“Extremists” and “moderates”
This is a follow-up on Itchy’s earlier piece on the D&C editorial about Walsh and the Iraq war. The D&C editorial got a lot of things wrong. For example, James Lawrence (this editorial sounds like him, not Tobin, so I’m assuming he wrote it) writes:
Extremists on the left are screaming that the only reason he capitulated is because he faces a tough re-election bid next year from Democrat Dan Maffei, a war opponent.
Before I start in on my problem with the use of the word “extremist” here, I have to say he’s wrong: from what I’ve seen, it’s mostly Republicans who are saying that the only reason he changed his positions is that he faces a tough re-election bid. My view is that he’s probably been dubious about the war for a while and had only gone along with it for so long because he was too Wishy Walshy to stand up to The Decider.
My problem with the use of words like “extremist” and “moderate” runs very deep. I’m sure I’ve used both words in the past, but I’m going to try to stop. There’s a connotation that being an “extremist” is bad while being a “moderate” is good. An “extremist” is out on the edges, on the fringes, where the crazy people live, while a “moderate” is in the center, surrounded by other good, solid, nonpartisan, commonsense-loving Americans like David Broder.
How about the issue of whether or not the earth rotates around the sun? I’m sure it does indeed rotate around the sun. Exactly once a year, in fact. I’m completely positive this is true. Not everyone agrees (see this post by supporters of Sam Brownback, for example). Does that make me an extremist on this issue? What about the people in the middle, who aren’t sure or maybe think that the earth rotates partly around the sun? Are they moderates on this issue?
I just don’t see what it adds to a debate to call someone an “extremist”. If someone believes strongly in a cause and can argue reasonably and rationally for it, then why do we need to say derogatory things about their position? If what they say is stupid and possibly dangerous (like much of what The Decider says), then by all means, let them have it. But not because their position is far from what you consider to be the center. It’s fair enough to call someone “delusional”, but the idea is that you call them “delusional” because the things that they believe seem to be delusions (like the neoconservative claim that Iraq would be a “cakewalk” — the article I’ve linked to here, from the Washington Post editorial page, is actually titled “Cakewalk In Iraq”, I kid you not), not simply because what they say is very different from what you think most people believe.
Let me give an example where I try to view it from the other side of an issue. I am strongly in favor of reproductive rights. But I know reasonable people who are not. For some of these people, opposition to reproductive rights is the most important issue. Theirs is not a a majority position (most Americans favor a reasonable degree of reproductive rights), especially in the northeast. But they’re entitled to the position regardless. When I hear things like “Republicans need to get past their extreme anti-choice position and put someone like Giuliani on their ballot”, I think why? Why should they? Why should they cave in on the issue they care most about? Theirs is a position I disagree with *strongly*. Yet I hesitate to call it “extremist” (except when Lee Strong provokes me by calling my position on the issue, which is favored by about 60-70 percent of Americans, “extremist”).
In the time of Galileo, it was official church doctrine that the earth was the center of the universe. Most (but not all, as I pointed out above) now accept the fact that that the earth is just one moving planet among many in a large solar system contained in a larger galaxy contained in a still larger universe. If human beings can accept that this planet is not the true center of the physical universe, why is it so hard for some to admit they are not at the true center of the political universe?
Related posts:
Very nice post. Well thought out analogy/metaphor. Again, wish I’d thought of it, but, give me time.
On the D&C, the husband says: “once a fish wrapper, always a fish wrapper”
(wish I’d thought of that too)
Exile:
I’d say you are “right” (you know I mean correct) on both of your main points.
I am a Republican and I think that since November, 2006, Mr. Walsh’s “positions” have been determined mostly, if not completely, by his apparently single-minded hope to stay in Congress.
As far as the words “moderate”, “extremist”, etc., I’d agree that they are labels that are generally used by people trying to characterize someone (often in a bad light) or to express favor towards someone (as I believe Mr. Lawrence was doing with Walsh).
It could be more. It could be deeper. Perhaps those who are leading are truly dillusional. Perhaps now, anyone who stands in the way of “progress” (yes, that means you progressives too)…are the enemy. Perhaps it’s time to treat the citizens of the United States the same way you treat terrorists who thwart your plans for “Mission Accomplished”…take for example these words from “The Deciders” words the other night:
“Together we have driven al Qaeda out of strongholds in Anbar,” Bush said today. “The people of Anbar have seen that standing up to the terrorists and extremists leads to a better life.”
