David Frum’s recent bizarre anti-Canada screed in the New York Times sparked an understandably vituperative reaction from many of the bloggers I read. Gazeteer takes a few well-aimed whacks; Koby is a little more temperate if no less passionate.

The most scorching comment comes from timmy the G at Voice in the Wilderness.

You can be a conservative and honestly feel this country is on the wrong track. Fair enough. Pursue that political agenda through the available avenues and you have my respect, if not my agreement.

But Frum and others of his ilk seek to vilify Canada simply because we choose to do things differently than the Untied States. Never mind that the way we do things has allowed a small population in a vast frozen land to build a quality of life that is the envy of much of the world. This good life does not conform to right wing ideology and therefore must be torn down, even if they have to construct ridiculous and patently false arguments to do it.

Very nicely said.

And yet.

There’s a downside to the pile-on-the-lunatic phenomenon that happens on the left when someone on the right says something so ab-so-freakin-lutely outrageous.

One goal of partisan communications is to control the topic of the conversation. And right now, the conversation is entirely about Frum’s comments. What’s more, it pushes progressives into the uncomfortable and ill-fitting role of defenders of the status quo… which we actually feel needs some serious changes.

I’m glad others have responded to Frum, and I’m not suggesting they shouldn’t have. But that doesn’t mean we don’t have a problem: just how do you deal with the Ann Coulters and David Frums of the world, without handing over the keys to the debate?