Just thinking: Extreme? Everything old is new again
A common misconception we all have (other than that we’re good drivers) is that we’re moderate. We all think we are. After all, we usually associate ourselves with similar minded folks and since those folks are all around us, we must be middle of the road.
I’ve seen this phenomenon quite a bit recently, mostly from the left. It seems that some folks who are pretty far to the left (in my book) refer to Bush as an extremist. In actuality, I’d say the people referring to Bush as the extremist are actually the extremists. I should point out that I don’t find Bush to be an extremist and I don’t think Kerry is an extremist. The two are actually more similar than different.
Now, it has the periodic crossover into mainstream (Lautenberg’s chickenhawk picture on Capitol Hill – note that referring to someone as a chickenhawk is an extremist labeling another person as an extremist in my book). And it seems to come more from the left (Bush is an abortion extremist, etc.) lately.
Why am I rambling about it? Because, it seems to me, the left is engaging in the same labeling strategy that the right engaged in starting in the 1980s and continuing more severely through the 1990s (you know, back when the L word was an insult). This heated up considerably during the Clinton presidency because the right was losing.
What is the purpose of this labeling? I suppose it energizes the base. However, it doesn’t seem to win over anyone who is on the fence. Case in point: Howard Dean. He really had the Democrats riled up for a while. Good coming out of the gate but no long haul potential.
The left is losing a lot of its hold on politics and their language shows it. It’s like the mid 1990s in reverse.
May 6th, 2004 at 1:28 pm
Except that in the mid 90’s, it worked for the GOP.
And Bush is by all means an extremist on several issues, most notably civil liberties, religious issues, and choice.
I recognize that I’m pretty far to the left, but that in no way invalidates my observation that Bush holds the Constitution in almost zero regard.
May 6th, 2004 at 1:37 pm
While I would agree it worked in the mid 1990s, it took a while to build up to it. I think that may be what we’ll see from the left soon.
No but it makes one pause when you label Bush an extremist.
May 6th, 2004 at 1:53 pm
The GOP strategy of twisting labels like liberal and feminist into crude caricatures worked too well. People on the left have let their public image be defined by their enemies, and now lots of people who hold feminist and liberal beliefs don’t self-identify as liberals and feminists. They also refuse to jon forces with those that do self identify as such.
By depicting the left as a bunch of extremists, the right has made them unpalatable to centrists, even on issues on which they agree with the left.
The tactic works, and if the left could do it without sounding so shrill, it would work for them.
May 6th, 2004 at 2:00 pm
Bush holds the Constitution in almost zero regard.
The only politicians I’m aware of on a national level who DO hold the Constitution in high regard are Ron Paul and maybe Zell Miller. There could be a few others who are more low profile, of course.
Most of the rest act like they maybe heard of the Constitution once or twice back in grade school, and can sing the Preamble song that they learned from watching Schoolhouse Rock.
May 6th, 2004 at 2:23 pm
Uncle:
No but it makes one pause when you label Bush an extremist.
As it should. Consider the source and all that.
Thib:
I’d add Russ Feingold to that list. He’s on a lot of shit lists because of McCain-Feingold, but he also has the distinction of being the ONLY Senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT act, and that scores big points with me.
May 6th, 2004 at 2:30 pm
SU
Umm, dude. Bush is advocating for the right to hold people without court review, access to lawyers, or charges for as long as he sees fit. If that’s not extremist, then you are so far to the right that you cannot see reality with a telescope.
Thib:
Zell has little regard for the Constitution. He is a staunch supporter of Bush, and his anti-Constitutional power grab outlined above. Also, his idiotic rhetoric about “following my commander in chief” does harm to the Constitution in two ways: It invests much more control over citizens in the Presidency than the Constitution does, and since he is a Senator, it diminishes the oversight role that the Constitution intends for Congress to play.
May 6th, 2004 at 2:36 pm
Uncle: I don’t see any equivalence between calling liberals “liberals” (which they are) and calling conservatives “extremists” (which they’re not). If the “L” word is an insult, it’s only because the word has come to embody the various and sundry agendas the “liberals” themselves have pushed on us over the years. If self-described conservatives had strayed so radically from mainstream American thought for so long in so many ways, the “C” word would be the insult, and they’d be ones pretending to be something else. But they didn’t
That’s why the Dems insist on the “extremist” mumbo jumbo. They know that if the terminology is neutral, they lose. Outside of a few large liberal cities, any issues-based campaign pitting a “liberal” against a “conservative” is a gimme for the conservative. For the liberal to win, he needs to revamp the rhetoric to push everyone involved to the right, with the liberal portrayed as “mainstream” or even “centrist,” and the conservative as the “extremist.” Whether he wins or loses the election then depends on how many voters he is able to con into believing his rhetoric.
Tgirsh: this line made Uncle’s point better than Uncle himself could have done:
Translation: Bush, like a sizeable majority of the population, supports the Patriot Act, which the liberal … um, I mean, “mainstream”… ACLU opposes. He also agrees with the overwhelming majority of his countrymen, who would rather leave the Pledge of Allegiance the way it is. And of course he disagrees with such mainstream organizations as NOW, NARAL and (Un-)Planned Parenthood, who think the word “choice” means abortion. [I’m assuming that your last reference was to abortion, and not to “choice” as such.]
May 6th, 2004 at 2:44 pm
Should point out that the “you” in “If that’s not extremist, then you are so far to the right that you cannot see reality with a telescope.”
is the generic you, not meant to refer specifically to SU.
May 6th, 2004 at 2:45 pm
Kevin, I will look into Miller’s record a little more closely; perhaps I should re-evaluate.
TG, I’m not sure I’m going to add Feingold just yet.