…standing up to terrorists and extremists leads to a better life…perhaps by treating the “non believers” here in the U.S. (defined as any and all who are not in favor of this war) they can convince voters (key word here) that a better life awaits them.
I think in his mind, Bush believes what he thinks as says. The lemmings that follow him are being programmed to use words like these to supertranspose in their minds the fact that we - yes, you, me, and your grandmother who’s a Democrat - are the “Enemy”.
I found this, and it’s worth posting…show me the logic and I’ll show you the extremist (or so called terrorist or enemy) - not to the President or to any party in particular, but the enemy to the quality and the future of our lives:
Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
A woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
Global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The public has a right to know about Hillary’s cattle trades, but George Bush’s drunk driving record and cocaine arrest are none of our business.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.
You support states’ rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.
Clinton’s business interests in the 1970s in which he lost money are of vital national interest, but Bush’s activities in the 1980s in which he made money under questionable circumstances is unimportant.
Borrowed from a very wise Dem.
The lies, the propaganda, this mess of a war, the economy, constitutional and civil rights, the Patriot Act, lack of environmental concern, greed, disrespect for basic human rights - If standing up for what you BELIEVE in makes you an extremist to THIS administration, than EXTREME I shall remain.
Living in the past, taunting and destroying and manipulating the foundation laws and rights this country was founded on, as well as dividing this country and spewing hatred across the globe, filled with contempt for this country is the legacy this President will leave.
I consider myself PROUD to stand up for what the founding fathers believed in. I’m sure they were considered “extremists” in their day as well.
Jiminy: you’re wrong that those are things all Republicans believe. I had a Q&A with some Republicans over at the D&C blogs about this and most don’t really go in for the really hard-core Bush stuff, especially as it regards things like science (I mean global warming, evolution, etc.). One specifically expressed doubts about the platform of the national party but seemed to indicate that his general belief in small government caused him to stay Republican. How either party can pretend to like small government, especially in this state, is beyond me, but, nevertheless, it would be unfair to paint him as anti-science, pro-war type.
I consider myself PROUD to stand up for what the founding fathers believed in. I’m sure they were considered “extremists†in their day as well.
I may do a post on how Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony were considered extremists in their day.
There’s a strange thing with Walsh that the press seems to think he is a “good man” and thus should be granted special deference regardless of how he votes in Congress and how unresponsive he seems to be towards his constituents.
You’re not in Kansas…
You’re right that suburban NY country-club Republicans (they used to be “Rockefeller Republicans,” right?) are prettty… well.. moderate. There’s little homophobia, the racism is toned down, and they tend not to jump up and down about the Bible, abortion, etc.
Those aren’t the reasons I’m opposed to them. I’m opposed to them because they’re doing an awful, secretive job of managing the county. We’re not growing, our economy is stagnant, our children are leaving, and our city continues to suffer.
There’s no growth: local Republicans are just managing us down, that’s all.
I’m also opposed to them because it’s been my personal experience that they tend to cheer the decline of the city instead of working together as a community to re-build. In short, they’re strongly pro-sprawl.
(this is a bit of a tangent because I’m referring to County and Town level officials, not Walsh)
While you are at it toss in Rosa Parks - and that other guy who challenged civil rights kept causing trouble by railing against the status quo- they keep naming streets for him. Oh yeah - MLK.
I agree with John’s point that the labels are useful to those like James Lawrence. I’ll go a bit further and say that the reason they’re useful is that Mr Lawrence is extremely invested in always being in the center of public opinion. His worst fear is not being part of the comfortable status quo. Even his minor crusades, like gangsta rap, are right there in the middle. Who’s going to be for gangsta rap? Nobody who reads his paper.
While it’s OK to be in the center most of the time, that’s just not where journalists are supposed to be all the time. On occasion, a good journalist needs to write something that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. The phrase “speak truth to power” sounds like a bit of a cliche, but it is the role of journalism, and I haven’t seen a lot of uncomfortable truths spoken recently by the D&C editorial page.
