Joe Klein has responded to Greg Sargent's request with a list of his qualifications for left-wing extremism, and *Surprise!* it appears that Joe Klein is a very shallow, cliche-ridden fellow.

• The good news: nobody I know conforms to very many of the items in the list, at least not as Joe parses them. Therefore, there are no left-wing extremists!
• The bad news: there are people out there, like Joe Klein, who apparently think that such people exist.

At any rate, I thought I'd take the Klein Test, and see how close I come to being a left-wing extremist. Here is what I found (my responses in red):

A left-wing extremist exhibits many, but not necessarily all, of the following attributes:

--believes the United States is a fundamentally negative force in the world.

Nice straw, man. The United States is obviously a fundamentally mixed force in the world. Where we are doing bad things (sometimes really bad things), my off-the-cuff thought is that it might be a good idea for us to stop doing them.

--believes that American imperialism is the primary cause of Islamic radicalism.

European Imperialism (the U.S. being currently the primary examplar) is a primary cause of Islamic radicalism. Imagine what Americans would be doing if Syria had a huge army in the middle of Ohio, and much of the world seemed to think that was just swell. Then there's the Shah, Suez, Algeria, etc.etc.. Additionally, the U.S. seems to take a lot of heat for supporting a European colonial state in the middle of Palestine that displaced nearly a million native people from their homes and businesses, then confiscated said homes and businesses for the use of the new arrivals. I don't know why.

--believes that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not an individual case of monumental stupidity, but a consequence of America ’s fundamental imperialistic nature.

The decision to go to war in Iraq was a case of our military budget being considerably larger than that of the rest of the world put together, and our government being run by proxies of the armaments manufacturers (see "democracy" item below). If you're going to have an economy based on weapons manufacture, you're going to have to use some of them now and then to keep the manufacturers in work, and you're going to have to come up with ways to convince the home population they have some need of a ludicrously massive military.

--tends to blame America for the failures of others—i.e. the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan .

What?? Where did this one come from? If I were a NATO ally I WOULD be be somewhat pissed that I was being attacked by a Taliban rearmed with weapons from Iraqi armories, and by al Qaida personnel trained in Iraq. The Iraq war gave massive new impetus to the jihadi movement, as every rational person knew it would before we ever embarked on it. But I don't know who's blaming anybody for not fulfilling their responsibilities in Afghanistan.

Now, if you want to talk Sudan, I can find plenty of fault with Europeans.

--doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is the best liberal idea in human history.

Capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, would sound like a really good idea from here. When can we get some of that? The last thing I heard, George Bush was taking the sacred oath. Twice. And before that was Clinton. As for it being "the best liberal idea in human history," it's nice to see that there exist those bold enough to make so a bizarre a rush to judgement. Let me get this straight, if we don't make such bizarre adolescent statements, that makes us extremist?

--believes American society is fundamentally unfair (as opposed to having unfair aspects that need improvement).

When do we get the improvement? Last I heard, George Bush was taking the sacred oath. Twice. And before that was Clinton.

BooMan responded thusly:

--believes that eternal problems like crime and poverty are the primarily the fault of society.

Ah, to be such a smug little aristocrat creep (viz: item 13 below). Crime and poverty, at least on any large scale, are as much "eternal" problems as smallpox, and those who claim otherwise bear the historical burden of proof.

--believes that America isn’t really a democracy.

Of course America is not a "democracy." The United States Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that money equals speech. Politicians have to raise huge quantities of cash to have any hope of getting into office; the people who provide that cash will have their interests represented, while those who have little or no cash to empower politicians to represent them will not. Not to mention the problem of media controlled by the rich. Witness the current ludicrous impasse on bringing 4.5 million working people up to the poverty line. The United States is a plutocracy.

--believes that corporations are fundamentally evil.

As the film Corporation amply demonstrates, corporations are amoral, which is why they need to be "closely regulated." The primary motivator of a corporation is to improve the last line on the P&L statement. If corporation A is too "nice," competing corporation B will automatically eat it for lunch. Which is why they need a strong external hand to spank them when they're bad.

--believes in a corporate conspiracy that controls the world.

Eat me.

--is intolerant of good ideas when they come from conservative sources.

Before we can discuss this, you're going to have to show me a good idea that's come from a conservative source. For the most part, they're fundamentally insane as far as I can tell. Chuck Hegel and Arlan Specter show a little sense now and then, but I'm not sure they're "conservative."

I was never personally opposed to welfare reform. Which is why I backed the War on Poverty. As for other "good conservative ideas," show me the money.

--dismissively mocks people of faith, especially those who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage.

What does "mockery" have to do with it, any more than any other aspect of this list? I believe in everyone's right to his or her religion, including the Maidu, the !Kung, the Jains, the Maya. I believe people who are imperialistic about their religion, think their religions are "better" than other peoples', and that they have some divine mission to shove their religions down other people's throats, are completely despicable. "Mockery" is the very least such people deserve.

--regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives.

Total bullshit, you stupid aristocrat bastard.