Coulter Exposes Lies of Liberalism

Everyone seems to know who Ann Coulter is. She makes liberals froth at the mouth like no other right-wing commentator, with the possible exception of Rush Limbaugh, and that's doubtful. Even conservatives, when they don't love her, can take exception to the hard-hitting, relentless invective she hurls in the direction of liberals of all stripes.

But Coulter must be doing many things right. Her new book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, has been on the New York Times best-seller list for seven weeks and has sold many hundreds of thousands of copies. It was the same with her previous two books, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, which came out in 2002, and the 1998 High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton. Slander ran for eight weeks at No. 1 and then for an additional 15 weeks on the Times list - exceptional accomplishments for any author.

Coulter was dubbed "the shock-jock, right-wing political commentator" on Amazon.com, but she's much more than that. In Treason she takes on the standard view of American history since the 1950s and argues that it is wrong and must be changed. At the center of her argument is the late senator Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin, whose standard image has come down to us as a coarse, brutish man whose anticommunist tirades merely were publicity-grabbing stunts. In the end, according to this standard view, McCarthy did more to further the cause of communism than to halt its course by himself being more buffoon than statesman.

For Coulter this is more than bad history, it is an outright lie told by liberals to paint McCarthy in a bad light and disguise their own all-too-tolerant attitude toward communism. McCarthy, she writes, "was tilting at an authentic Communist conspiracy that had been laughed off by the Democratic Party."

And in making a laughingstock of McCarthy, notes Coulter, "The Democrats had unpardonably connived with one of the greatest evils of the 20th century." Democratic treachery did not end with McCarthy, in Coulter's opinion. Since his time, the profoundly anti-American, antipatriotic heart of liberalism has manifested itself in "Vietnam, Watergate and the elites' abiding hatred for Ronald Reagan."

When Coulter hits her stride, which is often in Treason, no one can rival her precise and biting wit, which has made her a favorite among many conservatives. She writes, for example, "Being antiwar in Hollywood was an act of bravery on the order of the keynote speaker at a PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] awards dinner making jokes about [Israeli Prime Minister] Ariel Sharon."

And, "In a country of almost 300 million people, liberals get seven men to issue an opinion from the Supreme Court and they want the rest of us to shut up about abortion forever. But before going to war to eliminate a potential nuclear threat, we need to convince every last American that it was necessary."

Coulter argues that setting things right must begin with revising how Americans view McCarthy: "Unless we fight for proper treatment of history and counter the nonsense images of McCarthy, no history can be safe from the liberal noise machine."

Insight: Treason is a powerful, provocative title. Did you have that word for the title in mind from the start or did it come to you as you were working on the book?

Ann Coulter: Author, most recently of Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism; legal correspondent for Human Events; columnist for Universal Press Syndicate.

Education: Cornell University School of Arts and Sciences, graduated with honors; J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of the Michigan Law Review. Clerked for the Hon. Pasco Bowman II of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.

Career: Private law practice, New York City; U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, handling crime and immigration issues for then-U.S. senator Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.); litigator with the Center for Individual Rights, Washington.

Previous books: Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right and High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton.

Q: For decades, indeed, ever since the 1950s, Americans have been taught to regard Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Republican of Wisconsin, as crude and rude, a coarse example of American politics at its worst, a demagogue. How do you see him?

A: Joe McCarthy was an American hero vilified by the left because he was on to them. As Hubert Humphrey [then a Democratic U.S. senator from Minnesota, later a vice president and 1968 presidential candidate] admitted at the time, "McCarthy's real threat to democracy is the fact that he has immobilized the liberal movement."

Q: Another major revision you make in the standard view of history is to point out how President Harry S Truman, far from being an early hero of the Cold War as he very often is pictured today, was actually soft on Josef Stalin and Soviet communism and eager to hide the communist sympathies and loyalties of people in his own administration. Why shouldn't we think of Truman as one of the winners of the Cold War?

A: Because, like most things liberals say, it's untrue. Wasn't there a guy named Ronald Reagan who did something about the Cold War? Win it or something? Giving Truman credit for winning the Cold War is like saying Herbert Hoover won World War II because men like Dwight Eisenhower came out of Hoover's military.

Q: But why should we disregard and discount claims now made that Truman was an anticommunist and ardent Cold Warrior? After all, the Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrine were hatched during his terms in office.

A: Well, for example, he promoted known Soviet spies to positions of influence after having been warned they were Soviet spies. He denounced the investigation of Soviet spy Alger Hiss as a "red herring." He responded to Winston Churchill's historic Iron Curtain speech by inviting Stalin to come to America to give a rebuttal speech.

Q: You cite many liberals from Hiss on down to Sen. Tom Daschle [D-S.D.] whose actions display their contempt for our country. Does one of these figures stand out as representative of all the liberal evils and sum up the long history of treason you describe?

A: Alger Hiss is the epitome of liberalism - long on Ivy League credentials, short on character.

