There is a kind of binary thinking prevalent among right-wing authoritarians that goes something like this:
Good is the opposite of bad. What is not good is bad. What is not bad is good. Everything I identify with is good. Everything that opposes what I identify with is bad. All bad things are essentially the same. I am a white, Christian, conservative, capitalist, Republican American. Whiteness is good. Christianity is good. Conservatism is good. Capitalism is good. The Republican Party is good. America is good. Barack Obama is black. Black is the opposite of white. Therefore Obama is bad. Because he is bad, he is not American, because America is good. Socialism is the opposite of capitalism. Communism is the opposite of capitalism. Because Obama is bad, he is a socialist and a communist. Atheism is the opposite of Christianity. Islam is the opposite of Christianity. Because Obama is bad, he is not a Christian. Therefore, he is an atheist and a Muslim.Et cetera, et cetera.
That being said, we also see some of the same reasoning manifested by Democratic authoritarians who support Hillary Clinton on this site:
Hillary Clinton is good. The Republican Party hates Hillary Clinton. Therefore the Republican Party is bad. The Republican Party is right-wing. Therefore it is bad to be right-wing. Hillary Clinton is good, therefore anyone who opposes her is bad. It is bad to be right-wing. Therefore, anyone who opposes Clinton is right-wing. Therefore, all criticism of Hillary Clinton is right-wing criticism.And that, as any first-year philosophy student can tell you, is fallacious bullshit.
There are arguments that the right wing has been making against Hillary Clinton for years. They are mostly nonsense, drummed up on the premise that Hillary Clinton must be bad and therefore it must be proved that she has done all sorts of bad things. There are also arguments that the left has been making against Hillary Clinton for roughly the last decade. They are mostly based on fact, drawn from observation of her actions in public and private life. To put it another way, this evidence constitutes the foundation for progressives’ opposition to Clinton, while right-wingers’ opposition to Clinton constitutes the foundation of their “evidence.”
kos has decreed that right-wing attacks on Hillary Clinton are not going to be tolerated, but that “constructive criticism from the left” will be. Therefore, for the convenience of all, I would like to draw a sharp line between the two, to head off those partisans who will inevitably (word choice intended) characterize all criticism of Clinton as “right-wing.”
Examples of Right-Wing Bullshit(with thanks to WorldNetDaily for compiling a convenient list of allegations that can be summarily disregarded because they appear on WorldNetDaily)
IRS and FBI persecution of political opponents Huma Abedin’s alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood Murder of Vince Foster and the “Clinton body count” Benghazi “E-mailgate” “Chinagate” (alleged sale of high-tech secrets) “Travelgate” (alleged patronage hiring of friends of Hillary Clinton) Whitewater Alleged partnership with Saul Alinsky* Alleged raising of campaign funds from Iran* Yes, you read that right. The Alinsky connection was originally an attack against Obama, but I guess since it didn’t stick, they decided to try it against Clinton instead.
Examples of Criticism From the Left(with thanks to Mass Southpaw for compiling the authoritative list)
Previous opposition to marriage equality Previous support for harmful welfare “reform” Previous support for harmful 2001 bankruptcy bill Support for harmful public education “reform,” including No Child Left Behind Support for private prison industry Support for continued use of death penalty Record of support for “free trade” agreements that encourage outsourcing of U.S. jobs Opposition to a subsistence-level minimum wage Opposition to aggressive re-regulation of Wall Street Appearance of impropriety in accepting large speaking fees from financial corporations Vote in favor of Authorization of Use of Military Force in Iraq Vote in favor of continued use of cluster bombs overseas Inadequate support for human rights, particularly in the Occupied Territories Close association with Henry Kissinger Uncertain support for meaningful action against climate changeNote that every single one of these criticisms presumes that Clinton’s stance is the wrong one, whereas the Republican point of view is that every one of these stances is the correct one—or would be, if one were talking about anyone other than Hillary Clinton. Therefore, these cannot be construed as “right-wing attacks.” They are criticisms that will be leveled only by someone who believes Clinton is wrong because these positions are wrong, not vice versa.
In sum, the points in the first list are attacks from the right, which no honest progressive would make, and any use of them by a self-identified Democrat or leftist must be construed as opportunistic and hypocritical. The points in the second list are criticism from the left, which no ideologically committed Republican would make, and any use of them by a Republican or self-identified conservative must also be construed as opportunistic, hypocritical and insincere. And even if an opportunistic, hypocritical, insincere Republican somewhere happens to use them, that doesn’t make them “right-wing attacks.”