Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I was preparing to write something just like this post by James Joyner after seeing the right wing blogosphere declare that the man who opened fire at the Pentagon Metro stop, John Patrick Bedell, was a left wing extremist -- and the left wing blogosphere declare that he was a right wing extremist. But since he beat me to it, I'll just use what he wrote instead.
The liberal bloggers called him a "Right-Wing, Anti-Government Terrorist" who "Worshipped Private Property Rights" and "Denounced Government 'Schemes' Like Public Education." Obviously he was a right wing extremist, right?
But then the conservative bloggers pointed out that he was a registered Democrat who hated Bush and ranted against the Vietnam and Iraq wars and had links to groups like PETA and Greenpeace -- and is a 9/11 Truther. Obviously a left wing extremist, eh?
Joyner nails it:
It's true that Bedell harbored a bizarre array of political beliefs, some of which are from the extreme right, some from the extreme left, and some from an extreme libertarian/anarchist view...Can we please stop with the political name-calling whenever one of these nuts goes off?
Look, we're a big country. There are over 300 million of us. Almost everyone holds a position or two that's way off the charts and a whole lot of people believe in 9/11 Trutherism, black helicopters, and all the rest. Less than a handful of those people are out trying to kill people. However stupid or loathesome a political view may be, the fact that some nut also holds it adds nothing to the counter-argument.
Nails and heads.
Politics
Comments
Hmmmm....
Now is it right-wing or left-wing to be a gun nut???
Posted by: Rob Jase | March 11, 2010 12:25 PM
Depends on your definition of "nut." If a gun nut wants to hunt and protect his home, he's a lefty. If he wants to sell the guns to terrorists to further a political career, right.
I might mention that the whole spectrum hates Bush, it's not a left-only position. Us lefties hated him before it was cool though, now all the righties realized, "oh shit, he really DID suck as a president!" and now have thrown Bush out of the True Scotspublican Party.
Posted by: Rob Monkey | March 11, 2010 12:37 PM
Bedell seems like an excellent example of why Libertarians do not fit particularly well into a simple left-right classification scheme. =)
Posted by: abb3w | March 11, 2010 12:50 PM
One of the worse examples of this was on Crooks and Liars after the Fort Hood shooting. Dave Neiwart a self declared expert on all things right wing tagged one of their early posts as "right wing violence". the tag remained long after the full story emerged and I was banned twice for bringing it up.
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | March 11, 2010 12:53 PM
Rob Jase @ 1:
It isn't inherently either one. But the anti-gun control movement is basically allied with the right wing in America, and the pro-gun control movement with the left, so lots of them see one's feelings about guns as a symbol of their politics overall.
Posted by: Escuerd | March 11, 2010 12:54 PM
This guy is just a nut. His own political views are just a superficial cover over his deeper mental-health issues -- more a symptom than a cause.
HOWEVER, it is fair to ask what specific outside stressors caused him to snap, and caused him to choose the targets he did. And here I am inclined to mention the atmosphere of insanity that we've all been noticing lately -- the insanity coming from the radical right, and knowingly fueled by right-wing politicians. Yes, there's left-wing insanity too; but it's nowhere near as prevalent everywhere you look, it's not being provoked by public figures, and it's not dominating public discourse like the right-wing insanity is.
We can't blame "the right" for directly causing this shooting rampage. But we can note that the insane behavior shown here is suspiciously similar to the insane behavior and rhetoric we've been hearing from radical right-wingers since 1980 -- including explicit endorsement of violence against government officials (G. Gordon "Head Shots" Liddy, anyone?). We can also note that other, similar shooting incidents have been more directly linked to radical, anti-government, anti-tax, anti-woman agendas. In this case, the link is nowhere near provable by US court standards; but denying ANY connection is an act of deliberate blindness.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 11, 2010 12:55 PM
Raging Bee - great point.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 11, 2010 1:00 PM
Raging Bee,
It sounds like you want to have it both ways: He's just a nut, but, look at this, the right wing has said some crazy stuff and some other nuts appeared to be right wing as well!
Jesse Walker has been writing some very innertesting stuff about the lunatic fringes lately. Hier is your link to the latest.
Posted by: highnumber | March 11, 2010 1:14 PM
Bee reads the tea leaves and sees what he was looking for. In other news: It's raining here in Seattle and my brother has a blue bike.
One of our Chinese homestay students is reading "To Kill A Mockingbird" for her class. I am answering her questions about American history, and asking her questions about why Harper Lee wrote the character of Atticus Finch the way she did. One of Atticus's characteristics is that even after a mob of drunken pig farmers wants to beat him up to get at a African American prisoner to take out and lynch, Atticus still admonishes his children to "get inside the other [person's] skin."
Atticus Finch is the polar opposite to the idea of "suspiciously similar." Finch would probably say, "Well, if there isn't enough evidence to convict in court, why don't we move on to something that matters?"
Posted by: 10,000li | March 11, 2010 1:17 PM
I think Raging Bee makes a very good point. Obviously we can't know what set this guy off in this case. But the vocal promoters of anti-government violence these days are the right-wingers, so if the triggering factors included political rhetoric in addition to the guy's own insanity, it was most likely--not definitely, but most likely--right-wing rhetoric.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 11, 2010 1:25 PM
Raging Bee - Only problem is that you can point to Greenpeace's anti-whaling activities, animal "rights" terrorism, and other similar excess on the left, too.
