The Lunatic Fringe and Norah Vincent

Re “When the Dunce Patrol Is Removed, What’s Left Is Encouraging” and “True Left Versus the Lunatic Fringe,” Commentary, April 10 and April 3: Two weeks in a row conservative Norah Vincent defined the good (“principled”) liberal versus the bad (“lunatic fringe”) liberal. For years now, the right has co-opted ideological terms, defining for its own political needs what is good and what is bad, thereby creating a system of values that ultimately makes us bad and them good. Talk radio has made this a cottage industry, and the liberal (as the right has defined for the world) media have relied on talk-show hosts and their abducted definitions, as if Webster said so himself.

The liberal network news shows regularly bring on virtues (the right owns that one, too) maven Bill Bennett, whose only virtue seems to be his one-note slamming of the “bad anyone” who thinks differently from him. The fact that the liberal (need I remind you that this is what the right has determined for us?) Times has given two straight weeks to Vincent’s repatriation of the meaning of “good” and “bad” liberal raises the question: Isn’t she in a much better position to define for us “lunatic fringe” conservatives? I mean, if there are any.

Steve Young

Chatsworth

*

Vincent once again misses the mark. Referring to professor Nicholas De Genova as being part of the left is no different from referring to neo-Nazis as being part of the right. De Genova, to use the word of the day, is irrelevant. He did not have the power to commandeer the spotlight; prior to his absurd comments he was unknown. Instead, those who would like to discredit the reasoned antiwar position thrust him into the spotlight.

Vincent’s selection of whom she chooses to represent the left is completely unrepresentative of the vast majority. If she wanted to discuss the left’s fringe, why not use American social critic Noam Chomsky? He represents the fringe. De Genova represents nobody.

Kevin Gourlay

Vancouver, Canada