And now for something that is not (directly) related to what’s going on in Iran.

With the exception of a few — Joe Scarborough and Christopher Buckley, David Brooks, Shep Smith, et. al. — I am finding it increasingly difficult to sit down and listen to, read, or take seriously the rhetoric of the modern members of the so-called right wing of American politics and political commentary.

For regular readers, this is not a news flash — but it’s bugging me more than usual, because I think it’s getting worse. Renée Zellweger’s character in the movie “Jerry Maguire” told Tom Cruise’s character that he “had” her “at hello.” Lately, the “hello” is where the right wing is losing me.

Still — because I was once one of “them,” and I still share many of their purported concerns (projected deficits, runaway spending, concentration of power in Washington, etc.) — I keep trying to hear what they have to say. But no matter how much or how often I try, I end up (more times than not) walking away in utter disgust.

One reason: A significant share of their contemporary arguments strike me as … just plain bizarre, out-of-touch, based (at times) on circular logic. Case in point: James Taranto’s take in the WSJ yesterday on Obama’s statement that “the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised.” Taranto’s conclusion: “Obama’s analysis made no sense on Tuesday, even though it was substantially identical to ours on Friday.”

Now, I might be getting really, really slow in my middle-age years, but no matter how many times I read Taranto’s entire tirade on this topic, I can’t make sense of his conclusion. Taranto’s saying this … why? Because Obama didn’t reach the same conclusion on the same timing as Taranto? Because Obama previously said he found a debate between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi “robust”? (God knows that two people with much in common can’t have a “robust” debate. Just ask any married couple in America.)

Another reason today’s right wing is losing me at hello: The volume and vile with which they foist their bizarre arguments on us. Reference Frank Rich’s column earlier this week. A right-wing friend of mine dismissed Rich’s column as a “conservative hater” rambling on about “conservatives who hate.” Whatever. Separate the message from the messenger, man; argue the merits not the motivations; etc.

Writing all of this, I do understand there are screamers on the left. Example in prime: Kos and friends, whom I stopped reading long ago. And yes, the left also has its has its own cauldron of circular-logic junkies, though I can’t find a ready, convenient example for this post.

Regardless, it still seems to this lone observer — right now, at this specific point in time, and overwhelmingly so — that there are more intelligent, calm, grounded voices leaning left than there are leaning right.

At the risk of broken-recordness: That’s a shame. It’s a shame because I continue to believe we as a nation get better ideas when the left and right are in a state of productive balance. But the way things are looking right now, this train is going to veer off-balance, left, over the next several years. And for that — and whatever ills or fortunes might result — today’s right wing should be blaming no one but themselves.