On another point, John, I also agree that Mr Walsh’s change of heart has been almost completely motivated by a newfound desire to stay elected. It was pretty clear that he wasn’t listening to his constituents before the last election, and so it’s normal that intelligent people are skeptical about his change of heart. If he had been listening consistently for years and changed his mind on Iraq, then perhaps everyone would give him a break. But he wasn’t listening, so his re-invention as a concerned, conscientious MOC with his finger on the public’s pulse deserves the skepticism that it’s getting.
Didn’t some extremist say, about 200 years ago: “If this be treason, make the most of it!”
In fact, weren’t there a bunch of extremists that dumped some tea into Boston harbor? Then got together and decided to fight for independence from a tyrannical government?
And you gotta hate those screaming abolitionists of the 1840s and 1850s. Freaking extremists. Why didn’t they just write nice, polite letters to their congressmen instead of raising such a fuss.
Jiminy:
I won’t call you an extremist, however, the liberal “talking-point” positions you always take, and cheap labelling attempts like your above-noted list of Republican attributes, could lead me to call you an ideologue.
For the record, I’m a pretty mainstream Republican and very few of those items, in any way, reflect my views. Neither does that list accurately characterize Republicans in general, any more than this list accurately characterizes all Democrats.
Sorry, I guess the hyperlink failed. Read the Democrat list at this site:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljokedemocrat.htm
Jiminy - I found that “list” here
The point is we are defined by extreme points because the collective we allow ourselves to be defined. That includes Republicans and Democrats.
I agree with you — that list was a cheapshot.
To the point that I almost sorta stood up for local Republicans.
tut tut
Here’s how I look at the word extremist when it comes to abortion.
If you ask a broad general question about a woman’s right to choose, then a majority of people do support it. Especially when you use that word “choice.”
But if you ask about specifics - trimesters, specific methods, acceptable reasons, some restrictions, particular methods, etc - or use different language, then you get varied responses.
So, for example, if you ask if abortion should be allowed without restrictions during the first trimester, you would get a majority of people saying yes.
But if you ask about third trimester abortions except for the sake of saving a woman’s life or legitimately saving her health, most Americans would say no. Even in states like New York I suspect you would also get a no, or at the least very mixed results.
If you asked about “partial birth abortion”, most people would say no.
If you asked about abortion to save the life of the mother, most people would say yes.
If you asked about abortion because its an incovenient time - it would mess up vcacation plans, work, or a Wimbleton Tournament - most people would say no.
If you ask about parental notification, most people would say yes.
And so on.
I’ve seen poll results on some of these specific issues. Others, it’s just a gut reaction about the way people react.
Anyway, the majority of people are somehere in the middle, willing to allow abortions under certain circumstances, but also willing to accept some limits.
One extremist view on the issue would be the one that would not allow abortion for any reason under any circumstance. The Lambs of Christ, for example.
The other extremist postion is the one that opposes all restrictions or limits, making it entirely about a woman’s choice.
The NARAL postion.
That’s why I say NARAL is extremist on the issue, not in sync with what a majority of people in this country would accept.
Lee, my point in this post is that calling people extremist is counterproductive. When it comes to reproductive rights, you have roughly one third who oppose a woman’s right to choose (except in extreme circumstances), about one third who want choice with restrictions, and about one third who want little-to-no restrictions.
You’re in the first third, they’re in the second. So you’re just as “extremist” as NARAL even if I accept your definition of extremist, which I don’t. For me, you’re each entitled to your views. I probably agree more with NARAL myself but I don’t you’re a nut for taking the opposite view.
I actually don’t know your exact view on choice, so correct me if I’m wrong. I thought you were against abortion except in the case of incest, rape, or threat to the mother’s life. Is that right?
I guess the take home message for me is that if a media source wants to present itself as remaining relatively unbiased, it should try to refrain from making value judgments (e.g. using uninvited labels) about various groups with different points of view. Instead, such media outlets should strive to present the various points of view that exist and provide the facts that underlie the reality of the situation.
Abortion for incest or rape? Absolutely no.
Why should an innocent child die because of the misdeed of someone else?
