Political flexibility

Andrew Anthony explores some of the unprincipled compromises two well-known politicians of the left have been willing to make - as concessions, he argues, to religion. He writes:

[T]here are limits to political flexibility, and just now it's almost breathtaking to witness how often those limits are transgressed... nowadays it's quite common to see people expressing two irreconcilable opinions at the same time. And, invariably, the cause of this schism is a form of belief that has been granted a privileged place in debate, beyond rationalism and beyond argument: religion

He goes on to examine some of the recent positions of George Galloway and Ken Livingstone (who, incidentally, now faces a disciplinary hearing to determine whether he has breached the Greater London Authority Code of Conduct). In connection with the piece by Adam Curtis I mentioned below, Anthony notes:

Yesterday, Adam Curtis, the documentary film-maker, suggested that it was vital to distinguish between the political ideas of Islamism and the murderous beliefs of a "genuinely destructive minority". This makes sense, but only insofar as it makes sense to draw a distinction between the political ideas of fascism and those minority of fascists who turn to terror. However, it flies in the face of logic to say that there is no link between the two.