I'm not inclined to blame either this guy, or the Holocaust Museum shooter, on the Right. George Tiller's murder, though...
Posted by: James Sweet | March 11, 2010 1:26 PM
On reconsideration, it seems like there are more Republicans willing to pander to the Right's embarrassingly violent stepchildren than there are Democrats willing to pander to the extreme Lefty violence. So Bee, I think you do have a bit of a point.
However, I still say that, for me personally, I'm not inclined to assert that the dots are connected when they are this far removed. I'd rather save my condemnation for incidents where violent-yet-mainstream Republican rhetoric can be tied pretty cleanly to an act of violence...
Posted by: James Sweet | March 11, 2010 1:29 PM
Only problem is that you can point to Greenpeace's anti-whaling activities, animal "rights" terrorism, and other similar excess on the left, too.
Really? How much endorsement of violence against US soldiers or bureaucrats have we heard from either of those groups?
Don't even TRY to pretend Greenpeace in any way supports or condones violence against anyone. Even the more militant Sea Shepherd folks practice sabotage, interference, and destruction of property -- not deliberate violence against people.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 11, 2010 1:32 PM
I think both parties should start divorcing themselves from the nuttery. But they both depend on the nuts to bring in votes.
The left has chiropractic, homeopathy, horoscopes, new age crystals, PETA, Greenpeace, et al.
The right has their fundamentalists, objectivists, militants, climate deniers, evolution deniers, and people who think public health care is equal to communism.
What a world it would be if neither party had to pander to those loons for votes.
Posted by: bart.mitchell | March 11, 2010 1:35 PM
In what way is a Truther like a Democrat? We BLAME Bush for being stupid and lazy and not protecting us. We don't believe he planned it with the CIA and Mossad.
(they left him out because he was a security risk....)
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | March 11, 2010 2:00 PM
bart, that's the most transparently strained and bogus "equivalency" argument I've heard since Jonah Goldberg last went on about "liberal fascism." Putting Greenpeace in the same category as climate deniers, for starters, is pure horseshit. And lumping harmless subjective lunacy with theocratic bigots who want to destroy our democracy is just plain dishonest.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 11, 2010 2:04 PM
There are some fringe anti-animal experimentation people that preach eliminationist rhetoric, and if there was suddenly a spate of murders of animal researchers, I would expect these people and their rhetoric to be called out. But that's not what we're seeing. On the other hand, we have Glenn Beck on the air all the time telling people how Obama=Mao, and how the government is coming to kill Granny, and how liberals are inhuman animals...and we start seeing a rise in anti-government violence. Are people really crying foul about calling out eliminationist rhetoric that is coinciding with eliminationist behavior?
Posted by: Shygetz | March 11, 2010 2:04 PM
Having been kind of a former fringe lefty for a bit in high school, I can say that for the most part I never came across much rhetoric that was violent. There was definitely a lot of anti-Bush fearmongering, but I never got the sense that violence was the answer. Mostly because it seemed like any time the left got violent at protests the whole of us got blamed, and nobody really liked that. Then again, I wasn't huge into it, I mostly read Bushflash.org and whoever he linked to. I didn't sit around my local bookstore reading pamphlets all day and wigging out.
Posted by: Matthius | March 11, 2010 2:05 PM
Matthius, #18:
I remember talking to a fellow far-radical-leftist about the use of violence to effect political change. His response was: "it wouldn't work. The Right is far better at violence than we are."
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 11, 2010 2:08 PM
There are some fringe anti-animal experimentation people that preach eliminationist rhetoric, and if there was suddenly a spate of murders of animal researchers, I would expect these people and their rhetoric to be called out.
They already ARE being called out, in response to harassment and threats of violence against both scientists and their kids. Orac, in particular, has had several posts attacking these thug-wannabees.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 11, 2010 2:10 PM
Kevin (NYC), #15: In what way is a Truther like a Democrat?
I've always associated Truthers as being libertarians. Not to say that there aren't any lefties who are Truthers, but that the vast majority of examples with whom I've come in contact are libertarians.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 11, 2010 2:15 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | March 11, 2010 2:17 PM
For the last several days, I have been engaged with someone on a comment thread on the WSJ website. It started with an article about the Texas elections where the author (John Fund) expressed disappointment that McLeroy lost his spot on the Texas BoE after being pleased with the rest of the results for conservatives. He has basically been showing sympathy with creationists by claiming that they are just responding to the "jihad" that uses "Darwin to attack the Bible and Christianity." He goes into the whole 'maybe God's days are different than ours' argument to try and place himself in a reasonable middle position, but he clearly doesn't really understand the scientific perspective on the conflict at all.
I know that background seems way off topic, but I do have a point. The idea that I have been continually trying to get across to him is that even if we were to accept the lame Nazi/Marxist(?)-Darwin-anti-Christian connection he tries to push, that it still wouldn't be reason to doubt the actual validity of evolution. You have to evaluate a hypothesis against the evidence, not who advocates it or what use they try and put it to.
This directly relates to the topic at hand. All too often, people look at the worst and most irrational beliefs of people at the farthest fringes of politics as justification for believing the opposite themselves. Or, they will dismiss the arguments of people that hold beliefs that are informed by the same ideals but are constructed in a more rational and moral way.
