Plum Crazy

The problem with designating someone as "fringe" is that it's too easy to redefine the main body of fabric.

That said, I vote no.

I tend to agree. I'm not sure where the definition of "left fringe" came from, or even if it was meant to apply to me in the comment. I think it likely that it was, but I'm unsure.

I find the whole idea rather ludicrous, though. I would agree that my social politics tend to be non-majority on issues like marriage equality, but I'm not sure that by itself would qualify me as "left fringe." I can state fairly unequivocally that my fiscal politics are not even progressive. The only reason I even occasionally self-identify as progressive these days is that if I have to choose between my civil rights and my wallet, my civil rights are winning that battle every time. I rather dislike the labeling thing altogether.

Lesley, if you're referring to my comment about "the narcissistic echo chambers of the left-fringe," (which, btw, is the opposite of the militant echo chambers of the right-fringe) then IMHO you do not qualify, FWIW.

The term is one I use in my writing to discriminate between the Left - i.e., those who are simply of the socialist persuasion - and those "reality-based" ideologues who suffer from unrelenting Bush Derangement Syndrome because their neo-marxist political orthodoxy is their religion. Think ... Maryscott O'Connor - someone whose unabated rage has burned her out so completely that she's now resigned to posting open threads, vacuous platitudes, year-old diatribes asserting her sanity and occasional rants explaining her anti-Semitism - or Keith Olbermann.

And again, since I clearly separated my reference to you from those you were criticizing, I can't quite understand why you would think it likely that it was meant to apply to you.

As for labels, I tend to agree, although it is sometimes useful to identify a social group in that manner. Ultimately, as I try to stress in my writing, it's not about labels like "Us" and "Them" ...

OK, fair enough, but I am so NOT of the socialist persuasion. No, really. By your definition, I'm not even Left. I'm not really sure that's accurate, though.

"...I am so NOT of the socialist persuasion."

Has someone labeled you as such (or "Left")?

Um, yes. Me.

To put a finer point on it, I do think I'm left-wing. I'm disagreeing with your definition.

Ah. Well then maybe the disagreement is really just the difference between the traditional notion of Left (e.g., socialism in various forms) and the more contemporary left-wing milieu which someone like Ann Coulter, for instance, would blindly lump together as "Liberals".

I tend to use the traditional definition, and I know a lot of others (certainly not all) my age (over 50) do as well, as the referent for Left/Right differences for us is typically grounded in the events and definitions of the 50s and 60s, back when McCarthy was railing against communist influence in the government and Kruschev was yelling "We Will Bury You [Capitalists]!" Others are working with some variant of your definition, I think, which has a closer relationship to contemporary (as opposed to classical) liberalism.

I think this is one of the reasons your point is well-taken ("...dislike the labeling thing..."). Use of these labels leads to cross-purposed discussion and, ultimately, frustration, anger and eventually intransigence.

So by "left/right-fringe" I'm really trying to be more specific, i.e., to refer to the folks who are just too far out there to be taken seriously by mainstream America due to either their lack of civility/humility or dogmatic socio-political ideology (or both). For example - Cindy Sheehan vs. Fred Phelps.