When someone admits the veracity of Noam Chomsky's social and political analysis, that does not mean they are a leftist.
When someone argues that the war in Iraq began largely to help US corporations make money through profiteering and by securing oil resources, that does not mean they are a leftist.
When someone accuses the US government's policy as akin to hegemonic imperialism, that does not mean they are a leftist.
It means they are a realist.
On the other hand, when someone advocates that gays be treated as sub-humans, that men are naturally superior to women, that war in the name of ideology is not only acceptable but morally correct, that we need to return to the values of the past when religion was the driving force behind every institution in society, well, that means you are either:
A) Osama bin Laden
or
B) A Republican wingnut
Yes, the folks at such hard-right websites like Powerline would have you believe that the "Marxist overtones" of bin Laden's recent tape means that he shares many of the same values as the American Left.
And by the same logic, since J. Hinderaker and Bill Clinton both admire the arguments of Thomas Jefferson, both must be Democrats.
No, advocating a particular explanation for something based on objective reasoning does not mean you hold the same political or moral foundation.
The truth of the matter is that these wingnuts have far more in common with radical Islamists than any modern progressive ever will. Think about it:
Would Osama bin Laden advocate equality among all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation?
Would he agree that prayer ought not be sanctioned by school officials?
Would he agree that the primary duty of the government is to ensure the well-being of its citizens, and not to enforce a narrow moral code?
Of course not. Osama is, and always will be, a wingnut.
The fact that he got a few things right just goes to show that there's hope for everyone.
Maybe even Republicans. But I seriously doubt it.