In his article, Kuttner wrote:

You may not have heard of R.J. Rushdoony. He is a kind of American Talib, whose 1973 magnum opus, the 890-page The Institutes of Biblical Law called for literal application of all 613 laws described in the book of Leviticus, including as punishments flogging, slavery, sale into indentured servitude, and death by burning at the stake. Rushdoony also called for a Christian theocracy to replace American democracy. One of Rushdoony's acolytes was Jerry Falwell.

[. . .] We at the Prospect have been publishing articles with titles like "The Coming Republican Crack-Up" almost since our first issue 20 years ago. Seemingly, the socially moderate Wall Street cosmopolitans, with their worship of mammon, have less and less in common with the Main Street fundamentalists -- who are now suffering the brunt of the economic catastrophe wrought by deregulated high finance. George W. Bush's defeat, logically, should have been the last embrace of the odd marriage of plutocrats and theocrats. With the complete takeover of the GOP by an American Taliban, the party should be doomed to minority status.

(Emphasis supplied.) To follow the reasoning of The American Prospect's Jamelle Bouie, we must condemn The American Prospect's Robert Kuttner. As Bouie writes:

[T]his gets to the huge, glaring problem with American Taliban; ultimately, any similarities are vastly outweighed by incredibly important distinctions and vast differences of degree. I'm no fan of the right wing, but the only possible way it can be "indistinguishable" from the Taliban is if conservatives are stoning women for adultery, stalking elementary schools to throw acid in girls' faces, and generally enforcing fundamentalist religious law with torture and wanton violence. The chapter on women becomes a joke when you realize that Moulitsas can't distinguish between the odiousness of right-wing sexism and the vicious amorality of permanently disfiguring "immodest" women. Likewise, there are magnitudes of difference between executing gays (the Taliban) and opposing a hate-crimes bill (Republicans).

(Emphasis supplied.) To follow The American Prospect's Bouie's reasoning, we must similarly condemn The American Prospect's Robert Kuttner for his "facile" and "unfair" comparison of the Extreme Right, whom Kuttner refers to as the American Taliban, with the Afghan Taliban. Was Kuttner arguing that they are the same? Of course not. But neither was Moulitsas. And we must be weenie liberals and condemn any such hint at comparison, in order to comply with The Drum Rule.

Kuttner writes:

In 1986, a young journalist also named Blumenthal published a prescient book titled The Rise of the Counter--Establishment. In that book, Sidney Blumenthal, Max's old man, wrote about the links that went from Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley's National Review to the neoconservatives who gave the intellectual weight to Reaganism and the modern conservative movement. That book was mainly about people like Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Nathan Glazer, George Gilder, David Stockman, and Jack Kemp. The volume, appropriately for the time, included just three pages on the religious right. The conservative cast of characters a generation ago was an intellectually serious and largely secular lot. At worst, they wanted to destroy the New Deal and the Great Society, not impose theocracy. Those were the days.

(Emphasis supplied.) Does Kuttner really believe the Extreme Right wing of the Republican Party wants to "impose theocracy?" The American Prospect's Jamelle Bouie would take severe issue with this assertion:

[I]n one instance, Moulitsas brandishes Ann Coulter's infamous quotation from 2001, where she declared that "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity," as evidence of the right's bloodthirsty ways, while ignoring the fact that she was fired from National Review (an organ of the American Taliban) for that exact quotation.

(Emphasis supplied.) You see, says Bouie, Coulter was fired by The National Review. That PROVES the Extreme Right does not want to impose theocracy. Kuttner's charge is unacceptable for the weenie progressive advocacy that The Drum Rule requires of us. The American Prospect's Kuttner must be condemned. So speaketh The American Prospect's Jamelle Bouie.

To be sure it is possible that, in the words of The American Prospect's Bouie:

[Kuttner's] American Taliban [article] is clearly meant for activist consumption. Unlike [Bouie], [Kuttner] isn't a journalist, and his job isn't to be an honest broker for ideas; no, it's to rally progressives and score points against conservatives.

But even if Kuttner is not a journalist,and thus ineligible for the mitigation The American Prospect's Bouie proposes, there is still another reason to condemn Kuttner - as Bouie explains:

Conservatives haven't actually gained from their willingness to bend and misrepresent the truth. [. . .]Indeed, their likely electoral gains notwithstanding, movement conservatives are still incapable of making an affirmative case for their governing philosophy. Their "new ideas" are anything but, and to most informed observers, it's clear that "no" is the only functioning weapon in the Republican Party's paltry arsenal. Put another way, there's a reason why the movement's leading voices are quasi-religious charlatans, rent-seeking celebrities, and failed ex-governors.

(Emphasis supplied.) Thus, according to The American Prospect's Bouie, The American Prospect's Kuttner is completely wrong when he writes:

Notwithstanding the takeover by the radical right, the Republican Party is not in fact "shattered." It is alarmingly unified.

After all, Democrats and the Beltway Left are not really concerned with winning elections. Being "precise" is the goal. An indeed, demanding precision in our descriptions of the Republican Party, as Matt Yglesias writes, is the key to political success. We all know that political debate is always conducted with literal truth as the standard. Comparison, advocacy and analogies are never used, at least not successfully:

[T]his is one of the areas where progressives aren’t just doing the right thing, but have a smarter tactical approach to politics. There are scenarios in which tagging your political opponents with smears can be effective, but I don’t see any evidence that the particular apocalyptic “my enemies are totalitarian madmen” strain of Birch/Beck/Goldberg conservatism has helped anyone win any elections. [. . .] This stuff doesn’t win votes anyone because, after all, it’s a form of preaching to the choir. [. . .] Political movements need to adapt to the actual situation, and that means having an accurate understanding of your foes. You need to see them as they actually are so that you know the right way to respond. Either underestimating or overestimating their level of viciousness and evil can lead to serious miscalculations. Which is just to say that getting this stuff right is more important than coming up with funny put-downs.

(Emphasis supplied.) Yglesias' critique of Moulitsas obviously also applies to The American Prospect's Kuttner.

In the end, Ta-Nehisi Coates says it best:

I actually think precision, of this sort, is extremely important. Rightly or wrongly I'm a liberal, in large measure, because I think liberals have more respect for my intelligence. I can't, in great detail, explain health care policy, or financial reform. But when I see one side's most potent voices arguing that health care reform is actually reparations, or their leadership winking at the notion that Obama is a Muslim, I take it as a caution. It's brand degradation, the sense that dishonesty and shading actually covers the lack of an argument.

(Emphasis supplied.) While it is true that Coates has not read Moulitsas' book, thus can not know if there is in fact "dishonesty and shading" in it, we must not let that stand in the way of adherence to The Drum Rule. Condemnation must occur. For Coates' criticisms of the book must surely be precise and correct, despite the limitations of having never actually read it. After all, he works for The Atlantic!

By the same token, if Coates reads my review of Kuttner's article, he need not read the article itself and can instead just echo my take. That would be the best way to achieve the "precision" Coates demands.

It pains me to do so, but in keeping with The Drum Rule, condemning The American Prospect's Kuttner must be done. The American Prospect's Tim Fernholz said about The American Prospect's Jamelle Bouie's review of Moulitsas' "American Taliban":

Proud to associate myself with this

Fernholz must be deeply ashamed to be associated with Kuttner's American Taliban article. But that shame can of course, turn to pride-- the answer is obvious- Fernholz can "associate" himself with my review condemning The American Prospect's article "American Taliban."

Or better yet, Fernholz can write his own condemning review. Kevin Drum would be very pleased.

Speaking for me only