Posted by: JasonTD | March 11, 2010 2:21 PM
WTF are you talking about? I'm about as far left as you can possibly get, and I wouldn't waste a penny on chiropractic, homeopathy, horoscopes, new age crystals, or any other nonsense like that. It's often the right-wingers who actually think that these things are real, which is why my conservative Sunday school teacher told me to stay away from horoscopes and books about magic. She thought they were actually real and that they would suck me into some terrible life. Sure, there are plenty of people on both sides who fall for these scams, but I don't think it has anything to do with political views.
As for PETA and Greenpeace, while I believe in supporting animal welfare and protecting our environment for our own good, I have no interest in killing people to achieve those goals, nor do I personally know anyone who does. Those fringe groups may be the worst of the Left, but they've done far, far less than right-wing groups have.
Posted by: catgirl | March 11, 2010 2:22 PM
All too often, people look at the worst and most irrational beliefs of people at the farthest fringes of politics as justification for believing the opposite themselves.
Yeah, but that's not what we're doing here. At most, some of us are "looking at the worst and most irrational beliefs of people at the farthest fringes of politics," and choosing to oppose whoever depends on those fringe loonies for votes.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 11, 2010 2:26 PM
catgirl, #24:
And that is a very good point, catgirl. Homeopathy, horoscopes (is that even uniquely left?), crystals, and what have you, these are a small fraction of the left.
The other junk -- creationism, global warming denial, fetus rights advocacy -- these people are actually able to drive the political debate and have a huge impact on public policy.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 11, 2010 2:28 PM
I agree. I support Greenpeace, which is not in any way, shape, or form a terrorist organization. I belong to WWF and various other animal welfare organizations, but I can't bring myself to support PETA, which I see as too extremist and more concerned with objectifying women and sensationalistic shock value than about actual animal welfare.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 11, 2010 2:29 PM
Chiroptera,
Not to say that there aren't libertarians who aren't troofers, but most of the troofers I have come across have been far left politically. (And, may I add, I come across a LOT of libertarians.) I don't understand how your anecdotal information can be so far off from mine.
Raging Bee,
You really think the Republican Party relies on lone gunmen for votes?
Posted by: highnumber | March 11, 2010 2:29 PM
I think it's entirely fair to say "This coincides with Right Wing rhetoric". I just thinkt he dude was too crazy to actually stand for it. So far, to my knowledge, we have theo nly violent folks are crazy, which doesn't seem a fair way to judge the right wing's actual violence intentions.
Posted by: Rutee | March 11, 2010 2:44 PM
@ 21 Chioptera
I haven't encountered many libertarian troofers. Some "corportarians", what I'd describe as those who want big business to be able to run around free reign, something that is not a universal libertarian belief (cuz not free market, etc), who I encounter in the series of tubes can be.
Don't equate libertarians with teabaggers, there may be some overlap, but it's issue-to-issue.
please take my experiences with libertarianism with a grain of salt: I don't believe Ron Paul is remotely libertarian. I believe his views are carefully crafted to maintain a socially-conservative status quo (which I hold to be anti-libertarianism). However, I also identify more libertarian. Maybe because I arrived there via civil libertarian/ social issues...
Raging - I'm confused.
Posted by: VikingMoose | March 11, 2010 2:54 PM
To pile on to what others have said about extremists on both sides, I equate PETA and anti-abortion groups. PEAT wants animals released but has no coherent plan on how to care for those animals once the goal is achieved. Anti-abortionists want the fetus preserved and birthed at any cost but have no coherent plan on what to do once the baby is actually born and breathing on its own.
Both groups have a lot of absolutist rhetoric without a lot of followthrough or appreciation of the complexities of what they advocate for.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 11, 2010 2:55 PM
highnumber @ 28: "[M]ost of the troofers I have come across have been far left politically."
Two questions: First, how do you classify any given troofer as being "far left?" The point of Ed's post, as I see it, is that you can't reliably classify any given individual as "far left" based on one or two of that person's positions.
And second, where in the left-to-right spectrum do you place Obama, and why?
Posted by: JPS, FCD | March 11, 2010 3:03 PM
VikingMoose, #30: Don't equate libertarians with teabaggers, there may be some overlap, but it's issue-to-issue.
Whoa, let's be careful here. I said that in my experience, most truthers have been libertarian rather than left-wing.
And I said that has led me to believe that truthers tend to be libertarian; that is not the same as saying that libertarians tend to be truthers.
Now whether my anecdotal evidence is indicative of the wider movement, I don't know. That is why I made it clear -- or tried to -- that this is just my limited personal observations.
And even if my observations are reflective of the larger movements, I am well aware of the difference between a conditional and its converse. (I even teach the difference in my classes.)
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 11, 2010 3:03 PM
Okay, after reading the various responses I have decided we need an official term for crazy Libertarian wingers.
Any suggestions?
Posted by: Rob Jase | March 11, 2010 3:07 PM
no no no.
you're going the wrong direction - it could be confirmation bias on your part. stuff like that. the libertarians with teabaggers was more of an example. at a recent teabagger event, there was a lot of "troof" out there. had you said, troofers = right wing, then there'd be no problem. that, I'd say is the direction
cuz classifying libertarianism as right wing really misses the boat on a ton of libertarian issues. or confusion over the corportarian in one's mind wearing a libertarian thong (for the no-tan-line look, you know)!
some truthers are left wing. not all left wingers are troofers. you know - that.
Posted by: VikingMoose | March 11, 2010 3:12 PM
Rob, we call them libtards. 9/11 Truthers, despite being anti-Bush do not seem to lefties as a rule.
