Now, this goes with a very large caveat: is the Anonone who just made a great comment that I am about to highlight and which Steve Newton has already highlighted on Delaware Libertarian the same Anonone that battles with Burris and Dave on Delaware Politics and at other sites and that comments here frequently? I would think he is, but with the name Anonone, I can never be sure. That is the problem with the “Anon” handle, since it is too anonymous and many use it. Of course, all of the Illuminati of the Delaware Blogosphere have never sat down and compared IP Addresses. But I digress.
There has been a running debate, sometimes civil, other times rather personal, between Steve Newton and Delaware Liberal over what constitutes the fringe, in the context of the DHS’ release of the report of right wing extremists. Steve has been most vocal on the matter of the DHS report, as he should be if he thinks it is wrong and a governmental overreach. And he has been very critical of our use of terminology to define both the lunatic fringe on the right and the broader right wing. Which is fine, we can take criticism so long you can.
In steps Anonone, who makes the following comment on Steve’s latest in this debate:
I am surprised that [Pandora] repeated the idea that “political parties have to control their fringe.” Even upon a moment of reflection, it is clear that such an approach is the antithesis of nurturing free expression of ideas within a political party.
Who represents the “fringe” that should be controlled in the republican party? Sarah Palin supporters? Ron Paul supporters? John McCain supporters? Mike Castle? RSmitty? Tyler Nixon?
And on the Democratic side, who represents the “fringe” that should be controlled? Russ Feingold supporters? Robert Casey supporters? Evan Bayh supporters? Tom Carper? Ben Nelson? Jessie Jackson? Jason330?
My point here is that one person’s “fringe” is another person’s deeply held or even principled position. Furthermore, political parties have multiple fringes. I could argue that the republicans have controlled their liberal “fringe” quite successfully – it just isn’t the same group that you consider as “fringe.”
Next, how does a political party “control” their “fringe”? Kicking them out? Censoring them? Returning donations? Denying them a vote? Questioning their patriotism? So, which “fringe” of the Democratic party do you think should be “controlled” and how do you propose doing it?
Good point, Anonone. Steve responded, “It occurred to me that effective parties don’t control their fringes, they exploit them and (occasionally) empower them (usually by accident).” Steve then recalls his main criticism that we (DL) are being too imprecise in our language. That we are equating all fringes with violent pathologically dangerous fringes, and that does a disservice to fringes, since it was once the fringes that wanted to abolish slavery, give women the vote, and end segregation. True enough. I think I can speak for everyone here that when refer to the fringe today in the right wing, we are talking about the violent pathologically dangerous fringe that wants to secede from the union, that wants to kill all liberals in righteous genocide, that kills police officers, that blows up federal buildings in Oklahoma City, that bombs abortion clinics and Olympic parks.
But a problem remains. Right now, that violent fringe is being catered to in the extreme by the mainstream of the Republican party and the conservative movement, so much so that it is beginning to be difficult to tell the difference. They are being told that President Obama is a tyrant intend on taking their guns. They are being told that America is dying because of government spending. That Obama plans on opening large reeducation camps. That he is a terrorist, a muslim, a radical black Christian. That he is a fascist. That is both exploiting the violent fringe and empowering them.
Hence our calls for the Republicans to control their fringe. And to answer Anonone’s question, what we mean by that is for Republican leaders to be ….gasp… responsible in their rhetoric. Call his policies socialist if you want to. Decry the horrible wasteful spending if you want to. But it does not foster honest debate, nor does it calm the violent fringe, to see Glenn Beck pretend to dose a man with gasoline as a metaphor for what he thinks Obama is doing to the country. We have already seen three police officers killed in Pittsburgh. And during the last Democratic presidency, we saw 168 Americans die because of violent lunatic fringe beliefs fostered by right wing conspiracy theories.
This debate will no doubt continue, because I am sure I have said something in the last two paragraphs that will rankle Steve or someone else. But back to Anonone, I must congratulate him (or her) for playing the voice of reason. Indeed, it takes talent to get Steve and Delaware Dem to agree with you, and to anger Tyler and Mike Matthews so consistently.