Non-fiction: If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans

Overview
Ann Coulter delivers a combative, unapologetic critique of Democratic politics and culture, arguing that Democratic rhetoric often masks practical failures and contradictory principles. She asserts that Democratic leaders repeatedly mismanage national security, economic policy, and social issues while presenting themselves as morally superior. The book frames Democrats as politically opportunistic and ideologically inconsistent, contending that their professed values frequently conflict with the outcomes of their policies.
Coulter mixes polemic with punditry, using provocative claims and sharp contrasts to make her points. Her argument is driven less by measured policy analysis than by rhetorical force and partisan interpretation, aiming to persuade readers that liberal ideology is incoherent and self-defeating.

Central Arguments
A recurring claim is that Democrats prioritize image and moralizing rhetoric over effective governance. Coulter argues that the party's focus on political correctness, identity politics, and cultural critique distracts from tangible results and practical responsibilities. She contends that this emphasis produces hypocritical stances on law enforcement, national defense, and fiscal responsibility, where lofty principles are abandoned when politically inconvenient.
On specific issues such as immigration, terrorism, and healthcare, Coulter contends that Democratic positions reflect either naiveté or opportunism. She criticizes what she sees as a softer stance on national security and a preference for expansive social programs that, in her view, undermine incentives and personal responsibility. Taxation and spending receive particular attention, with Coulter blaming Democratic policies for economic stagnation and the growth of big government.
Coulter also attacks media and academic institutions, claiming they act as echo chambers that amplify progressive narratives while marginalizing conservative viewpoints. She argues that this media-academic alliance enables Democratic leaders to dodge accountability and dominate cultural discourse, shaping public opinion through selective framing and moral condemnation of opponents.

Style and Tone
The tone is deliberately incendiary, relying on sarcasm, hyperbole, and moral certitude. Coulter favors short, punchy sentences and memorable one-liners designed to provoke emotional reactions and to crystallize complex political debates into stark moral choices. Humor and insult are frequent rhetorical devices, used to undermine opponents and sharpen contrasts between ideological camps.
This approach sacrifices nuance for clarity and entertainment. Policy subtleties and empirical caveats are often secondary to ideological framing, making the narrative accessible to readers already sympathetic to conservative arguments while alienating those who prefer measured debate.

Reception and Impact
Reactions were sharply divided along partisan lines. Supporters praised the book for its boldness, wit, and willingness to challenge liberal orthodoxy, seeing it as a clarion call for conservative solidarity and clarity. Critics condemned the tone as incendiary and accused Coulter of oversimplification, selective evidence, and ad hominem attacks that undermine serious policy discussion.
The work contributed to Coulter's profile as a polarizing conservative commentator and reinforced her reputation for prioritizing rhetorical impact over conciliatory argument. Its influence is cultural and rhetorical more than scholarly, resonating with audiences attracted to combative political commentary while drawing sustained criticism from those who view its methods as corrosive to civil discourse.