Steve Leigh looks at what's described as "extremism" by the mainstream--and why it turns out that those ideas are often threatening to the status quo.
January 20, 2011
I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist for love--"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you"...Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist--"This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist--"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice--or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?
-- Martin Luther King, "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"
IN THE wake of the tragedy in Tucson, Ariz., the media and the politicians have all been calling for a new "civility" in political debate. They have all denounced "extremism," which they connect with violence. But what is "extremism"? Is it really the cause of the problems that plague U.S. politics?
At its simplest, political extremism is just a set of ideas that is extremely different than the status quo. It is any political vision at considerable variance from the way the world is today.
Calling a solution or set of ideas "extremist" is considered the ultimate slam in politics in almost any age. To call something extremist is to take it off the table of rational political debate. As with other forms of name-calling, it replaces rational consideration of ideas with dismissive labeling. But if we look at it logically, calling something "extremist" should not be a value judgment.
Any idea, either extremist or moderate, can be good or bad.
What is extremist or moderate varies from age to age and place to place. Before the Revolutionary War, in 1770, anyone who called for independence from Great Britain, was a raging extremist, rebel and dangerous person. Yet by 1781, anyone wanting to go back under British rule would have been considered a traitor. In 1855, abolitionists were seen as crazy extremists. Yet by 1865, anyone wanting to restore slavery would have been called a hopeless reactionary.
In 1965, demanding immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam was beyond the pale of standard political debate. Yet by 1968, most people were for full withdrawal and, in 1975, the U.S. was out of Vietnam. In 1968, the issue of abortion was laughed at when raised in the presidential campaign. Yet by 1973, abortion rights had been legalized in the U.S.
Even the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.--who every politician now claims to venerate--was called a "trouble maker" and extremist, and was constantly harassed by the FBI. Examples like these could fill volumes.
Rural American Progressive
In Unity is Strength