Posted by: Ace of Sevens | March 11, 2010 3:17 PM
Uh, I guess everybody who is saying "Even the leftiest of the left don't advocate violence against people!" hasn't read about the recent kerfuffle floating around the medical skeptic blogs (Insolence, Whitecoat Underground, with honorable mention at Pharyngula and Good Math Bad Math) regarding specific threats of violence by anti-animal experimentation campaigners...
Apropos of nothing, of course... As I said at #12, I've decided I at least agree in principle with the thesis that the Right is more willing to pander to those who incite violence. I'm just saying, it strikes me as odd to deny that there are any violent extremists on the left. There are violent extremists all over the map...
Posted by: James Sweet | March 11, 2010 3:21 PM
JPS, FCD
(or would you prefer I refer to you as "@ 32"?),
I'm not talking about classifying people based on whether or not they are troofers. I'm referring to people that I know to some extent or another.
To answer the other, more irrelevant question, I'd say Obama is a moderate or centrist. Middle of the road, baby! Now I am supposed to show my work, eh? Well, I say "moderate" because he seems awfully close to the Republicans who seem awfully close to the Democrats.
Posted by: highnumber | March 11, 2010 3:25 PM
I agree with Raging Bee's points, but something needs to be added to the discussion:
Some items on Joyner's list come from very unreliable sources. For example, he cites Michelle Malkin as the source of claims that Bedell was a registered Democrat and that he hated Bush. I would filter out all factual claims that come from Malkin and her ilk until they are independently verified.
Furthermore, even if true, those claims are very weak evidence against someone being right-wing and no evidence at all for his being left-wing. Obviously, hating Bush is common in all parts of the political spectrum (and it may be one of the few sane positions this guy held). And being a registered Democrat may simply mean that he was left of center when he first registered to vote, what, 18 years ago?
Posted by: bullfighter | March 11, 2010 3:36 PM
"Dave Neiwart a self declared expert on all things right wing tagged one of their early posts [about the Fort Hood shooting] as "right wing violence""
Er, Islam isn't exactly a liberal religion. And Islamists are even more conservative and fundamentalist than the average Muslim.
Posted by: Jon H | March 11, 2010 3:37 PM
James Sweet: it strikes me as odd to deny that there are any violent extremists on the left
You are incoherent. Nobody is claiming that there are no violent extremists "on the left", in the sense that the general worldview of those individuals may be left-wing.
However, in this country there is no systematic pattern of violence in the name of ideas that can reasonably be described as extreme versions of ideas generally held by the mainstream left. This is in sharp contrast to ideas generally held by the mainstream right - extreme versions of those ideas do indeed produce a systematic and persistent pattern of violence (racial, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-federal-government).
Posted by: bullfighter | March 11, 2010 3:47 PM
Raging bee, I wasn't saying that any of the groups I listed were equally repugnant, I just made a list off the top of my head where the groups use ideology over logic. My criticisms of Greenpeace come from their stance on nuclear power, nothing more. I applaud their efforts to stop whaling and work towards a cleaner environment.
Again, I don't think any of the groups I listed are equivalent in any way. I just believe that they tend to think in ideology not logic, and that those ideologies are driving our politics, not critical thinking.
Posted by: bart.mitchell | March 11, 2010 3:58 PM
40
True John H, but literally from once it happened that's how it was tagged and instead of banning me why wasn't it explained as such. I guarantee if it was a McVeigh type nutjob who done it Neiwart would have been creaming himself.
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | March 11, 2010 3:59 PM
Context: Mainstream Republican and other conservative politicians commonly, if not routinely use eliminationist rhetoric toward the following list of groups and institutions.
a. Any (and sometimes all) federal government organizations and institutions, except branches of the military.
b. People who provide, or obtain abortions.
c. People who are gay, lesbian, atheist, and/or nonchristian.
d. Immigrants, particularly hispanic and black.
d. Liberals, socialists, Democrats, as well as any and all organizations and institutions which are associated (actually or allegedly) with any of the above.
e. Opposition polititians, to the point that it is hardly news when an elected conservative/Republican makes death threat jokes against opposing political figures, it is considered more or less normal.
It is not only fringe Republicans/conservatives who espouse these views. These things are also commonly espoused by those in the "mainstream." They do this not only in private, but in public. This behavior is not in any way unpopular with their voting base. They have made these things normal. The two "sides" are not equal in this. Finding outliers from one political category to balance the center of the other does not freaking compute. I am completely sick of these false equivalances.
So, when a shooter goes off on some government workers, or flies his plane into an IRS office, it requires some willful blindness to fail to notice that there is a large, well-funded, very public, and very politically powerful group of people who frequently call for, joke about, and otherwise normalize the idea of doing exactly these things.
Posted by: Rev.Enki | March 11, 2010 4:02 PM
Catgirl, You may be a rational liberal, but there are atheist ultra conservatives who mock religion and supernatural belief (Ayn Rand disciples come to mind). There are also religious fundamentalists that think Jesus was a liberal, and would support a very left leaning government were he alive (and real). Both sides have a very diverse membership.
That said, the chiropractic, homeopathic, and new age alternative medicine people are always well represented at farmers markets, and other liberal gatherings. The right is obviously characterized as bible thumpers. The stereo types are not always right, but they are pretty ubiquitous.
The point of my little bit wasn't to criticize any groups, or support any position, it was to point out that ideologies, not evidence based thinking are driving our politics right now.
Posted by: bart.mitchell | March 11, 2010 4:07 PM
I just made a list off the top of my head where the groups use ideology over logic.
