Ann Coulter’s point (in her book Demonic, apparently), as to the difference between the blood-drenched, illiberal, irreligious French Revolution and the American Revolution is important, although neither new nor original. The “Revolution in France” is how the great Edmund Burke referred to the French Revolution. Burke believed that replacing monarchy with (a murderous) morobcracy was fundamentally, well, unFrench.
I have not seen Ms. Coulter’s citations. I don’t read her books (other than Treason, a book that did more than follow the tired theme, “liberals bad; conservatives good). Still, it would be interesting to see who Ms. Coulter cited in support of her recycled thesis.
Some of the sources I cite, in addition to Burke, are in “Thomas Paine: 18th Century Che Guevara” (October, 2010):
“… one rarely hears Burke mentioned in American public discourse, yet my countrymen know and love Thomas Paine, who sympathized with the Jacobins and spat venom at Burke for his devastating critique of the blood-drenched, illiberal, irreligious ‘Revolution in France’ …
‘Even Thomas Jefferson seems not to have grasped at first how different the French and American Revolutions were. The confusion continues today. Paine belongs to the Che Guevara ascendancy, which admires nothing unless a good dose of murder is present. There are American scholars, however, like Peter Stanlis, and Francis Canavan, who appreciate the utter consistency of Burke’s outlook with the main tendencies of American civilization. Burke said the French Revolution was murderous and would have terrible consequences. He was borne out, not only by the bloody course of the Revolution itself, but by the Communist and Nazi menaces, which drew their inspiration from and surpassed in their wickedness, the pathology of Revolutionary France. The USA played a huge part in defeating these modern despotisms, and modern France very little.”