Q: Among the early, and much-maligned, anticommunist groups were organizations such as the John Birch Society. What kind of role do you see these groups as playing in defining the early conservative attack on liberalism and the dangers of the left?

A: The truth of the matter is that Joe McCarthy's support did not come from right-wing ideological groups but from ordinary working-class Americans. Liberals hate the sleeping giant of blue-collar workers in the private sector - which is why Susan Sarandon is licking the feet of firemen right now. Liberals like firemen, who work for the government, because they view them as soldiers without guns, a favorite liberal fantasy.

Q: You show in splendid detail in your book how liberals time and again over the last half-century have chosen to pay no attention to evidence that challenged their prejudices. Liberals still claim that McCarthy uncovered no communist spies because there weren't any, even though the record shows there were many. But, as you point out, "No amount of evidence proving anyone was a Soviet spy could ever be enough." Why do liberals fail to credit the evidence before them that they have tolerated and defended a half-century of treason?

Q: One of the most depressing factors you describe in Treason is the endurance of liberal mendacity, the lies they continue to tell about the men and women they regard as heroes but who in fact were traitors. McCarthy charged Owen Lattimore with close ties to communism and questioned the role that Lattimore played in U.S. foreign policy, especially toward communists in China, which Lattimore famously claimed threatened America in no way.

Lattimore has been shown frequently to have stonewalled questions about his views and activities and to have lied about those things. He was editor of Pacific Affairs, the official journal of the Institute for Pacific Relations - a notorious and officially cited Soviet front. He was formally described by the Senate Internal Security subcommittee as "from some time in the 1950s a conscious, articulate instrument of the 'Soviet conspiracy.'" Former top communist Louis Budenz testified to five separate experiences within the Politburo of the Communist Party in the United States in which Lattimore was involved as a Soviet conspirator. Yet, as you point out, "In April 1995, Lattimore's harangue [claiming innocence and attacking McCarthy as "base and despicable"] was described in the Washington Post magazine as 'eloquent' and 'convincing.'" How is it that these untrue liberal claims have such staying power?

A: After a while, conservatives get tired of arguing with liberals. They wear you out with their constant jabberwocky.

Q: What interviews/books/sources did you find most valuable in writing the book?

A: As I noted in my acknowledgments, I got a lot of primary material about McCarthy from the only true McCarthy historian, Stan Evans [see picture profile, May 28, 2001].

Among the most valuable books were Witness by Whittaker Chambers, Venona by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, McCarthy and His Enemies by William F. Buckley Jr. and Brent Bozell, McCarthy by Roy Cohn and The Seeds of Treason by Ralph de Toledano.

Arthur Herman's book, Joseph McCarthy: Re-Examining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator, had all sorts of great details about McCarthy. But even Herman was too tough on McCarthy and got a few things wrong, such as the cases of Ray Kaplan and Annie Lee Moss [two individuals who, according to liberal myth, Coulter argues, McCarthy was accused of harassing unjustly]. It really shows you how hard it is to get beyond the behemoth myth about McCarthy even for an eminent historian such as Herman.

This, of course, is just a smattering of the books I used. I used some books only for a single, telling episode. Thus, for example, I cite Edmund Morris' book on Reagan [Dutch] for the amazing story about Holmes Tuttle [an early Reagan backer] mapping out Reagan's eventual triumph over the U.S.S.R. back in the 1960s.

Similarly, I cite Allen Weinstein's and Alexander Vassiliev's The Haunted Wood for the little detail about Henry Wallace's meeting with KGB operatives. And I cite the absurdly hagiographic James Chase biography of Dean Acheson for a single, appalling quote from the "Red Dean of Fashion," as McCarthy called Acheson. I cite David Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest for the point that LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam because he wanted to prove that the Democrats weren't soft on communism.

Q: More than once, this interviewer has heard young conservatives say something like, "Ann Coulter? She's fearless! I wonder how it is she came to have such courage?" Where do your strength and fearlessness come from?

Q: Liberal "delicacy" of feeling is another subject you raise. You note that, "The term 'primitives' has popped up throughout the years" and that it's used by liberals to refer to "Americans who express an unseemly enthusiasm for defeating America's enemies." Whatever happened to good old American robustness? Why won't liberals allow us to hate our enemies with a potent, creative hatred?

Q: Liberals claimed to be horribly embarrassed by Ronald Reagan's bellicose anticommunism. They find it impossible to recognize his role in winning the Cold War. Why?

Q: Will the liberals win this battle of history, too, as they have won so many of these battles, and relegate Reagan to some ridiculously minor position in the panorama of the second half of the 20th century?

Q: You write, "Liberals still don't understand the role religious faith played in the West's victory over communism." This is a very important observation indeed and is related closely to the distinction you make between conservatives and liberals in your concluding chapter. There you point out that conservatives acknowledge God and all His existence implies, while for liberals man is at the center of things. But why the liberal obtuseness when it comes to understanding the role religion plays in American history and among Americans in general?

