Charles Johnson breaks from the right

Avatar

Erik Kain

Erik writes about video games at Forbes and politics at Mother Jones. He's the contributor of The League though he hasn't written much here lately. He can be found occasionally composing 140 character cultural analysis on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

13 Responses

  1. Avatar Freddie says:

    More calculated, spineless centrism from Joyner.

    If you actually talk to a lot of Truthers, they aren’t anything that you could even remotely call leftist. Indeed many of them are genuinely reactionary.Report

    • Avatar Jamelle in reply to Freddie says:

      Let me second Freddie’s point and add that Joyner can’t seem to distinguish between marginalized fringe and a fringe that isn’t. Liberals keep their left bank at arms length, conservatives (or at least Republicans) don’t.Report

    • Avatar E.D. Kain in reply to Freddie says:

      I agree that Truthers are hardly “left” though some certainly are. Truth be told, I think that when the fringes go far enough they begin to connect on the far side. A lot of the same things radical leftists and radical right-wingers say line up quite nicely, and do little to reflect either party’s actual stance.

      That being said, I’m not sure this is “calculated centrism” from Joyner. This is a pretty reasonable response to Johnson even if it wouldn’t be to someone else. Johnson was around during all these things. There’s really nothing new about any of this except for perhaps decibel level.Report

  2. Avatar Koz says:

    Back when matoko_chan used to post here, I thought it was comical how she kept invoking Charles Johnson as an exemplar of the Right. Like that idea had any future.Report

  3. I’ll take ED’s comments one step farther and say I agree on all points from Joyner (E.D. – you and I will have to agree to disagree on anti-Obama vs anti-Bush being different).

    As for the Right’s radicals being mainstream verses the Left’s radicals being fringe…where were you guys during the Bush years?Report

  4. Avatar Zach says:

    RSM doesn’t understand why the phrase “states’ rights” is problematic in anything other than a 19th-century context, as stated on your own blog:

    For some reason, the phrase “states’ rights” has an unusual effect upon some listeners, when the phrase is delivered with a Southern accent. I do not dwell in the past, but find that liberals frequently demand that I discuss 19th-century American history . . . on their terms, of course.

    There’s some form of bigotry, or at least willing ignorance, in not understanding or pretending not to understand why some listeners can reasonably connect the dots between the 20th century, the South, bigotry, and pleas for “states’ rights.”

    There’s also some bigotry in stereotyping “any black church” as being against gay marriage. There’s a debate within black churches that’s as vigorous as any within white churches and a cursory search will give you countless examples. And if you’ve ever listened to his program, Dobson’s problem with homosexuality doesn’t start and end with marriage.

    Lastly, I’m quite certain Code Pink and 9/11 Truthers never managed to get congressional candidates to agree to loyalty pledges.

    I don’t buy the purity of Johnson’s conversion or whatever, but Joyner’s drawing false equivalences all over the place.Report

  5. Just as an additional WTF on the point of the lunatic left being fringe…do Congressmen count?

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/30020.htmlReport