While reading Jane Galt's musings on Amanda Marcotte's travails, an excerpt from a post from the Alas! blog caught my eye.

What the right is doing here is attempting to shift the Overton Window of Political Possibilities. The “window”1 is the space of acceptable ideas for political discourse. So, for instance, right now being either pro-choice or pro-life falls inside the window; it is mainstream and acceptable to hold either view. But being (say) pro-Nazi falls outside that window; being pro-Nazi means that you’ll get fired from political campaigns, because your views are that far outside of the window of accepted political views.

Should criticizing (and even making fun of) the political positions of the Catholic church, the Pope, and the conservative Christian movement be “within the window” of acceptable views? Or should criticizing the Pope — even on perfectly true grounds, such as pointing out that he supports pro-life and anti-gay policies — be outside the window of what it’s politically acceptable to say and to criticize?

Its a very interesting question for a couple of reasons.

Galt makes an astute observation:

In practice, of course, almost everyone only actually objects to religiously motivated beliefs they disagree with; the civil rights movement, and the abolitionists, are well regarded by everyone even though they were sustained by religious beliefs that most modern liberals and libertarians would find frankly nuts (and no, my little chickadees, I do not buy the argument that they were involved with churches simply as a matter of convenience. Listen to Martin Luther King's speeches and then come back and tell me he was not a religious nut on a crusade. Or just savour the Battle Hymn of the Republic, showcasing the abolitionist revenge fantasies of radical reformer Julia Ward Howe.)

Galt is right on the money. But the hypocrisy isn't harmless. The evolution of the debate over issues like abortion and gay marriage to one of condemnation of an entire subculture has chilling historical analogs. The radical, or perhaps more accurately, the hater left have moved down the path to dehumanization. Christians are no longer real people, but two dimensional caricatures imbued with every vice that in the final analysis means simply, "not us."

Many of the left, like Amanda Marcotte apparently, are just crazy bigots--they, like the poor, will always be with us; but the real worry is precisely that mainstream politicians like John Edwards, will accede to moving the window of political possibility to encompass sanctioned hatred of a group.

Its happened before in many places and in many times. Hatred can justify any crime, and ambitious and cynical politicians like Edwards don't mind throwing a few Christians to the lions if it gets them what they want.

Growing up and learning about the holocaust, I was taught, and actually believed well into my adulthood, that humanity had learned its lesson, that pogrom was merely an aberrant historical artifact, but fairly recent history simply emphasizes how close to the surface it lurks as each new generation has to repeat the mistakes of its forebearers.

In this country, a philosophical argument over the morality of slavery escalated into a civil war with 600-700 thousand deaths.

There is good reason for making sure the window of political possibility doesn't frame radical left bigotry--its easy to incite the mob, but no one controls it.