Author Labels Democratic Party “Demonic” as History is being Rewritten


When Democ­rats protest it is demonic. When Repub­li­cans do it, it’s patri­otic, or so Ann Coulter’s new book, Demonic: How the Lib­eral Mob is Endan­ger­ing Amer­ica, asserts. From the cries of the French Rev­o­lu­tion to “Yes We Can,” Coul­ter ties every lib­eral protest, every march for free­dom, and every dis­sent­ing voice with the likes of Mus­solini and Hitler and cat­e­gor­i­cally labels them all to be demonic. Any­one who has read any­thing of this par­tic­u­lar pun­dit is not the least bit sur­prised by some of her more out­ra­geous claims; how­ever, one would be sur­prised to know that in this hall of fame of demonic mob lead­ers she includes civil rights leader, Dr. Mar­tin Luther King Jr.

The non­vi­o­lent activism of Dr. King clearly can stand for itself and needs no defense; how­ever, Demonic seems to be a con­tin­u­a­tion of a con­certed effort to rewrite Amer­i­can his­tory for polit­i­cal pur­poses. Sud­denly, Rea­gan is a pres­i­dent that all Amer­i­cans should look to as the model of what the pres­i­dency should be. Trickle-down eco­nom­ics is renamed Supply-Side Eco­nom­ics, and mag­i­cally becomes the holy grail of Eco­nomic Pol­icy. Sarah Palin incor­rectly states that Paul Revere was warn­ing the British on his mid­night ride only to have her sup­port­ers quickly edit Wikipedia to reflect her ver­sion of his­tory. Now, Ann Coul­ter lays all of the atroc­i­ties of seg­re­ga­tion, Jim Crow, and the Ku Klux Klan at the feet of the Demo­c­ra­tic Party. To add insult to injury, she states that the March on Birm­ing­ham was in fact a demonic mob instead of a non-violent act of civil dis­obe­di­ence. All of a sud­den, the his­tory we learned in our schools, our churches, and through the voices of our past no longer matches what is being asserted today.

The trou­ble with this effort to rewrite our his­tory is that so many Amer­i­cans don’t know their his­tory well enough to deter­mine the sig­nif­i­cance of the changes being made. A less informed per­son may be per­suaded to believe that the Demo­c­ra­tic Party today, which enjoys nearly ninety-five per­cent of the African-American vote, is the same party that existed prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that Dr. King was a demonic mob leader, and that Rea­gan was the great­est pres­i­dent of all time. One who doesn’t know any bet­ter might begin to ques­tion why they would ever vote Demo­c­ra­tic again, con­sid­er­ing that so many Democ­rats were racists and seg­re­ga­tion­ists. Democ­rats are Democ­rats, right? Thank­fully, we know better.

Prior to 1964 the South was dom­i­nated by the Demo­c­ra­tic Party. Klans­men were pri­mar­ily Democ­rats. George Wal­lace was a Demo­c­rat. Strong Thur­man was a Demo­c­rat. Nev­er­the­less, when Demo­c­ra­tic Pres­i­dent Lyn­don B. John­son signed the Civil Rights Act into law in 1964 the South­ern “Dix­iecrats” clearly felt as though the Demo­c­ra­tic Party no longer rep­re­sented their ide­ol­ogy, sub­se­quently leav­ing the Party. Coul­ter alludes to this impor­tant detail only in pass­ing by say­ing that after the pas­sage of the act, “the anti-civil rights wing of the Demo­c­ra­tic Party dis­ap­peared vir­tu­ally overnight.” Still, she failed to men­tion where these self-proclaimed racists and seg­re­ga­tion­ists went when they dis­ap­peared: the Repub­li­can Party.

In 1960, Louisiana, Geor­gia, South Car­olina, and parts of Alabama all voted Demo­c­ra­tic in the 1960 Pres­i­den­tial elec­tion. Between 1960 and 1964, ten­sions in the South led to trans­for­ma­tion in the pri­or­i­ties of the young JFK and the Civil Rights Act became a pri­or­ity. After his assas­si­na­tion, Lyn­don John­son signed the act into law, serv­ing as the final straw for the Dix­iecrats. In 1964 the Dix­iecrats, along with their con­stituen­cies, left the Demo­c­rat party en masse and migrated to the Repub­li­can Party. In that elec­tion, Mis­sis­sippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Geor­gia, and South Car­olina all turned red as their elec­toral votes went to the Repub­li­can Party can­di­date, Barry Gold­wa­ter. A nefar­i­ous rewrite could eas­ily erase this very impor­tant tran­si­tion sim­ply because not enough Amer­i­cans know Amer­i­can his­tory for themselves.

There is no sur­prise that the only pro­tes­tors Coul­ter sees as non-demonic are mem­bers of the Tea Party, and the only pres­i­dents that are wor­thy of recog­ni­tion are those that had an R by their name, even though their ide­olo­gies var­ied wildly through­out the exis­tence of the Party. Need­less to say, if all, or even the major­ity, of the South­ern Dix­iecrats became Repub­li­can in the 1960s, then the Republicans—many of which still wave the Rebel flag today—cannot pos­si­bly claim to be the same party as Lin­coln who destroyed their dreams of seces­sion. The great­est irony of Coulter’s machi­na­tions is that while she cham­pi­oned Ronald Rea­gan as the Repub­li­can hero, those of us who know our Amer­i­can his­tory also know that he too was one of the Democ­rats that turned their coats dur­ing the six­ties after he felt the “Party left [him].” Maybe it was a case of bad tim­ing, or maybe Rea­gan actu­ally meant what he said when he stated, “If an indi­vid­ual wants to dis­crim­i­nate against Negroes…that’s their business.”

With only thir­teen per­cent of high school seniors hav­ing a sat­is­fac­tory knowl­edge of Amer­i­can his­tory, it becomes painfully clear why this book can­not be con­sid­ered a joke. The only evi­dence of demonic activ­ity in this book is her attempt to manip­u­late the unin­formed. This is why it is so impor­tant, now more than ever, that we teach his­tory to our chil­dren with the same urgency that we teach the sci­ences; if the past can be rewrit­ten for polit­i­cal gain, then surely our future doesn’t stand a chance.

© 2011 Ben­jamin P. Dixon


Posted in: America

facebook comments:

This article has 2 comments

  1. Ralph Zazula 07/05/2011, 4:54 pm:

    A very poor review. You take Coul­ter words and points out of con­text and make the per­fect case why peo­ple should read the book. Even if they only read the seg­ment on Birm­ing­ham and Dr. King, they should under­stand that Coul­ter is cor­rect and you are full of crap.

    This is why you leave direct quotes and page ref­er­ences out of your review and lie about what is in the book. In all like­li­hood, it is because you are demonic!

    • bpdixon 07/05/2011, 6:02 pm:

      Thanks for find­ing our site. Although we clearly dis­agree on Ann’s book I’m glad you took the time to stop by. I am equally as pas­sion­ate about my points of view and wel­come any and all dis­sent­ing voices.

      Warmest regards,
      BpD, I

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>