History Moans

Ann Coulter's latest article (and lord why do I bother reading them) takes on history and historians, showing rabid and proud anti-intellectualism. Ann really despises historians; presumably because historians have to know something. To be Ann Coulter you just have to hate liberals. You have to really really hate liberals. And, this week at least, historians.

Being gracious winners, this week, liberals howled with delight at George Bush for coming in seventh-to-last in a historians' ranking of the presidents from best to worst.

This was pretty shocking. Most liberals can't even name seven U.S. presidents.

. . . So congratulations, George Bush! Whenever history professors rank you as one of the "worst" presidents, it's a good bet you were one of America's greatest.

I will admit that I think a reasoned analysis of George W. Bush's presidency isn't likely to have already happened. That said, 7th worst out of 44 sounds about right. I mean I'd have to see who they picked as worse than him (Nixon presumably, and a bunch of non-entities from the turn of the century).

Most of the article is wisely not spent defending George W. Bush; Ann presumably knows a lost cause when she sees it. Instead it's spent defending Ronald Reagan from Arthur Schlesinger. Which, I suppose, is sure to please Ann's readers (for whom Reagan's supreme greatness is a given).

She also takes shots at FDR (who was President during World War II) and JFK as being inferior Presidents.

Putting preposterously overrated presidents like John F. Kennedy or FDR in the same category as Reagan or Washington is like a teenage girl ranking the Jonas Brothers with the Rolling Stones and the Beatles as the three greatest bands of all time.

Ann Coulter is just a sad person at the end of the day. She's had her time in the limelight; but her brand of hatred and belligerence against liberals isn't going to play as well in the age of Obama.