Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama

Overview
Ann Coulter's Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama presents a combative critique of modern American racial politics, arguing that since the 1970s liberal leaders, media figures, and advocacy groups have repeatedly exploited race to advance political power. Coulter contends that this exploitation takes the form of exaggerated claims of systemic racism, selective evidence, and a sustained campaign to portray opponents as bigoted, a strategy she says has become central to Democratic electoral success. The book traces a narrative linking historical policy decisions to contemporary rhetoric and electoral tactics.

Main Argument
Coulter's central thesis is that "racial demagoguery" replaced honest policy debate: rather than addressing problems in poor and minority communities with policies that prioritize accountability and opportunity, politicians and institutions allegedly use race as a cudgel to deflect criticism and mobilize voters. She argues that policies such as affirmative action, busing, certain welfare programs, and lenient criminal-justice approaches are justified or preserved through emotional appeals that frame critics as racists. This framing, she maintains, discourages meaningful reform by making policy disagreement politically toxic.

Evidence and Examples
The book surveys decades of political episodes, media coverage, and activist campaigns that Coulter interprets as evidence of strategic racial manipulation. She points to prominent trials, legislative battles, and media narratives where racial grievance takes center stage, asserting that selection of facts and emphasis on symbolic incidents frequently supplants sober analysis of outcomes. Coulter uses statistical claims and anecdotal examples to argue that some disparities are the result of cultural and policy failures rather than solely institutional racism, and she highlights what she sees as hypocrisy and opportunism among liberal elites.

Treatment of Obama and Contemporary Politics
Coulter devotes considerable attention to Barack Obama's presidency and the political climate surrounding it, presenting Obama both as a beneficiary of the long-running strategy she describes and as a figure whose critics are routinely demonized for raising substantive concerns. She frames post-2008 discourse as a crystallization of the tactics developed in earlier decades: accusations of racism are used to neutralize opposition and to shield governing coalitions from accountability. The analysis links campaign messaging, racialized rhetoric, and judicial and legislative outcomes to a broader narrative of political calculation.

Style, Tone, and Controversy
Mugged is polemical in tone, written in the sharp, provocative style for which Coulter is known. The book's rhetoric and selective use of evidence have drawn both praise and sharp criticism: some readers appreciate its unapologetic challenge to mainstream narratives about race, while many scholars, journalists, and commentators have disputed Coulter's factual claims, accused her of oversimplification, and criticized her for minimizing structural factors. The book's rhetorical approach aims less at nuanced academic debate than at mobilizing readers through confrontational argument.

Conclusion
The book presents a forceful, partisan interpretation of recent American racial politics, asserting that race has been weaponized to shape elections and policy in ways that, according to Coulter, harm both honest discourse and the communities ostensibly defended by such tactics. Readers will encounter a sustained indictment of liberal strategy, accompanied by contentious claims and provocative language. Those seeking a polemical conservative critique of contemporary racial narratives and public policy will find Mugged aligned with that aim, while readers seeking a balanced or scholarly treatment of race and politics may find the rhetoric and evidentiary approach disputable.