ambivalent comment

Great piece; you've helped clarify the Federalist Society for me, and your analysis is consistent w/similar arguments I've read about the "right" more generally -- that rather than being a monolithic party, it's really a loose coaltion of competing factions that often compete against each other but which manage to rally behind certain pivotal issues (e.g. abortion, "law and order," school vouchers, etc.) when it counts, such as during election seasons. There seems no greater evidence of this that the "values" rhetoric of the 2004 elections where the concept of "values" became an empty vessel that each different faction on the right filled with its own content in order to convince that faction's members that Bush was their best choice. However, I take issue w/your conclusion that "the Federalist Society is more diverse than the ACLU." This may be true, but it's arguable at best. The "left" has been criticized for decades (both from those who consider themselve part of the left and those on ther right) for being too factious and diverse to advance a coherent agenda that can compete with the coalitions on the right. For example, Lieberman Democrats are at least as far apart ideologically from, say, Kucinich Democrats or Greens as are Heritage Federalists from Cato Federalists, yet the Liebermans and Greens are still equally likely to be part of the ACLU and to oppose much of the agenda of the political right. It seems to me that both sides do themselves and society a disservice when they make condescending generalizations about the "other side." Even talking about "left" or "right" is obviously an oversimplification to which we tend to resort in order to strengthen whatever position we happen to be promoting ourselves.