I have been wondering how to define extremism and recognize that there will always be a fair amount of disagreement about such a subject. After all, there are many people who think the New York Times is a moderate newspaper which just reports "all the news that's fit to print." Few people will call themselves extreme; usually they think that if you knew what they knew, you would inevitably agree with them.
W. Krebs offered some suggestions in a comment on my first Extremism post:
I think one can identify characteristics of posts that correspond to the intuition of 'extremism'. What about the following characteristics?
1. High levels of agression.
2. Selective use of, or indifference to, facts.
3. Inconsistent application of principles.
The tricky part here is agreeing on what constitutes facts, but within limits, these are a good starting place.
I would agree that any comment or post that includes overt expressions of rage (not anger, an important distinction) will generally be recognizable as extreme. Rage is anger without the leavening of rationality.
For example, I can get very angry at my former political party betraying their own supposed principles in order to oppose a policy of President Bush that they do not like. In my anger I can point out that the Democrats opposed the filibuster in the past when it was done to them and now, when it suits their political purposes, support the filibuster. Their self interest is transparent and I actually have no objection to any party trying to get their way in whatever means are available to them. It is the attempt, with the connivance of the MSM, to deny that they have changed their positions and are now behaving profoundly ethically which is mist troubling. However, I think I can still discuss this rationally and construct an argument based on a view of the facts which is adequately supportable which suggest my approach is not extreme.
The best way to use "facts" in the argument is to look for consistency. When facts refute themselves we are dealing with an extremist view. In a different context I pointed out that two deeply held beliefs of the left actually contradict each other (from Political Religion):
In effect, the meme suggests that there are no inherent differences (Nature) between men and women and all differences in outcome can be attributed to social influences (Nurture). If you have any doubts that this is a religious belief rather than a fact based opinion, do the following thought experiment. Imagine yourself in a room full of Homosexual activists. Imagine yourself giving a talk in which you suggest that Homosexuality is the outcome of a complex interaction between a child's inherent constitutional make up (Nature), including the structure of his brain, and his emotional development in relation to his early childhood and parenting experiences (Nature). The idea that Homosexuality is genetic (any time you read that something is "genetic" take it with a large grain of salt; as I once read, genes encode for proteins, not behavior) is a "given", scarcely more open to discussion than the idea that women and men are not equal.
The accepted liberal/left view is that women and men are essentially identical and any differences must therefore be due to cultural bias. This is the basis of Title 9 and various other misguided efforts to prove their point. The accepted liberal/left view of homosexuality is that it is in-born and therefore, since it is genetic and not a choice, it needs to be recognized as equal in value to heterosexuality.
Rage, with its attendant break down of coherence, and inconsistency of ideas and principles, would suggest one is taking an extreme position.
Another element to add to the discussion is an ability to appreciate the opposition's position and compromise. I have always been pro-choice and for along time was comfortable in supporting an almost absolute freedom of choice for women. The truth is that I had an extreme position but didn't recognize it as such; plus, I didn't really give it much thought. I rightly assumed most abortions occurred early in pregnancies and thought that the "extremists" who opposed partial birth abortion were just using it as a way to chip away at women's rights (which is partially true). Luckily, my mind was not completely closed and when confronted by opponents of abortion, I was able to recognize they have some good points and though I think a maximalist position is extreme (and this is a complicated area) I do think that an abortion past the time of viability should be unacceptable. Some compromises to a women's right to choose seem reasonable and would help defuse the intensity of the battles over all sorts of issues.
Obviously, there are some things that can not and should not be compromised, so the use of compromise is not a fool proof sign of extremism. Anyone who advocates a compromise on slavery today would have to be considered a dangerous extremist. Anyone who suggests we should be ready to "nuke" Mecca is also a dangerous extremist.
Perhaps the clearest sign of an extreme statement is that it leaves no room for opposing views, is absolutist, is disdainful of consistency in arguments and neglects obvious, though, complicating facts; further, the extremist is not looking for a discussion or even an argument, but for submission.
Finally, anyone who uses ad hominem arguments or threats has clearly given up on persuasion. They lose.
Recent Comments