Eric's Reviews > Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right

Slander by Ann Coulter
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
1173005
's review
Dec 31, 08

bookshelves: non-fiction, politics, books-from-library
Read in May, 2003

This book is well-researched, fun, and entertaining, but I don't know if it's a serious book.

Coulter begins by stating that American political debate sucks, and it's all the liberals' fault. Libs call names and accuse their opponents of being Nazis. Libs have done this for so long, they've forgotten how to argue ideas. Until the emergence of talk radio and the Internet, the libs rarely had to argue for their positions, because the media and intellectual elite did it for them. Few conservative voices were heard or given equal time.

But wimpy Republicans are also to blame for this sad state of affairs:

"Yet the left's hegemonic control of the media had one again cowed a nominal Republican into averring to the left's preposterous demonization of Republicans. It always follows the same script: First there is the outrageous accusation from the left, then the abject apology from some pathetic panty-waist on the right, and then - who's to say Republicans are not racist scum? The cycle of Dumb and Dumber bickering with each other continues without end in sight."

So there it is. Libs like Democrat representative Major Owens say of Republicans, "These are people who are practicing genocide with a smile; they're worse than Hitler," Republicans apologize and grovel, and on and on it goes.

If you're not familiar with contemporary politics, you may be surprised Owens said something so viciously untrue about his fellow Americans. But that's nothing compared to what they dished out to Clarence Thomas. Such caring folks branded Thomas a "colored lawn jockey for conservative white interests," "race traitor," "black snake," chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom," "house Negro," and "handkerchief head," "Benedict Arnold," and "Judas Iscariot."

The New York Times called Thomas the "youngest, cruelest justice." Syndicated columnist Julianne Malveaux said she hoped Thomas' wife "feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early, like many black men do, of heart disease." Coulter then adds wryly: "And thus were exposed the logical flaws in Thomas' judicial philosophy! If liberals have a principled argument against Justice Thomas, they're not telling. But they really don't like him. Thus they malign Thomas in terms that would constitute a hate crime if it came from anyone but a liberal."

Republicans may be mean-spirited murderers, but their women are also ugly. Linda Tripp, Paula Jones, and Katherine Harris were all vilified because of their looks. Malveaux referred to the "ugly stick [Tripp's] been beaten with - there's something wrong with that woman." Tripp was also "ugly and evil," "Howard Stern in a fright wig," and "Barracudaville" and "smelling of gunpowder and garlic." Columnist Liz Langley said Tripp and Jones were neither "attractive nor possessed of human DNA." They "look like a bloated carcass and whatever's pecking at it."

Coulter has other beefs with the Left. Libs and the media are elitist snobs who promote and elevate their own and ignore or demean everyone else. Anita Hill is a hero, Paula Jones is trailer-park trash. Ted Koppel's Nightline is a venerable institution that must always exist no matter far its ratings sink, but Rush Limbaugh can be ignored. Gloria Steinem is a hero for meager accomplishments and sleeping with the right man, while conservative Phyllis Schlafly is ignored or demonized despite greater accomplishments and influence.

Coulter also describes what she calls the Left's hypocrisy with Bob Packwood, the philandering Republican senator. Feminists knew of his boorish behavior for years but did nothing because they needed his pro-abortion vote in the Senate. As soon as they no longer needed his vote, they turned on him and suddenly he was Public Enemy Number One.

Her other gripes:

* Several Democrat staffers and officials end up with plush media jobs, a reward offered to few Republicans.
* Fox News is called conservative because it strives to be balanced and does not toe the liberal line.
* Fox got grief when a Bush cousin working for the network correctly called Florida for Bush at two in the morning on election night, but other networks who called Florida for Gore before the polls even closed got a free pass.
* The liberal media monopoly hates any conservative alternatives.
* Conservative books and authors are not published nearly as often as they should be, even though these books and authors are often bestsellers. Conservative authors with bestsellers fight and claw to get published, while liberal authors who write unsuccessful books receive six-figure advances.
* Conservatives read books and liberals don't.
* Liberals want to censor the Internet because conservatives are popular on it.
* Liberals always call conservatives dumb, like Reagan and Dubya.

That's quite a list! Some of her claims are well-documented and substantiated, others are weak. For example, I think liberals do read books, and as far as censoring the Internet, she quotes only an obscure book by an equally obscure professor for support. And while it's true that libs did call Reagan and Dubya dumb (and Palin), they did not call Bob Dole or Dubya's father dumb, or too many other conservative politicians. And I just don't see the big conservative censorship thing. Conservative books are published all the time and are constantly on the bestseller lists. Heck, this book was on prominent display at my local library. And Coulter should not accuse libs of name-calling, because she engages in it herself. Katie Couric is an "affable Eva Braun," Al Gore is "Fibber McGee," the Clinton Administration was the "Caligula" Administration, and so on.

And this leads me to my biggest problem with Ann Coulter and this book. It's impossible to take her seriously. She often says and writes outrageous things merely for effect, or to produce a reaction. It's hard to know when she's serious and when she's just kidding around. Too often, her important and substantive points are overlooked because everyone responds to her nonsense. It's one of two reasons she's on TV all the time (the other reason should be obvious). Any valid points in this book (and there are countless of them) are obscured by her rhetoric and name-calling, clever though they are.
1 like · Likeflag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Slander.
Sign In »

No comments have been added yet.