In my post "Utopianism and Disaster" I wrote about the 1968 reconstruction of the Democrats following the take over by the most extreme representatives of the Democrat left. The description is, in itself, accurate. In 1968 the far left did take control of the Democrats and forced their perspective on the party. However, while reading Best of the Web today, I realized some could have taken that description and read too much into it, assuming that the most extreme still hold total sway over the party.

The truth is, the total control of the far left was ephemeral. What was of lasting importance was the discovery that a significant minority supported the far left. As a result, while the far left may not control the Democrats, they definitely have an outsized voice in setting policy, as a consequence of which the party regularly drifted left of the American majority until 1992, when they realized that more centrist policies would win more elections. Since then, the left has again begun to reassert their control over the party and once again the party is veering leftward.

The right had a similar phenomenon, though to a much smaller degree. Granted, until about 1976 the party was largely controlled by "country club Republicans" and "John Birchers" and social conservatives of the most authoritarian sort, a combination of monied interests seeking protectionism and favors, nativist isolationists and intrusive blue noses*. Now, that is something of a caricature, but it is not inaccurate to say that the Republican party, through the first half of the 20th century was nothing like the post-Goldwater or post-Reagan party. With the inclusion of the small government, semi- or fully libertarian "economic conservatives" the face of the party changed. It definitely played  a role in allowing the many Reagan Democrats to find a home in the party, as well as spurring the many southern Democrats to defect.

However, the change was not without cost. There is to this day a continuing struggle between the "paleo-cons", a hybrid of the nativists and protectionist interests("Misplaced Blame and A Power Play"), the intrusive authoritarian social conservatives, who would favor government enforced morality ("The State and Morality", "A Bit More Explanation"), and the newer variety of Republicans who favor minimal government and see social conservatism more in terms of keeping government out of liberal social experiments rather than enforced morality.

And that is where the right gets their equivalent of the left wing fringe, among the Buchanan and Bozell wings. However, as those names suggest, the Republicans, unlike the Democrats, have one advantage. The "loony left" exists in only one variety, full speed ahead. Those on the left who do not espouse the full left wing orthodoxy are regularly purged and discredited, meaning that the far left always exists only in its most extreme incarnation, and so any token inclusion of the far left is the inclusion of a Cynthia McKinney or Cindy Sheehan at best. On the other hand, though the Fred Phelps of the world, or at least individuals slightly less extreme, may find Billy Graham too moderate, they would not dare to claim he is not a Christian minister, nor can they safely denounce even more moderate representatives of religion. And so, even when making concessions to the more extreme views of the "religious right" (by which the left often means a small fringe who hold bizarre religious views denounced by 99%+ of Christians), the Republicans can do it by including quite moderate examples. They can include the old guard Republicans by giving the senior Bush a Vice Presidential nomination without having to explain away Pat Buchanan's apparent Nazi-philia. Or they can include moderate social conservatives or religious fundamentalists without pulling in the radical fringes.

The left has no such luxury, and so their concessions seem to grant much more power to the farthest reaches of the left fringe. And we can see this even now. As Obama enacts policies which are frightening even middle America in the scope of power they grant to government, from trillion dollar bailouts to government "partnerships" to near-nationalization of many firms to effectively socializing medicine, the far left is denouncing them as "too pro business"! And as he cozies up to Iran, Hamas  and the socialist would-be dictator of Honduras ("A Hypothetical Situation II", "One More Good Article"), the left has only criticism as he has not yet fulfilled his promise to cut and run from Iraq. In short, the most left wing agenda enacted in decades is being jeopardized because it has not gone far enough left, without a thought of the need for blue dogs and others to seek reelection in 2010. (See "Percpetion Is Reality".)

That is the risk the left faces from its fringe members.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

* There was a minority of Goldwater Republicans following the 1960's, and there was an anti-FDR group which one can describe as "proto-economic conservatives" from sometime in the 1930's onward, when the Republican party became the home of those opposed to expansive government. But before 1960 at the earliest, and probably before Reagan's first run in 1976, they had very little influence on the party as a whole. And, definitely before the 1930's, the party had very little in the way of libertarian, or even small government, membership, being divided between old-time, mercantilist, protectionist, soft money Republicans and the "reformers" of the Theodore Roosevelt variety.  Recall, historically, the Democrats had been the home of states' rights and small government, and their takeover by the Bryant populists did not change the Republicans, but just left the US without a party favoring limited government.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

This singular advantage was almost destroyed by two movements within the right. First,t he many single issue voters, especially the pro-life movement, have often adopted a self-defeating position akin to that of the far left, and threatened to vote in pro-choice Democrats rather than moderate Republicans. Fortunately, so far, many have seen the self-defeating nature of that position and accepted that 50% victory is better than 0%. See "Single Issue Voting" for more discussion of this perspective and the damage it can cause.

The other movement was the move by many conservatives who threatened to take their ball and go away following the McCain nomination. I discussed this at length in "Winning By Losing? Not A Chance!", "At last", "Learning Too Much From History", "Why I am a Republican", "Why We Need Adults", ""Selling Out"" and others.

POSTSCRIPT II

For those interested in some more history of political perspectives and the inappropriateness of the "political spectrum", I recommend "Inconsistencies in Historical Perspectives" and "The Political Spectrum".