In May I wrote two posts addressing questions of extremism in the blogopshere (Extremism in the Blogosphere: Part I & Part II). Now, as our three branches of government are preparing to come together in one of the most important, and most contentious, discussions of our times (a discussion of Supreme importance [my apologies]), I think it would be useful to revisit and expand on the vital question of what it means to be an extremist, including how one can tell when others have crossed the line, and more importantly, when you yourself have crossed the line.
First, a word about language. I think the first, most crucial question must be to define the word "extreme" when it refers to the political arena. Dictionary.com defines extreme (the third listed definition) as:
Extending far beyond the norm: an extreme conservative. See Synonyms at excessive.
I think this is a woefully inadequate definition (and note the not so subtle bias) when it comes to politics and it is an example of just the type of misuse of language that debases the discourse. For example, who defines "conservative"? Who then defines the "norm"? By convention, the New York Times defines itself as "moderate liberal", and thus lends its imprimatur to those who describe "extreme conservatives" as those who are far from the accepted, conventional wisdom as determined by the New York Times. This makes the definition of extremist extremely subjective, and therefor of limited use. Further information is clearly required. [I often use the Times because they have been the "paper of record" and the arbiters of the acceptable, "moderate" positions for most of my life, and of necessity, I am using myself as the template for questioning "extremism".]
If we cannot rely on the MSM, as exemplified by the Times, to determine the moderate and extreme positions on anything, where should we look. The importance of this will become paramount as the next few months pass, in terms of the battles predicted (guaranteed) over the next Supreme Court nominee. We can already see how people like Ted Kennedy, considered the voice of American liberalism, defined as moderate by the New York Times, is threatening dire consequences when Bush nominates an "extreme conservative" to the Supreme Court. One might imagine that since Bush was elected with an outright majority in the last election, and made no secret of his politically conservative philosophy, that someone Bush nominates who agrees with his political philosophy would, by definition, not be an "extreme conservative", but apparently, the fact that some particular position is a majority position does not prevent the subjective use of the term. Once again, the subjective nature of the epithet undoes its usefulness. [I would add that using the word "extremist" as part of an ad hominem attack also invalidates the term as a meaningful communication.]
What kinds of objective factors could be used to define the term "extreme" in political terms. I would propose a number of things to look for:
1. When the term is used as an epithet, it is likely based on emotional rather than factual, rational calculations. If an article or person asserts that a person is an extremist without providing any evidence to support their conclusion, it should be ignored as a mere opinion, which probably reflects more on the name caller than the object of the accusation.
2. To be defined as an extremist should require, at minimum, that the person so labeled have made statements, or performed actions, which serve, by design, or in effect, to limit the freedoms of another person or group of people. Under this definition, those who threaten bodily harm to someone whose politics they object to, would be considered an extremist. I may find Michael Moore an execrable individual, but if I threatened to fire bomb a theater where his movies was playing or sent him death threats, that would label me as an extremist. If I picketed in front of the theater carrying a sign saying "Michael Moore is a liar", you might think I am wrong, or crazy, or might reasonably wonder whether or not I didn't have anything better to do, but you could not consider me an extremist. If my sign had a picture of Michael Moore with a knife stuck into it, that might be protected free speech, but would cross the line into extremism because of the effort involved to limit the right of his supporters to exercise their freedoms via intimidation. It should go without saying that the same standards would hold for those who dislike Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Coulter, et al. Anyone who abuses their free speech rights in ways that interfere with another person's free speech rights, such as shouting down a speaker, or throwing a pie into the face of an opponent, in an attempt to threaten and intimidate them into ceding their free speech rights, is an Extremist.
3. Combining 1 & 2 could be instructive. An extremist would then be someone who , in the absence of confirmatory data, makes charges that have no support in reality and can be easily refuted ("Bush lied") and puts people who are innocent or in opposition in danger. Under this rubric, Newsweek took the position of extremist by publishing the "Flushed Koran" article. [I would not label Newsweek an extremist publication; if they show a pattern of making extreme statements with no evident regard for factual confirmation, they will then earn the appellation in due time; please note, I do not read Newsweek on a regular basis, so will have to leave it to others to determine if they have crossed the line.]
On the other hand, anyone who is willing to work within a democratic system, and respects the outcome when it goes against him, cannot be considered an extremist. In fact, this is the minimum requirement for a democracy to function. Democratic systems are the best way we have found to manage the competing passions of people; this is why there is often so much heat and so little light involved in our political arguments. People have powerful emotional investments in their political arguments and often react with fury when they are on the losing end. We can see everyday in the arguments of many on the left that losing power is not easily and gracefully negotiated. However, the ability to accept defeat is, again, a necessity if a system is not to descend into violence. The beauty of our democratic system is that the losers are not thrown in jail or executed, as is the wont in totalitarian systems, but live to fight another day. Respecting the outcome when your side loses is part of the democratic pact and serves to protect the losers fir the wrath and power of the winners. When a large group tries to subvert the rules for their narrow partisan desires, it makes it more difficult for the system to manage the passions which are involved in such questions. As luck would have it, the American people appear to have enough good sense to be able to tell when political arguments are empty of content and rarely support "sound and fury" over reason.
My definition of "extreme" is not meant to be exhaustive and it is quite possible I have made some logical errors in my argument. However, as a first approximation, if your arguments are based on passion and you have little ability to support your conclusions by citing factual data, and especially, if your pronouncements are liable to put people at risk, you are most likely an Extremist. You may "know" that Bush lied and that American soldiers have abused the Koran and "know" it in the absence of any ability to confirm your "knowledge"...but absent confirmation, repeating the charges ad nauseum makes you an Extremist; if you believe things in the absence of confirmatory information (as opposed to opinion) you are treading on thin, paranoid, ice. This deserves further discussion.
Recent Comments