I suppose it was inevitable that as soon as Ann Coulter published her book, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) (by Crown Forum) that some wag (me) would immediately come out with a piece named "How to Talk to Ann Coulter." I suppose you could say that she was just begging for it, but that's the topic for another missive. Since the book assumes Ann knows how to talk to liberals, I thought it demanded a liberal reply.
So, here we have the first of many....
Leafing through Ann's (May I call you that?) book in the store I noticed there are quite a lot of words in it. Many of those words are clearly designed to malign me (and other liberals). It immediately struck me that I should reply to such words.
But just as immediately I was struck with a dilemma....
Here's the dilemma: How do I write a review, let alone a rebuttal, without buying this book? I didn't want to buy the book because Ann would receive some small modicum of money.
What do you think? Should I buy the book?
But wait! I don't have to buy the book, because the book is (ostensibly) about how to talk with liberals. There are plenty of conservatives. Why not a "How to Talk to Conservatives" and leave Ann out of it?
You know, that makes sense because Ann usually doesn't (make sense). I could just pick any old conservative and start writing. I found that very appealing and it totally eliminated another dilemma: How do you write a meaningful reply to Ann's writing, which, well, (how do I put this delicately) lacks a certain amount of substance.
I've built something of a reputation on promoting "thinking." I don't want to lose this arguably solid achievement by sinking into sophomoric argument over who's a bigger liar: Bush or Clinton. Ann would surely lead me into this death spiral if I took her too literally.
Unfortunately, this doesn't help much. Recently, after watching a succession of conservatives struggling with thinking on TV, a friend let out this plaintive cry: "Aren't there any smart conservatives?" After thinking for some time, we came up with a short list. William F. Buckley. We just don't see him much on the regular talk circuit any more.
So, for my purposes Ann will have to do, representing the entire conservative firmament.
Which means I need to actually read what she wrote. Sigh. With great reluctance, I cracked open her book and read some of those words. Here I was in Palo Alto at Borders, enduring the Friday evening rush. (Suddenly many realize all that stands between them and two days of loneliness is a good read.) I put the jostling crowd out of my mind and tried to concentrate. I went looking for content, however tenuous, some basis for coherent criticism. Page followed page. I scanned the first fifty pages or so, poking and prodding, looking under the rocks and in all the trash cans. I despaired.
And then, an inspiration! Silly me, I need but read between the lines! This is a book of torrid detail and I'm looking for broad swaths of truth. What was I thinking?!
Let me give you an example. Here is Ann scanning what must be her entire knowledge of the television and movie industry, a dozen or so films that, to her mind, display example after example of liberal plots. (No, she's not talking about conspiracies here; that's later.) I'm thinking, "Get a grip, girl. These are movies. They come with a disclaimer that any resemblance to reality, living or dead, is purely coincidental."
So, what does the publisher have to say about this book? If you think Ann is crazy, meditate on this fact: someone published her. And according to Barnes and Noble, here's what the publisher has to say:
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.
Does this guy read his own copy? He called her an "intellectual!" Next, he'll be calling her a liberal!
But the part that has me in stitches is "incisive reasoning." Because I remember her defense of her book Treason on the Bill Maher show. She claimed that if you disagreed with the government in a time of war you were committing treason.
Here's what I think about disagreeing with the government. When you disagree with the government it is called dissent. Dissent is what we have so that people can discuss government policy and get it right without having to resort to armed rebellion to change the course of government. In other words, free countries have dissent so that their citizens don't have to commit treason in order to change bad public policy.
If Ann can write an entire book on the erroneous premise that dissent is the same as treason, then imagine what she can do in a book on liberals!
No, we need not imagine because her publisher already told us:
...she reveals just why liberals have got it so wrong.
Let's address this right now. Liberals don't have it wrong, let alone "so wrong." That's an example of marketing hype. You don't suppose that Ann believes her own flack, do you?
So, the challenge has been laid down and the glove smacked across my face. Unlike O'Reilly, I don't choose pistols at ten paces. I choose words. Let the words begin.