« Vintage Chain Gangs | Main | Threshold Questions »

Monday, September 19, 2011


This is true (as I'm sure you intended to imply) on both fringes:

Perhaps the nature of fringe politics is that the fringes are the places where we find more people who don't accept that they must live in a real world

The left fringe and the right fringe refuse to acknowledge the essential reality of politics (the reality-- not a reality-- because this is what politics is), of making deals to accomplish things. (There's a scary aspect to the right now that such a huge number are either pretending they don't have to live with this essential reality, or really believe they don't. I'm not sure how I'd describe what the left is doing-- pouting and going home?)

Before I move off from this thought, I want to note a common media confusion, between being in the middle as some sort of virtue in itself (it is not) and being willing and able to work with people on the other side, from whatever position on the right-to-left-scale (which is a virtue).

Anyhow, laying aside psychopaths, I think the rage may have this origin: A lot of the people on the fringe believe whatever is inside them is more true than observed reality. Some of the stuff Bachman makes up seems to come from that sort of place (other... she just seems to make up). As the evidence from observed reality keeps adding up, something has to give. Thus the rage.

Brietbart, on the other hands, seems to me simply a professional provocateur. His self-chosen role is to keep throwing varying kinds of stink bombs and getting visibility for it. There doesn't to me seem any more to him than that.


Interesting observations. I wasn't thinking about the professional provocateurs--also Ann Coulter and many others. I haven't paid much attention to Breitbart, but from what I've seen, your take seems applicable

The comments to this entry are closed.