Conflation 101 with Mr. Eugene Robinson

I like the Washington Post’s Op-Ed section. Straight facts and figures can be a bit dry, but understanding the problems others have with an issue helps illuminate the important bits. I know it’s probably not the best way to learn, but it’s fun. The little bit of fairness I allow into my day is reading the opinions of those with whom I disagree. Eugene Robinson tends to be pretty far away from me, but it’s hard to resist the title “The Hutaree militia and the rising risk of far-right violence.”

There’s a lot I don’t like about this article and it starts in the first paragraph with the seemingly-unironic use of “the Age of Obama.”

The gist of Robinson’s argument is that the (political) right is to be feared because it somehow inspires extremism. He states “the most serious threat of domestic terrorism has come from the far right.” I don’t deny that the most extreme groups seem to be extremely conservative. My dispute is largely with the way he couches his argument; it’s based on the premise that there’s a political similarity between the various crazy groups and rank-and-file Republicans. As a nominal Republican, I’m offended.

If what Robinson says about this Hutaree group is true--and I believe it is--then I hope they’re all caught and face justice at Judge Parker’s convenience. It’s just not fair to lump together anarchists, luddites, and hate-mongers with people concerned about excessive governmental controls.

Robinson states “it is disingenuous for mainstream purveyors of incendiary far-right rhetoric to dismiss [such groups]...by saying that there are "crazies on both sides." Is that less disingenuous than suggesting those psychos have anything to do with my mindset?

He’s careful to avoid making the really broad generalizations, but he also makes no effort to define where one group stops and the next begins. From the words he’s committed to paper, I can only conclude that he believes all conservatives are psychotic shut-ins waiting for the moment to pounce...or something.

I do agree that it’s “dishonest for right-wing commentators to insist on an equivalence that does not exist.” I assert that crazies are crazy. That their bizarre pseudo-reality bears a disfigured resemblance to conservative goals after a trip through a meat grinder is immaterial.

Finally, he laments the dishonest right-wing commentators who use rhetoric “not to inform but to incite.” Mr. Robinson: what exactly does your article do?