Brad wrote: >>For God's sake why?
>>Each defeat of the (relatively) left candidate moves the terrain of
>>political engagement a bit further to the right...
Max writes:
>Because the ultra-left case is so weak
>it needs neo-fascism to which to compare
>favorably.
>Unfortunately, at that point the ultra-left
>will cease utterly to exist, along with not
>a few of the rest of us. But first things
>first!
Max, why the spate of sectarianism? who are these "ultra-leftists" you're criticizing? why, specifically, are they wrong?
Instead of this kind of rhetoric, is it possible for someone to find out why Hitchens put forth this opinion. Whatever one thinks of his opinions abortion and other questions, he's a very smart fellow and worth paying attention to. At least looking at them reveals something about German politics (since if he misrepresents it, we can learn from his mistake). On the other hand, undefended faith that a party that calls itself "leftist" is indeed leftist in terms of its actions and effects (which is what Brad and Max seem to be engaged in) doesn't reveal anything. It seems nothing but a variant of the old fallacy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
BTW, I don't think the left/right spectrum is useful except in the most superficial political analysis. There's heterogeneity on both the "left" and the "right," so that politics can be graphed on at least two dimensions.
Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html