Basking in ideological purity

Michelle Goldberg on the difference between the two parties' relationship with extremists and how, ultimately, it helps the Democratic Party.

Though many progressives feel betrayed by the administration's failure to fight for Jones, the White House had little choice. We live in a country where the far left has been marginalized in a way that the far right has not. There's much to lament in this state of affairs. It's a bitter shame that a brilliant man like Jones should be disqualified for his brushes with nuttiness, while conservatives who view global warming as a fraud perpetrated by the forces of the one-world government, or support Middle Eastern policies meant to hasten the second coming, are able to serve in Republican administrations. Nevertheless, it is generally a good thing that the Democrats don't coddle their crazies the way the right does.

The GOP benefits from the zeal of its foot soldiers, from their chiliastic, by-any-means necessary approach to politics. But the party is also limited by the extremism of its base, which has decimated it in large swaths of the country. It's worth remembering that even in this season of furious right-wing obstruction, the Republican Party is more powerless than it's been in a generation.

Goldberg alludes to, but doesn't come out and mention, the fly in the ointment. Extremists on the right vote, "leftists" not so much, particularly in mid-terms. Which means that between now and November 2010, Republicans in Congress will continue to act accordingly, in a completely nihilistic fashion, pleasing the base, but even in their powerlessness managing to drive the country perilously close to the cliff's edge.