Hugh Hewitt has a great post that demonstrates that the term "religious right" cannot be well defined and is just a rhetorical device that allows speakers to attack anonymous, ambiguous people that the listeners can define for themselves.
Many e-mailers have tried to define "the religious right" thus far this morning, but their definitions are either ad hominem attacks or way too broad as they inevitably end up including folks like the African American pastors who oppose same-sex marriage even when those pastors are pretty reliable Democrats. Here's one example:"A member of the Religious Right is a person who, for whatever reason, believes that his or her interpretation of a religious doctrine ought to be reflected in the laws that apply to all Americans - especially those who do not adhere to the proponent's personal belief system."
Not only too broad, but also applicable to pretty much every American who thinks polygamy ought to remain illegal. See Under the Banner of Heaven. The inability to define "religious right" reveals it is a term used rhetorically to allow the audience to hear whatever it wants to hear.
I think this sort of non-specific attack reflects that, more than ever, the left has lost its way. It'll probably take a very charismatic leader to pull the left together under whatever banner he chooses to raise, and then we'll have to listen to nonsense about how all the flip-flops were really what the Democrats have stood for all along.
(HT: Michelle Malkin.)
Of course, given that you're somewhat prone (as am I, I must admit, though I've been trying to curb the tendency) to rant about "the Left" as if it's a unified, collective, definable entity, what this should really probably show is that the opposition lines aren't as firmly drawn as polemicists would like us to think.
It seems to me that people may trend one way or the other, but the political "right" and "left" aren't very substantial opponents for almost any serious argument.
This is a sort of tangential comment to this post, but I noticed that you referred to the potential future leader of the Democrats as a "he." I was wondering if you just used the male term there as a generic, or if you don't feel that Senator Clinton has a serious chance at becoming her party's nominee in 2008?
Also, I agree with what Cypren had to say about the use of the term "the Left."
MW: Oh, so you think "religious Right" is a rhetorical device? What about the similar rhetorical devices used about the Left? Why is any label attached to "the Right" just a rhetorical device and any label attached to "the Left" exempt from that criticism?
C: I think "right" and "left" are much more well defined than "religious right". The political spectrum isn't linear, but left and right are pretty good approximations. "Religious right" doesn't approximate anything, as Hugh Hewitt demonstrated.
Megan: Hillary isn't a charismatic leader that can pull the left together under her agenda; rather, as the recent few months have shown, she's changing her own views to accomodate voters. "He" is often used as a generic term, and that's how I was using it here.
Mark: What other groupings are applied to the left that you feel are rhetorical devices? How are they imprecise?
"Secular Left" I've heard before.... along with any number of elementary-school-playground-ish names like "Looney Left", etc.
We should be discussing principles, not making wholesale accusations with tendentious nicknames. Rational discussion is impossible if "left" and "right" are reduced to synonyms for good and evil. The essence of civility is the acknowledgment that even your enemy may have something to teach you.
How's this for a definition of "Loony Left":
"A member of the Loony Left is a person who, for whatever reason, believes that his or her negative interpretation of a religious doctrine ought to be reflected in the laws that apply to all Americans - especially those who do not adhere to the proponent's personal belief system."
"A member of the Radical Right is a person who, for whatever reason, believes that his or her positive interpretation of a religious doctrine ought to be reflected in the laws that apply to all Americans - especially those who do not adhere to the proponent's personal belief system."
Remember: it works both ways.