believes the United States is a fundamentally negative force in the world.

Right now, at this very moment, it is very hard to argue that the United States is not a net negative force in the world. That is not the same as saying that the United States is a fundamentally negative force. It's hard to define what that means. It would seem to mean that there is something basic in the very makeup of the United States that is a net negative. I suppose we could posit various characteristics that would stand for that 'something basic'. We'll be tackling some of those below. For now, I'll just say that right now the United States is a net negative and it has been since Bush took office and began dismantling international treaties and rattling his saber. This fact is clearly seen the moment you travel abroad and are made to feel humiliation or embarrassment for being an American citizen. This is a source of much distress for those of us that occassionally cross over our borders.

believes that American imperialism is the primary cause of Islamic radicalism.

Here we have to contend with the word primary. No one would dispute that America's military presence in the Middle East was the stated grievance of al-Qaeda in their fatwas. It wasn't a left-wing extremist that said in 1998, "The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations." That was Usama bin-Laden. If Joe Klein doesn't think American imperialism has a strong relationship to the rise of Islamic radicalism then he must not believe bin-Laden was sincere or that any of his recruits were attracted to his message. Or, maybe Joe Klein thinks 'American imperialism' doesn't exist and opposes the term. Or maybe he objects to the idea the America's military and corporate presence in the Middle East is the primary cause of Islamic radicalism. If so, he should clarify. Because it isn't extreme to actually read the enemy's fatwas and report on them accurately.

believes that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not an individual case of monumental stupidity, but a consequence of America’s fundamental imperialistic nature.

Wasn't Vietnam an 'individual case of monumental stupidity'? At a minimum, Vietnam plus Iraq would make two fundamental cases of monumental stupidity and might legitimately give rise to questions about what exactly it is in America's post-war era that makes us prone to bloody land wars in Asia. Do we need to avoid the use of the word 'imperialism' and use something a little more precise? But let's be serious. Klein has read the PNAC documents, has he not? Remember this quote? "At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible." There is precious little evidence that the Democratic Party's foreign policy establishment doesn't have broad agreement with this unipolar goal. If we don't want to call it 'imperialism' we can use some other term.

tends to blame America for the failures of others—i.e. the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan.

This allegation seems to be pulled out of thin air. If someone wanted to argue that NATO partners are shirking their responsibilities in Afghanistan because they hate George W. Bush so incredibly much...I wouldn't argue with them. Except I don't know who the hell is accusing NATO of shirking their responsibilities in Afghanistan in the first place. I'm sure someone is...probably Republicans.

doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is the best liberal idea in human history.

If our economy was presently being carefully regulated and sufficiently taxed, progressively, to pay even a decent portion of what we are spending and need to save...

Oh...why bother? Is some fantasyland form of capitalism that doesn't exist the best liberal idea in history? Maybe so. Who cares? Very few on the left are calling for communism these days. What's the point of this critique?

believes American society is fundamentally unfair (as opposed to having unfair aspects that need improvement).

Again with the 'fundamentally'. How to we deal with these fundamental arguments? Was what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina fundamentally unfair, or was it an 'aspect' that needs improvement? Are 40 million Americans without health care suffering from something fundamentally unfair? Or do we need to do a tweak somewhere on that one? Is our prison and court system fair to minorities? I suppose we could go down a laundry list of inequities in American society compared to, say, Canadian society, and still insist that there is nothing 'fundamentally' unfair about America. Joe Klein...frigging idiot.

believes that eternal problems like crime and poverty are the primarily the fault of society.

'Society'. Well, that's a bit vague, isn't it? 'Society'. Let's compare the crime and poverty rates between America and Europe, or America and Japan, or America and Canada. What explains the immense differences? Could it be 'society'? Or could it be that our media, led by self-satisfied people like Joe Klein, refuses to see any real pressing fucking problem with our current levels of crime and poverty?

believes that America isn’t really a democracy.

If this is one of those arguments over whether America is really a Republic or a Democracy, I'd have Joe Klein know that that is an argument favored by Libertarians and Republican reactionaries that like to restrict the franchise. As I assume Joe Klein's idiocy doesn't extend so far as to be oblivious to this fact, I have to assume this gets to some kind of unfairness doctrine or something. Maybe some lefties think that we don't have a democracy when blacks have to wait in three hour lines to vote or elections get stolen, as in Florida 2000. Fortunately, most Republicans are quite happy with this form of democracy, since it favors their candidates.

believes that corporations are fundamentally evil.

There is indeed a rising antipathy to corporations on the left. But this doesn't mean that they are 'fundamentally' evil. They are 'fundamentally' stateless. And they have grown in power to the point that they have more influence over our foreign policy than the American people do. So, when our government does something monumentally stupid like 'go to war in Iraq', then corporations are going to get an outsized (as opposed to outsourced) share of the blame.

believes in a corporate conspiracy that controls the world.

I think I just addressed this. They control too much. Why is this hard to understand?

is intolerant of good ideas when they come from conservative sources.

Please provide a list of good ideas originating from conservative sources over the history of the Bush administration? I will explain why they primarily serve the interests of the corporate conspiracy to control the world. Hint: I'm (barely) joking.

dismissively mocks people of faith, especially those who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage.

When people stop making theological arguments to support their public policy positions on abortion and gay marriage, we will stop dismissing their theology. Hardly anyone on the left, and almost no one involved in electoral politics, wants to insult people of faith (most of us are people of faith: check your census data, Klein). We just don't want abortion and contraception outlawed because the Vatican or some evangelical preacher thinks the Bible should dictate an Americanized form of Shari'a law.

regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives.