINOs will be … RINOs” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-56.

[9]               See “Adios, Ann: Only Mitt for Me” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-70.

[10]             See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

[11]             See “Coulter, Simply Offensive” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-5i.

[12]             See “Ann Coulter Falsely Accuses Journalist of Plagiarism” at http://t.co/lig5hQLg5S.

[13]             See “Adios, Ann: Coulter Trashes Nikki Haley” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7m.

[14]             See “Fake Christians” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-5T.

[15]             See “Coulter Defames American War Heroes” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-81.

[16]             See “Remembering Reagan” at http://t.co/GYAescwhYa.

[17]             See Chapter 8: “The Lost Art of the Eulogy: It’s All About ME!,” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[18]             See “Adios, Ann: Only Mitt for Me” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-70.

[19]             Ann Coulter, Ricochet, 6/4/15.

[20]             Ann Coulter, “Ramos Can Stay, But Matt Lauer Has to Go,” 5/27/15.

[21]             Ann Coulter, Ricochet, 6/4/15.

[22]             See The Beauty of Conservatism, 2011, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

Coulter’s Ghastly Eulogy

True to form, Coulter politicized her eulogy for M. Stanton Evans.[1] Coulter turned the loss of a colleague she has known for two decades, someone she has suggested was a mentor, and used it to further her own personal and political agenda.

EvansEulogy

Coulter has a very long history of doing just that.[2]

Her lead paragraph quoted Evans on immigration, Coulter’s current cause célèbre.

Coulter then spends more time talking about Reagan, Romney,[3] immigration, and McCarthy than she does about the subject of her eulogy.

And, she throws in an attack on CPAC: “(This was back when CPAC mattered.)”[4]

Remember, CPAC was integral to Evans’ life, yet Coulter churlishly and vindictively attacked his institutional love.

Coulter remains insistent that Romney can win the presidency, again comparing him to Reagan:

“Reagan ran for president a third time, won the presidency and saved the country.” (Coulter noted that Evans was wrong to reject Reagan!)

Lest we fail to grasp her advocacy for Romney, she added:

“(One thing you must always remember, right-wingers: Never run the same guy for president three times. Look how that turned out!)”

Of course, Evans’ defense of Joseph McCarthy lavished attention on Coulter, who mentioned:

“Stan gave me a few teaser documents for my book Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism,[5] which liberals denounced on the grounds that I wore short skirts and also that it was insufficiently ‘scholarly.’”

Lengthy sections on Reagan, Romney, and Coulter’s pet issues, but scant mention of Evans’ life, work, and legacy.

Coulter concluded: “Two weeks ago, he told me not to give up. And neither should you, America.”[6]

Perhaps it’s time we gave up on Ann.

Endnotes:

[1]              Ann Coulter, “The Great, Amazing, Incomparable Stan Evans is Dead, 3/4/15.

[2]              See “Chapter 8: The Lost Art of the Eulogy: It’s All About ME!” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[3]              See “Coulter Stumps for Romney – Again!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-4V.

[4]              See “CPAC Shuns Coulter, Ann Incensed” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-4M.

[5]              See “Coulter Right on Rape, Wrong on Treason” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-3U.

[6]              See “Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-3p.