As readers of my book, or the now interred Liberal Fascism blog (read the last post here) know particularly well, one of my bugaboos is the Left’s insistence on calling Father Coughlin a rightwinger. So I found it interesting that Katrina vanden Heuvel chose not to use the label (though she certainly implies it). Instead she writes:

When a reform President takes on the status quo he confronts a ferocious, well-organized, reactionary opposition. What we’re seeing today — with rightwing groups comparing Obama to Hitler and healthcare reform to socialism–Roosevelt faced with the American Liberty League calling him a socialist or a fascist (ironic, since it was Roosevelt who led the US into war against fascism). Like Obama, Roosevelt also confronted well-funded business lobbies. And in the Catholic demagogue Father Coughlin, Roosevelt had his Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck in a Roman collar.

Maybe I’m overreading this, but it sure seems like she’s using Catholic as a pejorative description. Technically, she’s of course right. Coughlin was a Catholic and he did wear a “Roman collar.” But she puts a stink on it in a way I can’t quite articulate, or at leasts that’s how I read it. Am I wrong?

Update: From a reader:

……as a (not very good) Catholic of 69 years, I do not feel any particular pain at Katrina’s word choices; she simple relates fact. This may be mere numbness resulting from 30 years of increasing vitriol direct at the Chuch, but I don’t think so. I don’t know if she recognizes the imprecision in her classification of critics of The One, but doubt she would care it is sufficient for her that they oppose him……………..