There’s also another innocent victim - the woman. We must do all that we can to provide the support, care and help she needs to deal with the terrible act committed on her.
Some might accuse me of being harsh, adding to the woman’s suiffering by saying she should carry the child.
Again, remember that I take into account the rights of that child. And whatever pro-choicers want to say, I and other pro-lifers consider that “fetus” a child.
But back to the woman. Yes, she has suffered a terrible violation - but that violation took place before that child was created, and that child played no role in that violation, though it is certainly a consequence of it. But we all have to deal with the consequences of others actions. During the last 22 years of her life, my mother was haunted by the murder of my brother. Others have had to suffer due to abuse, drunk drivers causing accidents, assaults, and other actions that have left them with physical and emotional scars.
It’s part of the human condition. It’s something none of us can escape.
As for a threat to the mohter’s life? If the woman requires a specific treatment to deal with the life threat - medication, chemo, radiation, etc. - and if that treatment results secondarily in the loss of the child, yes, that is permitted. If that treatment involves the direct killing and intentional killing of that child, no.
I am a consistent life person - I say no to the deliberate killing of an innocent person. There are some limited circumstances in which kiling is permitted - a police officer protecting others, a just war - but those acts should be a last resort and only continue as long as absolutely necessary.
Oh, and yes, I’m a vegetarian, too!
So you really are an “extremist” on this issue then, Lee, to use your (not my) terminology. I doubt more than 30% of the population agrees with your position here.
I know you used to be a journalist. Is this something you learn when you’re a journalist, that you should just call everyone who doesn’t agree with you an extremist, regardless of what the polls say and regardless of how they argue their position?
Why not just stop calling people you don’t agree with on reproductive rights “extremists”? From what you’ve written above, it’s clear that you have reasons for your beliefs and that you can argue them forcefully. Why not stop the name calling and just use your rational arguments about this issue? I don’t get it.
And to take this one step further, you’re in a tiny minority in terms of being a vegetarian — does that make you extremist?
My point here is that I really respect your philosophical consistency on these issues and whether or not most people agree with you is irrelevant. I’ll take your brand of extremism over Jim Walsh’s brand of moderation any day of the week.
But I think you should extend the same courtesy to others who you think are “immoderate.”
Actually, I had considered calling myself an “extremist” in my explanation.
If I am considered an extremist when it comes to defending life, I’ll proudly accept that title.
I would point out, however, that my position is the official one of the Catholic Church, an organization representing more than 60 million members in the U.S. (how many does NARAL have?), and more than a billion worldwide. While not all Catholics hold with the Church’s position, I dare say milllions do. Add in the evangelicals and some other Christian churches, and certain branches of Islam, that hold a similar position, and you get even more of my brand of extremist.
But as to your second point about my labling NARAL extremist, if you look back at the Robach piece that began all this, they were implying that he was allied to extremists, and all I did was point out that his views were actually more in line with what most people think, and that NARAL’s absolutist view was an extremist one.
I don’t agree with Robach’s views on the issue, by the way, but I don’t call him an extremist, because he’s not. I don’t call all those who disagree with me extremists. As a former journalist, I try to deal with facts, not propaganda.
Moreover, I called the Lambs of Christ, a group who methods I don’t agree with, but whose position is the same as mine, extremist.
NARAL is extremist on the issue, I am extremist on the issue, Robach is not.
Lee, I see your point! But I would rather not call you or NARAL extremist, personally. It marginalizes you and them. To me, you both have valid viewpoints, even if I myself might be closer to the “middle” on it. (Frankly, this is not an issue that I have researched that much and I couldn’t tell you my exact position on every aspect of it, though I can tell you that I support the Roe v. Wade decision).
And to return to an issue on which you and I agree, isn’t there something ridiculous about calling someone an “anti-war extremist.” The central view of modern western military thinking is that war should be a last resort. Given that, how can anyone call opposing any war an extreme view, given that?
Extreme or not extreme that is the question.
Nice points Lee and I respect your position is the same as the 60 million Catholic Church.
The issue is when is life conceived. Who decides - the Church or the Government.
My money and our constitution and I guess legal precedent is on our non-secular government.
old thread, but I’ve been wondering if we’re not confusing extremism with absolutism.