How the “moderates,” while trying to steer an independent course, still buy into Liberal themes.

Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic writes that Judith Warner (a synonym for the Liberal hive) writes about

…the recent upsurge in hate crimes, I was struck by what she left out. Two weeks ago, a Muslim extremist shot two soldiers, killing one, outside a recruiting station in Arkansas. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad acted alone, just as James von Brunn apparently did. He was, like von Brunn, captive to a supremacist ideology that, in his mind, justified the murder of an innocent man. Like von Brunn, authorities said, he had mapped out Jewish targets for potential attack. And yet, no mention of the hate crime committed by a Muslim; …

That’s fine as far as he goes, but then, he buys totally into Warner’s smear of the conservative end of the political spectrum.

…only hate crimes committed by white, right-wing extremists were worthy of mention in Warner's column.

It takes no time at all to determine that by whatever definition you wish to use, von Brunn was not “right wing.” Not unless you want to label anything you don’t like “right-wing” - which is what the Judith Warners of this world do.

Let's look at von Brunn's belief system: he hates Christians, capitalism, Jews, and non-whites.

If it's “right-wing” to hate Christians? Does that make Pat Robertson a left winger?

Is it “right-wing” to advocate socialism? Does that make Karl Marx a right winger?

Is it “right-wing” to hate Jews? Does that make Reverend Jeremiah Wright a right winger?

Is it “right-wing” to be a white supremacist? Does that mean that the white supremacists who are members of the World Church of the Creator who hate Christianity, advocate euthanasia and abortion, practice vegetarianism and advocate socialism are right wingers?

Well, to the last question, that is the view from not only the left – in the media and in academia – but among the population as a whole. And if you deny it you are labeled a nut. I maintain that anyone who accepts this position is either a nut or has not done his homework.

But it’s not only absurd, it’s a blood libel. And it’s the kind of libel that people who make it – who see themselves as good people … well intentioned….make casually because they have been carefully taught. These views are part of the very fabric of their world-view. To deny it now requires a total reframing of their belief system.

It's the thing that makes the radical polarization of society possible.