In a unique approach posing as objectivity, a JU blogger impressively perceives the political spectrum as more diverse and divisive, with the exception of this site perhaps, than it really is. He is in reality seemingly talking about Italian politics not American. It has been a long tradition that there be a two party system with very large tents to reflect US geographical, ideological and cultural differences. Fringe groups like libertarians and old socialists at one time were content at simply gadflying outside the mainstream, until they realized, as did the religious right and the Greens, to integrate with either party for an occasional lagniappe, even though each party had  strains of the elements mentioned by the author. Aside from local politics, expanding the party system would only further the divide [think Green and Nader in 2000 and McCain and Bush in their intense primaries].

Granted Republicans strongly favor nationalism but without mentioning its being motivated by isolationism; and sparsely till now flirted with the “transnational.” Democrats since FDR were always nationalist and transnationalist in tandem but not with the progressive agenda to make the US subservient to the UN [which is what the author’s definition implies]. The “progressive” equation in Bush’s transnational leanings is confined to the democratization of Iraq and to some extent the Middle East as Truman, LBJ, and Nixon were to Korea and Vietnam.

“Liberals have started treating their philosophy as a religion with no room for heretics. You either buy into the whole line or you're out.” This is an example of a busy broad brush. The author makes no effort to suggest that the overwhelming majority of the religious right fits this statement even more so, [à la Harriet Meirs] but make up only 20% of the population and uses that— without juxtaposing the author’s own stat of 21% liberal — to show that liberals are overwhelmingly on the kook side as though Michael Moore controlled the wing and despite his having far less influence than Robertson on the other wing. At the same time the author wriggles in back treading his hard line that liberals are tantamount to “totalitarian” by then stating that it is not in their “genes of philosophy” but rather that liberals are just tossing sour grapes because they are out of power. This is an unremarkable proclivity of the powerless — for, if they did not bitch what would be the point of a two party system? I recall a Republican unanimous nay vote cast in the senate during Clinton’s first term, and it took Gore to break the tie for Clinton’s tax increase on the wealthy.

“By contrast, the kooks on the left may be roughly the same in number in absolute terms but because they represent a larger percentage of their movement, their voices get heard a lot more and carry more weight within the movement.” They do not represent a larger percentage in light of the many red and purple states in the union and therefore do not carry any more weight than those on the right. Rather it is the journalistic sensationalism, particularly when Hollywood celebrities mouth off, that they are heard inordinately, yet no more than the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. I’ll grant you that Coulter and Kristol are unwelcome on campus because of all those nasty “professors” prodding their rambunctious liberal students. But what would be the reaction if Moore spoke at Texas A&M or Sheehan at Camp LeJeune? — even though I’d like to think the pride of the Marines would exercise discipline.

“ Without the burden of having to implement ideas, the left has found itself free to just complain about the solutions ‘the man’ is implementing.” The author has closed the door to the positive solutions put forth by liberal media calling for implementation of common sense ideas and that admittedly few Democrat office holders are offering much. [Hell, one in search of liberal positions needs only to read my many blogs splattered all over JU to find that there is indeed much more than my pissing and moaning.] 

Non-drilling in ANWR is not absolute, provided there is adequate federal oversight to see that it is done with respect for the immediate environment, and oil-riggers do have equipment now that can do this. However, the tone of the article is obvious: the author in taking the "capitalist" side does not want federal oversight for anything, ignoring the vast alternative energies in use or in development and to boot favored by many entrepreneurs and pure capitalists, despite the imputation that only the left protests with ‘not in my backyard,’ which is a people flaw across parties. As for nuclear power, the Three Mile nervousness still exists notwithstanding substantial  improvement, but we will get over it, and when we learn what to do with lethal waste.

What I'd like to see happen would be for the Democrats and the left in general to move a bit back to the right so that the fringe elements aren't so much in the spotlight. But not the Republican right to move a bit to the left, I presume. That is, this extraordinary and impressive thesis boils down to be right you must turn right, exposing apparently an elaborate exercise in sophistry.