I had been worried that I might actually be a right-winger...

... given that such intellectual giants as Delawaredem and jason330 have so declared.

[Help, Eric Dondero! Tell them the truth!]

So I thought to myself, what constitutes a right-winger? Where would I go to find out?

Then I realized the answer was obvious; just ask The Daily Kos...

Amazingly enough, just today there is a clever article comparing rightism to Islamicism and making the case that they are separate faces of the same dysfunction. In making these parallels, the author sets out ten specific characteristics that might make one a Rightist or Right-winger.

Here's the list, annotated with my own positions, just to check it out:

Indeed, the similarities between Rightism and Islamism are striking. Like feuding members of an inter-denominational war, they appear on their surface to reserve their greatest anger for one another. But their real war is against progressive secular society, for which each side retains an enduring, searing shared hatred.

Number One:

Both are deeply misogynist and anti-abortion, seeing women as objects to be controlled rather than equal citizens in society.

Darn. I strike out there. I'm pro-abortion rights (I don't even waffle and call it Pro-Choice) and about as close to being a feminist as you can get without the proper plumbing.

Number Two:

Both are deeply homophobic, killing gays when given the opportunity.

Shit. I lose again: I'm probably the most aggressive pro-gay-rights, pro-gay-marriage blogger in Delaware.

Number Three:

Both are deeply anti-Semitic over the longest course of their history. The temporary alliance of Rightists in the United States with neoconservative, pro-Israel lobbies in the shared interest of anti-Muslim warfare does not negate the long history of virulent anti-Semitism on the Right--an anti-semitism on full display in this morning's shooting.

Hmmm. Maybe they've got something here. After all, I have repeatedly criticized Israel's policy and military operations vis a vis the Palestinians. And I thought Barack having his feet on the desk while he talked to Netanyahu was pretty funny.

Number Four:

Both are deeply theocratic, with the abiding belief that true moral order may only be imposed on society through religion allied with governmental power.

Feh. I'm a practicing Catholic [maybe one of these days I'll get it right]. Oh, but damn, I keep writing posts about the civil and political rights of atheists, and condemning the people like Pastor Rick Warren for thinking all Jews will go to hell and my children shouldn't learn about evolution.

Number Five:

Both are deeply authoritarian, convinced of the necessity to levy increasingly harsh penalties for increasingly minor crimes in the name of "law and order."

Oh, that would be me--except that I keep writing about the police state I fear, people's rights to do drugs, sleep with and marry who they want....

Number Six:

Both are deeply violent, with a long history of terrorist acts.

The jury is still out on this one. Break into my house around midnight and find out about the deeply violent part. You know, there are things you could do or say to me to provoke a violent response. But I keep looking in vain for the long history in which I have even condoned terrorist acts...

Number Seven:

Both are deeply opposed to gun control of any kind, feeling that the safest societies are those in which children walk the streets armed to the teeth.

Well, here we go, Finally. I don't know about any kind of gun control, and I'm not really in favor of children carrying firearms [although they ought to know how to use them safely by at least age twelve]. But I do believe that an armed society is inherently freer than one in which the government possesses a monopoly on deadly force.

Number Eight:

Both advocate deeply aggressive and eliminationist foreign policy.

Yeah, that's me. Just provoked Hube by declaring Afghanistan as a war of choice [currently], have called for pull-outs from Iraq and Afpak, advocated letting the Chinese/Japanese/South Koreans handle Kim Jung Stupid, and want to see the Defense budget cut radically enough to pare down our armed forces....

Number Nine:

Both thrive on stoking a perception of continual victimhood by nefarious forces, in a desperate attempt to explain the failures of their own ideologies domestically, and to direct the anger of their most alienated citizens outward to engage in acts of terror.

Oh, you mean like liberals and progressives obsessing on right-wing terrorism. Oops. Strike that. Insensitive. You mean the fact that I think our obsession with homeland security has led to an increasingly intrusive surveillance state with unconstitutional police powers. Which--to forestall the idiotic question by jason--I was complaining about long before Bushco went out of office.

Number Ten:

Both societies, when allowed to rule as they wish, produce massive income inequalities and economic injustice.

I'm waiting for the evidence, by the way, that any progressive state has wiped out massive income inequalities without either (a) beggaring itself or (b) having the advantage of special circumstances [like cultural homogeneity and borders that allow them to stay neutral through virtually any conflict, like Sweden].

Sorry, but maybe I am a right-winger here, since I think of the preferential society as one with equality of opportunity and not one with equality of outcomes.

More to the point, cute lampoons about Somalia aside, there has never actually been a truly libertarian or progressive state to judge by. We do know that communism doesn't work, but that's about it.

So, let's see--I believe in the Second Amendment, and I don't want to use coercive government force to mandate a specifically progressive definition of economic justice.

Yep. Right-winger for sure.

All that pro-feminims, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-non-interventionism stuff is just me covering it up.

Later, if you really want a laugh, you can see for yourself what The Daily Kos thinks is the definition of a Libertarian.