Lean Left

I am not entirely unsympathetic to this:

The notion that “slut-shaming” and “nose-cutting” have the same deeper meaning–presumably a fear of women’s sexuality, though Digby doesn’t say this–is true as far as it takes you. Likewise the notion that black people should be slaves, the notion that they should be shipped back to Africa, that they should be segregated in communities, that they should not be allowed to intermarry, also have the same root cause–that blacks are unequal to whites. At varying points, Abraham Lincoln, John C. Calhoun, William T. Sherman, and Ulysses Grant held one or all of these views, and all probably died thinking blacks were unequal to whites. But that doesn’t make them interchangeable. Lincoln and Grant aren’t “less evil” versions of Calhoun.

As is often the case, with arguments that lead with analogy, the point isn’t to clarify anything, it’s to turn heads. Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not think you claim that Glenn Beck is the white Malcolm X because you think it’s a particularly astute analysis; you do it because it will get you on the Atlantic Wire. I don’t believe you claim that the American right’s tactics are “almost indistinguishable” from the Taliban because you think it’s adroit and original. You do it to elbow your way up the best-seller list.

Standard disclaimer: I did little bit of tech work for Markos when Daily Kos was starting it’s move to Scoop, he linked to my Amazon wish list as thanks. Further disclaimer: I don’t think Markos is good for the left. Not for over-heated rhetoric, becasue I haven’t read the book and cannot comment on that aspect of it. Rather, I think his focus on partisanship over ideology is bad for both the ideology of the left and for the politics of the Democratic Party, the current tool best suited for advancing a leftist agenda. TNC is correct that analogies can be taken too far. And he is further right that a difference of degree can be wide enough to be a difference of kind.

But the Focus on the Family thinks that children should be beaten and abused rather than have anti-bullying laws that would protect children suspected of being gay. Top religious right leaders refused to condemn the murder of Dr. Tiller. GOP Senators and right wing power brokers made light of the terrorist attack on the IRS in Austin. The last GOP Vice Presidential candidate refused to call abortion bombers terrorists. Much of the right wing is actively trying to prevent Muslims from exercising their rights to the free expression of religion. I could go on and on.

So we have a disregard for the physical safety of people the religion disapproves of, refusal to condemn religious and politically motivated violence, and the turning of the denial of religious freedom into a campaign issue. Yes, differences of degree are important, and no the right wing in this country is not as violent as the Taliban. But they clearly move to restrict the rights of people of religions and genetics unacceptable to them and they clearly do not rush to condemn violence in the services of causes they support. I cannot see how that is a large enough difference of degree to constitute a difference of kind.