On Lou Dobbs’ “Today” show, Ann Coulter anointed herself as the Right’s H. L. Mencken. Coulter is certainly sui generis, but she’s no Mencken.

First, Mencken was “Godless.” I believe he wrote “that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind—that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.”

More material, Mencken was a libertarian. He hated government with all his bolshy being, and was deeply suspicious of power—all power, not only liberal power. To Mencken, all government was evil, and “all government must necessarily make war upon liberty.”

He certainly would have had few kind words for Dubya, the quintessential dirigiste. Coulter, conversely, has shown Bush (who isn’t even conservative) almost unquestioning loyalty, other than to protest his Harriet Miers cronyism and, of late, his infarct over illegal immigration. Such devotion would be anathema to Mencken.

Nor would the very brilliant elitist have found this president’s manifest, all-round ignorance endearing—Bush’s penchant for logical and linguistic infelicities would have revolted Mencken.

About foreign forays Mencken stated acerbically that “the United States should mind its own business. If it is actually commissioned by God to put down totalitarianism, let it start in Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, Santo Domingo and Mississippi.” He thought that “waging a war for a purely moral reason [was] as absurd as ravishing a woman for a purely moral reason.” Not in a million years would Mencken have endorsed Bush’s war.

Since he was not a party animal, but a man of principle, conformity to the clan would not have seen him fall into contradiction as Coulter has: she rightly condemned Madeleine Albright’s “preemptive attack” on Slobodan Milosevic, as having been “solely for purposes of regime change based on false information presented to the American people.” But adopted a different—decidedly double—standard regarding Bush’s Iraq excursion.

I repeat: Coulter is certainly sui generis, but Mencken she is not.

**
Much less charitable than myself has been paleoconservative writer Kevin Michael Grace, who has mused that, “The secret to becoming a successful right-wing columnist is to echo the mob while complimenting yourself on your daring. That’s all there is to Ann Coulter’s craft, the rest is exploitation of the sexual masochism of the American male—he just can’t get enough of the kitten with claws.”

On Lou Dobbs’ “Today” show, Ann Coulter anointed herself as the Right’s H. L. Mencken. Coulter is certainly sui generis, but she’s no Mencken.

First, Mencken was “Godless.” I believe he wrote “that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind—that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.”

More material, Mencken was a libertarian. He hated government with all his bolshy being, and was deeply suspicious of power—all power, not only liberal power. To Mencken, all government was evil, and “all government must necessarily make war upon liberty.”

He certainly would have had few kind words for Dubya, the quintessential dirigiste. Coulter, conversely, has shown Bush (who isn’t even conservative) almost unquestioning loyalty, other than to protest his Harriet Miers cronyism and, of late, his infarct over illegal immigration. Such devotion would be anathema to Mencken.

Nor would the very brilliant elitist have found this president’s manifest, all-round ignorance endearing—Bush’s penchant for logical and linguistic infelicities would have revolted Mencken.

About foreign forays Mencken stated acerbically that “the United States should mind its own business. If it is actually commissioned by God to put down totalitarianism, let it start in Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, Santo Domingo and Mississippi.” He thought that “waging a war for a purely moral reason [was] as absurd as ravishing a woman for a purely moral reason.” Not in a million years would Mencken have endorsed Bush’s war.

Since he was not a party animal, but a man of principle, conformity to the clan would not have seen him fall into contradiction as Coulter has: she rightly condemned Madeleine Albright’s “preemptive attack” on Slobodan Milosevic, as having been “solely for purposes of regime change based on false information presented to the American people.” But adopted a different—decidedly double—standard regarding Bush’s Iraq excursion.

I repeat: Coulter is certainly sui generis, but Mencken she is not.

**
Much less charitable than myself has been paleoconservative writer Kevin Michael Grace, who has mused that, “The secret to becoming a successful right-wing columnist is to echo the mob while complimenting yourself on your daring. That’s all there is to Ann Coulter’s craft, the rest is exploitation of the sexual masochism of the American male—he just can’t get enough of the kitten with claws.”