> > Activist Mailing List - http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/ > > What Is Political "Extremism"? > by Laird Wilcox > > Roger Scruton, in the Dictionary Of Political Thought (Hill & Wang, > New York, 1982) defines "extremism" as: > > "A vague term, which can mean: 1. Taking a political idea to its > limits, regardless of 'unfortunate' repercussions, impracticalities, > arguments and feelings to the contrary, and with the intention not > only to confront, but also to eliminate opposition. 2. Intolerance > towards all views other than one's own. 3. Adoption of means to > political ends which show disregard for the life, liberty, and human > rights of others." > > This is a very fair definition and it reflects my experience that > "extremism" is essentially more an issue of style than of content. In > the twenty-five years that I have been investigating political groups > of the left and right, I have found that many people can hold very > radical or unorthodox political views and still present them in a > reasonable, rational and non-dogmatic manner. On the other hand, I > have met people whose views were shrill, uncompromising and distinctly > authoritarian. The latter demonstrated a starkly extremist mentality > while the former demonstrated only ideological unorthodoxy, which is > hardly to be feared in a free society such as our own. > > I don't mean to imply that content is entirely irrelevant. People who > tend to adopt the extremist style most often champion causes and adopt > ideologies that are essentially "fringe" positions on the political > spectrum. Advocacy of "fringe" positions, however, gives our society > the variety and vitality it needs to function as an open democracy, to > discuss and debate all aspects of an issue and to deal with problems > we may otherwise have a tendency to ignore. I think this is the proper > role of radical movements, left and right, in our system. The > extremist style is another issue altogether, however, in that it > seriously hampers our understanding of important issues, it muddies > the waters of discourse with invective, fanaticism and hatred, and it > impairs our ability to make intelligent, well-informed choices. > > Another, perhaps more popular, definition of "extremism" is that it > represents points of view we strongly disagree with, advocated by > someone we dislike whose interests are contrary to our own! > > Political ideologues often attempt definitions of extremism which > specifically condemn the views of their opponents and critics while > leaving their own relatively untouched, or which are otherwise biased > toward certain views but not others. To be fair, a definition must be > equally applicable across the entire political spectrum. > > In point of fact, the terms "extremist" and "extremism" are often used > thoughtlessly an epithets, "devilwords" to curse or condemn opponents > and critics with! I find, however, that the extremist style is not the > monopoly of any sector of the political spectrum. It is just as common > on the "left" as it is on the "right," and sometimes it shows up in > the political "center" as well! > > In analyzing the rhetoric and literature of several hundred "fringe" > and militant "special interest" groups I have identified several > specific traits that tend to represent the extremist style. I would > like to caution you with the admonition, however, that we are all > fallible and anyone, without bad intentions, may resort to some of > these devices from time to time. But with bonafide extremists these > lapses are not occasional and the following traits are an habitual and > established part of their repertoire. The late Robert Kennedy, in The > Pursuit Of Justice (1964), said; "What is objectionable, what is > dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they > are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but > what they say about their opponents." > > 1. Character Assassination. Extremists often attack the character of > an opponent or critic rather than deal with the facts and issues that > he raises or debate the points of his arguments. They will question > his motives, qualifications, past associations, values, personality, > mental health and so on as a diversion from the issues under > consideration. > > 2. Name Calling And Labeling. Extremists are quick to resort to > epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hatemonger, nut, crackpot, > degenerate, Un-American, Anti-Semite, Red, Commie, Nazi, Kook, etc.) > to label and condemn an opponent in order to divert attention from his > arguments and to discourage other from hearing him out. > > 3. Irresponsible Sweeping Generalizations. Extremists tend to make > sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a > tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume > that because two (or more) things are alike in some respects they must > be alike in all or most respects! Analogy is a treacherous form of > logic and its potential for distortion and false conclusions even when > the premises are basically correct is enormous. > > 4. Inadequate Proof For Assertions. Extremists tend to be very fuzzy > on what constitutes proof for their assertions. They also tend to get > caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc > (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply > because of their "before" and "after" relationship). They tend to > project "wished for" conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of > information which confirms their prejudices and to derogate or ignore > information which contradicts them. > > 5. Advocacy Of Double Standards. Extremists tend to judge themselves > in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view generously, and > others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They > would like you to accept their assertions on faith but they demand > proof for yours. They also tend to engage in "special pleading" on > behalf of their group, because of some special status, past > persecution or present disadvantage. > > 6. Extremists Tend To View Their Opponents And Critics As Essentially > Evil. Their enemies hold opposing views because they are bad people, > immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, cruel, etc., and not > merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have > competing interests of are perhaps even mistaken! > > [Continued in Part 2]