That's not the subject of this post; the original subject is insanity and partisan rhetoric pandering to and exacerbating said insanity.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 11, 2010 4:10 PM
...are always well represented at farmers markets, and other liberal gatherings.
Farmers' markets are "liberal?" Do you have any clue what you're talking about?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 11, 2010 4:13 PM
bart.mitchell, #45: The point of my little bit wasn't to criticize any groups, or support any position, it was to point out that ideologies, not evidence based thinking are driving our politics right now.
We got that. And we pointed out that this is where you go wrong. Astrology and crystals aren't driving politics from the left. At all. These are beliefs held by a minor fringe, or beliefs held privately that don't make it into the actual debate over policy issues.
Creationism and Obama-is-a-Marxist are major components in the political discourse and are driving the "debate."
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 11, 2010 4:15 PM
"Incoherent", eh bullfighter? Yeesh, uncivil much?
What I was responding to was that several commenters, when presented with examples of far left extremists, have tried to be like, "Well that's just sabotage, not actual violence!" Come on.
I agree with you that the more important point is the extent to which the "mainstream" left/right indulges the violent extremists. As I said at #12.
But along with that, I am also hearing, "There are no violent extremists on the left, only saboteurs!" I dunno, maybe I'm "incoherent" and misunderstood, but it seemed like some people were trying to actually make that point.
Posted by: James Sweet | March 11, 2010 4:17 PM
Yeah, but he didn't just say astrology, he also referred to "new age alternative medicine". And alternative medicine is driving politics.
From the right. heh.
Posted by: James Sweet | March 11, 2010 4:19 PM
What I was responding to was that several commenters, when presented with examples of far left extremists, have tried to be like, "Well that's just sabotage, not actual violence!" Come on.
If you don't see the difference, or don't consider it significant, then yes, you really are incoherent. And before you call me "uncivil" for pointing out such an obvious fact, just ask yourself how "civil" it is to blind yourself to obvious facts.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 11, 2010 4:20 PM
Raging Bee, I see the difference, but are you really saying that nobody on the extreme left advocates violence? At all?
If you are saying that they are not pandered to by the mainstream left, while violence advocates on the extreme right are pandered to by the mainstream right, then I'm right with ya, as I said at #12. If you are saying there are no violence advocates on the extreme left... well, at least then bullfighter can stop calling me incoherent.
Re: the civil/uncivil thing... I mostly like your comments, and as a result I have tried (though I admit not always successfully) to avoid name-calling even when we strongly disagree. For whatever that's worth...
Posted by: James Sweet | March 11, 2010 4:25 PM
Actually, that's not at all what this post is about. That's what your comments have been about.
Posted by: highnumber | March 11, 2010 4:34 PM
I only know about the farmers markets here in Oregon. If anyone had shown up with a McCain Palin booth during the last election, they would have been constantly heckled. If you tried to get signatures for a pro-life bill, I doubt you could fill even one page. The bulk of the politics spoken at our local farmers market is very liberal. Bumper stickers on all the cars are what you would expect of people who lean to the left. All this in a county that voted 60% for McCain. The farmers market is definitely a place where liberals hang out. If anyone with a conservative leaning shops there, they stay very quiet.
Why? Are most of your farmers markets filled with people chanting 'Drill baby drill!', and run by teabaggers? Those ultra conservatives are really known for their commitment to the environment and organic food. (that last bit was sarcasm)
Posted by: bart.mitchell | March 11, 2010 6:00 PM
...but are you really saying that nobody on the extreme left advocates violence? At all?
Well, other than those PETA jackasses, no examples come to mind. Do you have any?
There was some talk about "revolution," but that was WAAAY back in the '60s and '70s, it never went anywhere even then, and the only people who still remember it now seem to be right-wing demagogues trying to whip up fear of liberals and commies.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 11, 2010 6:01 PM
Are most of your farmers markets filled with people chanting 'Drill baby drill!', and run by teabaggers?
No, they're filled with people looking to buy fresh fruits and veggies. I'm glad to hear your farmers' markets aren't as boring as mine.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 11, 2010 6:04 PM
Chiroptera, you think new age crystal gazers, chiropractors, and acupuncturists don't vote? That sub culture of the US is a solid block that the democrats can count on. If the leaders in the democratic party started telling people that they believe in nonsense, it would negatively impact their voter turn out.
Dirty hippies vote just as much as brainwashed bible thumpers. Both vote from ideologies, not critical thinking. Way back on my very first post I said "they both depend on the nuts to bring in votes." and I stand by that. I doubt half the Rethuglicans really truly believe that baby Jesus is going to rapture them. They just have a dependable voter base. The Democrats have their same ideologues that vote by how they feel about something as opposed to what the facts are.
A perfect example is nuclear power. It has the cleanest record of all the past types of power generation. A couple of high profile accidents made it a Bad Thing for all the environmentalists, and so were stuck with nearly half our power made from coal. If they had worked by numbers 20 years ago instead of emotion, we would have multiple safe clean nuclear power plants. Instead we have tons of dirty mercury emitting coal plants. All based on an emotional cry, not an empirical study. That poor decision was influenced by the left, not the right.
Posted by: bart.mitchell | March 11, 2010 6:13 PM
Chiroptera, you think new age crystal gazers, chiropractors, and acupuncturists don't vote? That sub culture of the US is a solid block that the democrats can count on.
Any evidence those people vote as a reliably solid bloc?
