...And centrism for the sake of centrism can be every bit as dogmatic as contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism. Good post. Between this and Freddie's responses, I can see I have my work cut out for me when I next write.

Well, naturally, Obama and Reagan.* **

*STANDARD MARK THOMPSON DISCLAIMER #1: None of the above should be interpreted as an endorsement or attack on the substance of the policies of either party referred to herein.

**POST-SPECIFIC DISCLAIMER: Policy-specific speeches are inherently poorly equipped to motivate voters to support the speaker; when they do motivate voters, it is by turning the policy into an emotional, life-or-death issue of "us" vs. "them." Principle-oriented rhetoric is successful precisely because it doesn't go into much detail on policy, allowing voters to support the candidate purely on the candidate's articulated principles rather than trying to determine whether the candidate's policy prescriptions fit the voter's individual principles.

Kyle - I set up the series. Now I just need to figure out where to go with my response....

It's not an apples and oranges comparison. The goals of international Communism (and of true Marxists in general) were always to create a universal economic system that would permit the abolition of the very concept of the "state." Views on how to deal with the spread of Communism were very much colored by this (justified) fear that Communism, by its very nature, would not rest until it had destroyed all non-Communist states - hence the "domino" theory and "containment" strategies.
Importantly, these theories were correct in their assessment of ideological Communism, just as modern concerns about the goals of ideological Islamism are correct; where they failed was in treating all supporters of Communism as monolithic rather than recognizing that many such supporters were only riding the coat tails of a movement that promised them an opportunity to achieve nationalist aims. Applying this analysis to the Hamas question: while the hard-core elements of Hamas may or may not be devoted international Islamists opposed to any kind of compromise, this conclusion does not likely apply to all elements of Hamas, and certainly does not apply to all those who support Hamas.

It's been a full decade since I dealt with this material, but much of the debate over whether Hamas is a nationalist or internationalist organization seems strikingly similar to the debate over whether Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist or an international Communist - and more importantly, whether he should be dealt with as a nationalist or international Communist. IIRC, the correct answer to that question was "both," and that the trick was to separate the two goals in determining how to deal with him best. I would do a follow-up post on this, but it's been so long since I've dealt with the material that I wouldn't be able to add much more than that.

Test.