Activist Mailing List - http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/ What Is Political "Extremism"? by Laird Wilcox Roger Scruton, in the Dictionary Of Political Thought (Hill & Wang, New York, 1982) defines "extremism" as: "A vague term, which can mean: 1. Taking a political idea to its limits, regardless of 'unfortunate' repercussions, impracticalities, arguments and feelings to the contrary, and with the intention not only to confront, but also to eliminate opposition. 2. Intolerance towards all views other than one's own. 3. Adoption of means to political ends which show disregard for the life, liberty, and human rights of others." This is a very fair definition and it reflects my experience that "extremism" is essentially more an issue of style than of content. In the twenty-five years that I have been investigating political groups of the left and right, I have found that many people can hold very radical or unorthodox political views and still present them in a reasonable, rational and non-dogmatic manner. On the other hand, I have met people whose views were shrill, uncompromising and distinctly authoritarian. The latter demonstrated a starkly extremist mentality while the former demonstrated only ideological unorthodoxy, which is hardly to be feared in a free society such as our own. I don't mean to imply that content is entirely irrelevant. People who tend to adopt the extremist style most often champion causes and adopt ideologies that are essentially "fringe" positions on the political spectrum. Advocacy of "fringe" positions, however, gives our society the variety and vitality it needs to function as an open democracy, to discuss and debate all aspects of an issue and to deal with problems we may otherwise have a tendency to ignore. I think this is the proper role of radical movements, left and right, in our system. The extremist style is another issue altogether, however, in that it seriously hampers our understanding of important issues, it muddies the waters of discourse with invective, fanaticism and hatred, and it impairs our ability to make intelligent, well-informed choices. Another, perhaps more popular, definition of "extremism" is that it represents points of view we strongly disagree with, advocated by someone we dislike whose interests are contrary to our own! Political ideologues often attempt definitions of extremism which specifically condemn the views of their opponents and critics while leaving their own relatively untouched, or which are otherwise biased toward certain views but not others. To be fair, a definition must be equally applicable across the entire political spectrum. In point of fact, the terms "extremist" and "extremism" are often used thoughtlessly an epithets, "devilwords" to curse or condemn opponents and critics with! I find, however, that the extremist style is not the monopoly of any sector of the political spectrum. It is just as common on the "left" as it is on the "right," and sometimes it shows up in the political "center" as well! In analyzing the rhetoric and literature of several hundred "fringe" and militant "special interest" groups I have identified several specific traits that tend to represent the extremist style. I would like to caution you with the admonition, however, that we are all fallible and anyone, without bad intentions, may resort to some of these devices from time to time. But with bonafide extremists these lapses are not occasional and the following traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. The late Robert Kennedy, in The Pursuit Of Justice (1964), said; "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." 1. Character Assassination. Extremists often attack the character of an opponent or critic rather than deal with the facts and issues that he raises or debate the points of his arguments. They will question his motives, qualifications, past associations, values, personality, mental health and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration. 2. Name Calling And Labeling. Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hatemonger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, Un-American, Anti-Semite, Red, Commie, Nazi, Kook, etc.) to label and condemn an opponent in order to divert attention from his arguments and to discourage other from hearing him out. 3. Irresponsible Sweeping Generalizations. Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things are alike in some respects they must be alike in all or most respects! Analogy is a treacherous form of logic and its potential for distortion and false conclusions even when the premises are basically correct is enormous. 4. Inadequate Proof For Assertions. Extremists tend to be very fuzzy on what constitutes proof for their assertions. They also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their "before" and "after" relationship). They tend to project "wished for" conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information which confirms their prejudices and to derogate or ignore information which contradicts them. 5. Advocacy Of Double Standards. Extremists tend to judge themselves in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith but they demand proof for yours. They also tend to engage in "special pleading" on behalf of their group, because of some special status, past persecution or present disadvantage. 6. Extremists Tend To View Their Opponents And Critics As Essentially Evil. Their enemies hold opposing views because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, cruel, etc., and not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests of are perhaps even mistaken! [Continued in Part 2] ______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