...All based on an emotional cry, not an empirical study. That poor decision was influenced by the left, not the right.
Actually, it was largely based on mistrust that nuclear-power bigwigs brought on themselves by their own behavior. If you're blaming leftists for being emotional, then you should also blame the people on the right who inflamed the emotion when they could have behaved more sensibly and honestly.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 11, 2010 6:37 PM
Chiroptera "And that is a very good point, catgirl. Homeopathy, horoscopes (is that even uniquely left?), crystals, and what have you, these are a small fraction of the left."
Only until we get our yogic flyers off the ground! Moo ha-ha! Moo ha-ha!
James Sweet "I'm just saying, it strikes me as odd to deny that there are any violent extremists on the left."
It's not that there aren't any. It's that it's all mine. I just couldn't stand the thought of all those tofus trapped shoulder-to-shoulder in bare pens. My apologies.
I'm sorry for all my left wing violence.
bullfighter "However, in this country there is no systematic pattern of violence in the name of ideas that can reasonably be described as extreme versions of ideas generally held by the mainstream left."
What about ACORN? From what I understand, they hate everything American stands for*.
bart.mitchell "If the leaders in the democratic party started telling people that they believe in nonsense, it would negatively impact their voter turn out."
Granting that declaration for a moment, even if that is true, there is still a huge difference; the Democrats tend not to pander or inflame them. You don't see the leading lights of the Democratic Party telling hippies that the evil Republicans are going to bring in a reincarnation tax or that the fat-cats in DC are coming to take away their patchouli.
"That poor decision was influenced by the left, not the right."
Let's see…Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clintion's "New Democrats" (most of that over a Republican legislative, if memory serves) and Bush Jr. Working "by numbers twenty years ago" against a solid generation of pro-business (read: "pro-dig it up and burn it")?
*America stands for poor brown urbanites not voting.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 11, 2010 7:03 PM
Raging Bee you said "you should also blame the people on the right"
I don't know if you've read anything I've written here, but I criticize the right far more than the left. Most people (wrongly I feel) call me a liberal. I have no sympathy for the conservatives in the US right now. They are a bunch of bible thumping, tea bagging morons.
Again, the whole point of my original post that's got you all riled up is that I wish we didn't have silly appeals to emotion in politics AT ALL. Not just on the radical right, but also the loony left.
Posted by: bart.mitchell | March 11, 2010 7:29 PM
bart.mitchell, #57: Chiroptera, you think new age crystal gazers, chiropractors, and acupuncturists don't vote?
I don't see how my opinions on who votes or who doesn't is at all relevant to what I wrote or to any of the discussions on the thread.
I've been stating that a few people who put up booths at the Willamette Valley Folk Festival do not have nearly the same impact on US politics as the many teabaggers who disrupted scores of open houses and "meet-and-greets" held by members of Congress and even by candidates for county offices.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 11, 2010 8:34 PM
Raging Bee: Historically, the idea of using violence against politicians as a political means is first expressed in the far-left anarcho-communist "propaganda of the deed." Since then, it's bounced back and forth randomly. Just as whether anti-government views are considered right- or left-wing depends on which side is in power, threats to resort to violence are likewise an indication of the frustration of whichever side is currently out of power. And, since such most people are basically decent, such threats and actions are a last resort contemplated in times of extreme disagreement and angst about the future, and so their prevalence at any given time should be taken not only as a repudiation of those who make them, but of those they feel compelled to make them against.
Put another way, the politics of passing unpopular legislation via procedural tricks like reconciliation rather than through broad consent are what make ideas like the politics of the gun attractive to those in the minority. (I most definitely do not intend this as a defense of violence in politics; rather, I intend it as a condemnation of the view that majority-rule democracy is a legitimate justification for ignoring the concerns of 49% of the people.)
Posted by: Miko | March 11, 2010 8:43 PM
There are definitely two distinct groups who are into alternative medicine. There are the lefty New Age hippie types who believe in some sort of vague spiritualism and the superiority (morally and in effectiveness) of natural cures over traditional western medicine. But there is also a large number of right-wing conservatives whose antipathy and distrust of big government and big pharma, coupled with a belief in "Biblical cures" makes them eager consumers of alternative medicines, though they do tend to stay away from anything associated with eastern mysticism, naturally.
The existence of this latter group came as a surprise to me when I first moved to Texas. I had always associated the alt-med nonsense with the far left too, but really it spreads across all the fringes of the political spectrum, taking on different forms tailored to their particular world view.
I think underlying it all is a shared belief that there is something more, something mystical about existence that science is unable to explain. And I think also there is a belief in many of these people that knowledge -- e.g. cures for intractable illnesses, cancer, etc. -- can be easily acquired if you know where to look, rather than having to be an expert with decades of training before you can tackle a problem. A lot of pseudoscience is driven by this.
Posted by: tacitus | March 11, 2010 8:53 PM
Miko, #62: ...I intend it as a condemnation of the view that majority-rule democracy is a legitimate justification for ignoring the concerns of 49% of the people.
I agree with the sentiment that in a proper democracy decisions should be reached by consensus -- the majority may set the agenda and get most of what it wants, but all parties should have some say in the final outcome -- and representational democracy is a method of getting all parties together to try to reach an agreement.
But if 49% have no interest in any sort of compromise or of working together with others to reach a common agreement, but instead just want to obstruct and prevent the other side from enacting any of its programs in any form, then that 49% has pretty much written itself out of the process and the 51% have no choice but to go ahead and enact its agenda.