A: They aren't obtuse, they understand religion just fine. They just don't like it. It's not a failure of comprehension.

Liberals hate the idea of God because it competes with their conception of themselves as a specially anointed elite. Similarly, they understood Joe McCarthy just fine. As I explained to a New York Times reporter who asked me if I thought McCarthy was misunderstood: "That is absurd! Liberals understood McCarthy completely and that's why they had to destroy him." It would be like saying Linda Tripp was "misunderstood" by liberals.

Nonetheless, the Times reporter summarized my point by stating that I believe Joe McCarthy was "misunderstood." The Times never lets you down!

Q: A number of folks have criticized you for generalizing about liberals. Is this a fair criticism?

A: In other words, we can't recognize liberals as a group! They should be allowed to do as they please without anyone being able to talk about them. If we couldn't "generalize" about liberals, your question would make no sense. I simply could ask, "What do you mean by 'liberal'?"

Q: [Laughter.] On the Drudge Report not so many days ago, there was a report that Crown Forum is offering you a $3 million advance on your next book. What's the subject to be and when can we expect it to appear?

A: I note that many are interested in my next advance, so let me take this opportunity to point out that I have sold hundreds of thousands of copies of each of the three books I have written. My advance is based on performance. Liberal authors get big advances when they don't sell. And as for the topic, oh, I don't know. Maybe something about fly-fishing!

An excellent review and interview. I agree that Ann is more controversial than Rush. Now, let's get her a program (TV or radio or both) so the US can hear (and see!) her. I think the majority of US citizens will never read her books.

Oh, and the picture that went with the article:

Saw a youngish woman reading Coulter's book during a plane flight last weekend. GOD, that's sexy.

PS: The Coulter photo didn't post.

But you are forgiven.

Go, and sin no more. <|:)~

I really like Ms. Coulter and think she has some great things to say. I just wish she would go a little less over the top. It would give the truth that she states a little more credibility.

Gum

I am almost finished with "Treason" (it has been a busy summer for me.) Ann has really opened my eyes to some isssues that I had not considered at length before.

One thing is certain, the social Marxists have been eroding the education standards in this country for a very long while. It is time to take back what they have undermined through stealth, subterfuge, and an abuse of our constitutional processes.

Coulter Exposes Lies of Liberalism

Isn't this kind of like saying "A Duck Quacks"?

Yeah, I probably wouldn't want to live with her. Too wired for my tastes.

But I do like her writing: razor-sharp and well-sourced.

And hey, nobody's perfekt (except me and thee). <|:D~

I agree with your approach and it works with patient, reasonable people.

Most of our opponents are not reasonable. They are not willing to change their views, regardless of reason.

Most people are not patient enough to reason out what is true and what is not. As proof, I cite Ann's sources: many scholarly works exonerating Sen. McCarthy, that no one ever heard of.

With one book, however "over the top" her rhetoric may be, she has re-opened debate on Sen. McCarthy. His critics are now on the defensive. That is a GOOD thing.

Any reasonable person who reads her book will be persuaded by it.

The Wichita Falls Times and Record News had an editorial by Judith K. McGinnis last Thursday(September 4th, 03')that was giving Al Franken kudos for exposing the mean spirited right and Bush. The columnist called the article/bs The Truth will Set you Free and claimed that Franken exposed the lies of the right. She even stated that if Franken was found to be single she would be on his doorstep after him.

The Time and Record News is online and could anyone send this nitty a response so that her liberal pandering could be exposed? This is the same town that has one of the running away Texas Democrats.

Even as a child, I wondered how America ever allowed the Soviet Union to acquire atomic weapons. After reading her latest book, I understand.

Wow, that woman has some big hands. Hmmmmmm, does that mean anything (assuming that it does for a man)?

That, and her really long limbs might suggest that she has Marfan's Syndrome. If I were her I'd get it checked out. Marfan's is hell on the cardiovascular system.

Thanks for posting the article - bought the book first week it was out - a great read.
I am mystified over the rebuff she has been getting from some conservatives lately - National Review gave it a VERY small review last month, and not a good one, at that.
The current issue of NR has someone writing in complaining about the one positive thing the reviewer said about the book - 'ya think Rich Lowrey's panties are still all bunched up over their little row last year?
Any Freepers have any ideas on this????

Folks, it's the camera angle. There's nothing bizarre about Coulter's proportions. She is very thin, yes, but doesn't have disproportionately long arms. Speaking as a former model, I can tell you that some arrangements of the limbs can make the most well-proportioned woman in the world look grotesque before the camera. I don't think the photographer was very adroit here.

It could be a wide-angle camera lens distorting the edges of the photo. I've seen pictures that made woman's hands look like the werewolf transition scenes in American Werewolf in London.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.