How I view Ann Coulter

"Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America"...the title of her new book. In this book she puts forward ideas such as liberals embrace "contradictory ideas" and that liberal thought is the result of "mob behavior". I will admit that I have not read the book and will some day venture to read one of her books. But regardless of my not having done so, I believe I can still critique her ideas and behavior and from that critique understand the very deliberate strategy she is pursuing through them. This strategy is not new. Ann Coulter is a provocateur. Her words are constructed to be as sharp as possible with the intent of eliciting strong counter-reactions. This type of provocation is often brought against those who are more broad-minded, or "liberal." The intent is to push the limits of their personal tolerance of criticism (by being unabashedly rude and abnoxious) to get them to abandon their general willingness to listen to differing ideas and modes of thought. This way of intellectually approaching the world (the "liberal" way) is often characterized in several ways by the opposition: weak, wishy-washy, "liberal" (apparently this alone is now a derogatory word) but I think these criticisms passover an inherent characteristic of the "liberal" approach: diversity is strength. And while Ann Coulter may attempt to analyze liberal thinking as a single strain of thought pulled in every direction by conflicting ideas, there is no single strain of thought. There is no single, totalizing mode of analyzing the world around us that we know of yet.  The ability, and willingness, to neglect and throw aside the unknown (or fail to extract and pick apart the details of the known-yet-rejected) is a fundamental weakness. It is either intellectual laziness or hubris and in Ann Coulter's case, I say hubris. And in the liberal tradition (as oxymoronic as that sounds) - we cannot cling falsely to our ideals, which is to say - we must always analyze and challenge our ideals: "convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies" (Nietzsche - "Human, all too Human"). This is not embracing "contradictory ideas" - to listen and make an attempt to understand is not "to embrace", it is to reason; to rationalize. And this quality of man has been what has made him great. But despite this deliberate effort to piss people off by being flat-out uncivil (not pulling an Ann Coulter here...look it up: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uncivil), I will turn this into a Rogerian Argument. A weakness of liberal thought is that in its search for more knowledge and greater understanding it often leaves out the progress that has been made and what is right about the current state of things. It has a tendency to explicitly neglect honoring the past (I've italicized "explicitly" because I feel the honor is implicit in the act of trying to refine one's understanding and continue to improve upon the present). Western civilization has accomplished a great deal in terms of maximizing human freedom and material abundance. The United States has often been a nation that works in favor of these ends. The United States is a great nation, one that I have served and am proud to be a citizen of, but it is our duty to scrutinize and continuously attempt to improve ourselves regardless of our successes or fatigue. So in honor of the liberal tradition, I take Ann Coulter's words in stride. While I feel that anger is an important human emotion, the reckless and irresponsible use of it is wrong; to demonize (a cliche word, yes, but I use it here because the title of her most recent book literally uses the word "Demonic"), another without making an effort to define them in non-biased terms first (or ever for that matter?), is wrong and dishonest. It is a great disservice for public debate and (in an ironic reversal), a great disservice to the past.