On the other hand, if the 49% are willing to work with the other 51% and reach a compromise, then they need to do a better job of electing its representatives.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 11, 2010 9:00 PM
I live in Austin, Texas, which is also home to the archetypal truther, Alex Jones. Much to my surprise, and disappointment, in my time in Austin he has risen from being a lowly public cable access show presenter to considerable national notoriety. (I blame the Internet for that one.)
While I have often thought that the content of his frequent red-faced rants (which can be quite hilarious at times) had much in common with the paranoia and suspicious of right-wing conservatives, it is true that he has been just about as hard on Bush and the Republicans as he has on the Democrats, especially when it came to phone tapping and Bush's expansion of executive powers.
His first public stunt was to get himself arrested while grandstanding when refusing to have his thumb-print taken for his renewed Texas driver's license.
He then led an effort to rebuild the church at the Waco compound during the Clinton years, and infiltrated the Bohemian Grove ceremony (rather unimpressively) during Bush's tenure and, of course, he is a leading Truther.
He was into FEMA concentration camps long before Glenn Beck ever talked about them and will claim till he's blue in the face (or at least beet red) that it doesn't matter who is president, they are all puppets for the masterminds of the New World Order that will soon be eradicating billions of people around the world (H1N1 was just a trial run) and then will enslave those who are left (hence the existence of the FEMA camps).
So it is true that many of the people who listen to Jones do distrust all those in power, Republican or Democrat (or Monster Raving Loony Party, if they just happened to win the Presidency next time). But underlying all this paranoia and distrust, the themes tend to be far more libertarian and/or conservative than liberal.
Jones is no fan of government control of any sort, and socialism is just as much an epithet for him as it is for the teabaggers and many libertarians. He is pro-gun (for fighting off the black helicopters), anti-vaccine (government mind-control), anti-big government (loves Ron Paul), and talks a lot about self-reliance and his preference for local government -- again very much in line with the current right-wing populism.
I suspect that if it was big government Republicans at the helm, and a populist left wing uprising in full swing, Jones would find common cause with them too. However, and maybe I am biased, I do think overall he's much more in common with right wing fringe elements than left.
Finally, I would place blame for both Stack's attack (which happened less than 3 miles from my home!) and James Joyner's (not to mention the guy with the budding arsenal whose wife reported to the authorities recently) firmly at the feet of people like Alex Jones. Jones and his cohorts really do use their paranoia to create the feeling that something really terrible is about to happen at any second if sometime isn't done to expose the criminal conspiracy and stop it. It's not necessarily the extremeness or insanity of the world-view, it's the urgency they put behind it. And, of course, the longer it goes on the higher the fever pitch has to be, otherwise you risk losing credibility when nothing happens, so the stakes continue to rise.
I fully expect more of these attacks in the months to come, I'm afraid.
Posted by: tacitus | March 11, 2010 9:23 PM
Chiroptera @61, I never said they were equivalent. Raging Bee jumped to conclusions claiming that I said they were equivalent.
I know they are degrees of magnitude in difference between SaddleBack Church, and you local booths at the farmers market.
The only thing they all have in common is an inflexible dogma The dogma is different from group to group, but they are all equally dogmatic.
Unless you want to defend homeopathy or chiropractic care, I think were on the same side here. I just think that more rationality, and less dogmatic thinking on all parts would help the political discourse. I also think that flying pigs are more likely.
Posted by: bart.mitchell | March 11, 2010 10:54 PM
bart.mitchell "The only thing they all have in common is an inflexible dogma..."
And what, if I may be so bold as to ask, would "flexible dogma" be?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 11, 2010 11:30 PM
Chiroptera: I agree with the sentiment that in a proper democracy decisions should be reached by consensus
Why in the world would you think that would be a good idea? It is a horrible idea, and countries that instituted such principles typically didn't last long (18th century Poland, 1974-90 Yugoslavia).
The majority must not have the power to violate anybody's human and civil rights - those must be protected by a constitution and not subject to voting outcomes - but beyond that, elections should have consequences, which means those who are elected need to be able to implement their policy.
Posted by: bullfighter | March 12, 2010 12:15 AM
Question: Is it funny or sad that Ed's post that specifically pointed out that lone nutjobs are that and just that led to a discussion of whether lone nutjobs are on Team Red or Team Blue?
I'm torn. The irony is so delicious, but it burns as it goes down.
Posted by: highnumber | March 12, 2010 12:25 AM
Except, that first group is mostly harmless and the second group is not. (Biased opinion is biased.) Even the most hardcore New Age-y, reiki healing, horoscope reading, crystal wearing types are generally all about everyone following their Own True Path™ and loving everyone, or whatever. That generally doesn't go hand-in-hand with bigoted public policymaking or warmongering. I've never seen that set encourage violence or oppression, even if they don't always have the best way of going about liberation and often believe some pretty weird stuff. (PETA, on the other hand, I won't even try to defend.)
Religious fundamentalists, evolution deniers and their ilk, on the other hand, are usually pretty big into pushing their ~path~ on everyone else, whether everyone else wants it or not.
Posted by: Fangirl | March 12, 2010 1:11 AM
Yeah... except that a belief in so-called "alternative medicine" does kill people. If people "follow their Own True Path", and use homeopathy or reiki or naturopathy or some other type of woo instead of going to an actual doctor, they are quite likely to die of an untreated but treatable condition. It happens all the time. So I wouldn't call the left-wooists "harmless".
Posted by: Walto | March 12, 2010 4:43 AM
highnumber, #69: Is it funny or sad that Ed's post that specifically pointed out that lone nutjobs are that and just that led to a discussion of whether lone nutjobs are on Team Red or Team Blue?
I dunno. A blogger posts an opinion and then some commenters express their disagreement with it. Sounds to me like that is what is supposed to happen.
What I find funny is that I can't find the discussion you're referring to. I did see one comment that explained why it might be appropriate to assign some responsibility to one side or the other (#7 if you're interested -- I thought it was a pretty good one, even if you don't like people expressing their disagreement with the main blogger), and then a whole lot of comments discussing whether or not the Left is as goofy as the Right.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 12, 2010 8:23 AM
"Okay, after reading the various responses I have decided we need an official term for crazy Libertarian wingers.
Any suggestions?"
Scary CLoWns?
Posted by: democommie | March 12, 2010 8:36 AM
bart.mitchell, #66: The only thing they all have in common is an inflexible dogma The dogma is different from group to group, but they are all equally dogmatic.... I just think that more rationality, and less dogmatic thinking on all parts would help the political discourse.
I guess that is what had me confused. That all groups, movements, ideologies, and religions have their nuts (and quacks to take advantage of the nuts) is a truism. I would have thought that everyone would understand that, and I thought that such a clear fact wasn't all that relevant to the present discussion, so I wasn't really expecting someone to point it out.
Of course, sometimes it is necessary to remind people of the obvious, and you clearly thought this was such a case. Me, I don't quite see the need for making the observation, but maybe we're focusing on different parts of the dynamic of the conversation.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 12, 2010 8:38 AM
Walto @71: Huge straw man.
Yes, belief in "alternative medicine" does kill people. As does the belief in faith healing, as does the opposition to universal health coverage, as does overuse of medicine and antibiotics, as does the opposition to that overuse...
But the question is not whether some belief - or even public policy based on that belief - results in unnecessary deaths. The question is whether that belief - or its exaggerated version - leads some individuals to act violently and kill or injure people - with weapons, not with persuasion to do stupid things.
So show me a homeopath who assassinated a doctor for practicing real medicine.
Posted by: bullfighter | March 12, 2010 8:56 AM
In the extremely target-rich environment of a crowded subway station, the Pentagon shooter was only able to wound two cops.
Such near-complete ineffectuality clearly makes him a mainstream Harry Reid Democrat.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 12, 2010 9:27 AM
Chiroptera @ 72,
You say the blogger posts his opinion and some commenters express disagreement with him, I say some commenters ignore his point entirely and use the post as an excuse to say "Hooray for our side." You are, of course, entitled to your opinions. As for me, I agree with what I perceive to be the thrust of Ed's post: Such partisanship is petty and pointless.
Posted by: highnumber | March 12, 2010 10:38 AM
highnumber, #77:
As long as we both can stay amused, then it's win-win!
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 12, 2010 10:40 AM
Modusoperandi, I guess a good example of a flexible dogma would be the Universal Unitarian Church. You can believe just about anything you want, and they will take you.
Chioptera, this is the comment section. People put their comments here. I was commenting that our politics would be a much better if neither side pandered to loons. This was relevant to the discussion because the political commentators were trying to paint the shooter as left or right, but in reality he was just a loon. Loonieness should be called out for what it is. Instead, the loons stand behind the party that needs their votes.
Posted by: bart.mitchell | March 12, 2010 11:43 AM
bart.mitchell, I wouldn't call that "flexible dogma". I'd call that "undogma". Then people would laugh. And point. Then I'd show them. I'd show them all. Eventually, I'd be released from prison and the cycle would start all over again.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 12, 2010 12:00 PM
awesome, Chiorptera!
mutual amusement for the win :)
and bart - as a loon, I wholeheartedly agree. Pandering to me accomplishes nothing!
Posted by: VikingMoose | March 12, 2010 12:33 PM
Yippee! A chance to hijack the onversation!
UUs do not have a dogma, but do share principles. I wouldn't say that "you can believe just about anything you want, and they will take you." I've never seen anyone test it, tho. Could be interesting. Say a group of fundamentalists attempted to infiltrate a UU congregation. Since the congregations are democratically run institutions, could they usurp one, or are there controls in place to stop them in time?
Posted by: highnumber | March 12, 2010 1:32 PM
I think a big reason for the difference is that Right-Wing Loons are drawn to the right BECAUSE of their politics (GOP supports prayer in schools, suppressing abortion rights, "teaching the controversy", and so we'll vote for them).
Left-Wing Loons, OTOH, are driven to the left to escape those same policies. Since the fundies believe that New Age woo is satanism, Fluffy Bunny Crystal Waver Pagans (a phrase coined, amusingly enough, by a pagan friend of mine) all tend to be driven to support the left, though only tepidly in most cases (that is, they usually simply see the Democrat as the lesser of two evils--sure, the Dem might not agree with them, but at least he isn't getting on a podium and declaring that their belief system isn't a 'real' religion).
This also explains why Republicans are more able to turn their base out in elections--their loons see them as actual advocates, whereas leftist loons see the Democrats as, "Kind of okay, I guess."
*******
Separate note: "Truthers" got indelibly associated with the Left largely because of Rosie "Fire Melted Steel" O'Donnel's idiocy on The View.
Posted by: Freemage | March 12, 2010 4:15 PM