May 6th, 2004 at 2:46 pm
Xlrg:
That’s why the Dems insist on the “extremist” mumbo jumbo. They know that if the terminology is neutral, they lose. Outside of a few large liberal cities, any issues-based campaign pitting a “liberal” against a “conservative” is a gimme for the conservative.
Ahahahahahaha! That’s a good one.
Bush, like a sizeable majority of the population, supports the Patriot Act, which the liberal … um, I mean, “mainstream”… ACLU opposes. He also agrees with the overwhelming majority of his countrymen, who would rather leave the Pledge of Allegiance the way it is.
Um, nooo… most Americans who understand what the PATRIOT act actually does oppose large portions of it. And never mind the Pledge of Allegiance (where Bush would preserve a whopping 50 years of tradition), Bush would gladly do away with two centuries of church/state separation, even going so far as to fund religious groups.
As for the abortion issue, the majority of Americans want abortion kept legal, at least in some circumstances. Bush doesn’t.
So as much as you try to play bait-and-switch with the ACLU, I’m not buying it.
May 6th, 2004 at 2:56 pm
Kev:
You kinda proved my point. Bush isn’t advocating holding people. he’s advocating holding enemy combatants, which under the circumstances isn’t wholly unreasonable. I don’t necessarily agree with it but it’s not extremist.
Xrlq:
I tend to agree with your assessment about rhetoric and labeling, but tend to think it goes both ways (which I’m sure you do to). It seems the degree of rhetoric (which was my larger point) is playing into it. The L word was hot button for a while because of labels for it. Now, applying other labels to conservatives will yield the C Word.
Tom:
I don’t think funding religious charities necessarily denotes doing away with two centuries of church/state separation. In fact, i’d say the separation of them is a much more recent occurrence than two centuries.
May 6th, 2004 at 3:17 pm
Unc, back to your original point, I think it is working. I read some political operative type saying that it used to be the two main parties could count on roughly 40% support each, and they fought over the remaining 20%. Nowadays, they fight over somthing like 8%. The rest have moved to one of the two parties, giving each something like 45%. Polling data seems to support that.
Now, how that will shake out come November? We’ll see. I’m not so sure Bush will hit 53% popular, like I used to, but I think the electoral will be much more lopsided.
May 6th, 2004 at 4:23 pm
SU
“You kinda proved my point. Bush isn’t advocating holding people. he’s advocating holding enemy combatants, which under the circumstances isn’t wholly unreasonable. I don’t necessarily agree with it but it’s not extremist.”
And we know that they are enemy combatants how — becasue he tells us so. I am sorry, but I guess I was right — you specifically are so far to the right that you cannot see reality with a telescope. Locking people away with no evidence, with no trial, and with no contact with the outside world and on the say so of one person is nothing but extremism. It is a complete and total repudiation of not only our own Constitution but five hundred plus years of democratic political theory. It is the same tactic used by desposts the world over. To claim that is not extremists just shows how extreme you are.
May 6th, 2004 at 4:24 pm
Oh
And what makes Bush’s faith-based plans different is the direct funding. That has never been, to my knowledge, a line crossed by the federal government, or most state governments (cannot speak to the entire history of every state government) Again, in that sense, it is deeply radical and anti-conservative, if “conservative” is to mean anything other than “whatever the Republican Party is saying today”
May 6th, 2004 at 4:32 pm
First, find an instance where someone was locked away with no evidence.
That is secondary to the main point which is that locking up enemy combatants is not an extremist point of view. I would not call the majority of americans extremist and the majority seems to support the idea.
now, can it be abused? absolutely, and that is one reason i am opposed to it.
you specifically are so far to the right that you cannot see reality with a telescope.
And again, you prove my point. I’m no moderate on many issues for sure but i’m as left on as many issues as I am to the right.
May 6th, 2004 at 5:11 pm
If there is one thing more annoying than a liberal who pretends his views enjoy a broad range of public support, it’s a liberal who plays the “but the enlightened ones agree with me” card in its stead. Even if your claim were true, which I doubt, then the most it would show is that Bush’s views on the Patriot Act are likely to be wrong; it wouldn’t show that they were “extremist.”
As opposed to reviving the even more “whopping” 12 year tradition that preceded it?
Your reference to “two centuries of church/state separation” is pure historical revisionism. At the time the country was founded, some states had official religions, as well they could under the First Amendment as written. It wasn’t until a series of creative 20th Century interpretations of the 14th Amendment that the First Amendment was stretched far enough to prevent that. In fact, almost all meaningful church/state cases happened in the mid- to late 20th Century, and none prohibited government from giving funds to religious and non-religious organizations on a non-discriminatory basis. Nor is there any evidence that support for faith-based initiatives is particularly unpopular politically, as it would have to be for the term “extremist” to be warranted here.
As for the abortion issue, two can play that game. The majority of Americans also want abortion to be made illegal, at least in some circumstances where Kerry doesn’t. Among the majority that believe abortion is wrong is a very large minority, arguably a plurality, that shares Bush’s views on abortion in full. So much for the theory that Bush’s views on abortion are “extremist.”
May 6th, 2004 at 10:34 pm
SU:
I don’t think funding religious charities necessarily denotes doing away with two centuries of church/state separation.
The idea that nobody’s tax dollars should ever go to a religion which they doesn’t support is a cornerstone of church/state separation. And one that Bush would happily dispense with.
In fact, i’d say the separation of them is a much more recent occurrence than two centuries.
Which explains why Madison and Jefferson wrote about it frequently and at length. 😉
First, find an instance where someone was locked away with no evidence.
We can’t, because they won’t even let us see the evidence. They won’t even let ’em talk to a friggin’ lawyer. But hey, since we can’t prove the administration is wrong, it must be okay, right?
Xrlg:
If there is one thing more annoying than a liberal who pretends his views enjoy a broad range of public support, it’s a liberal who plays the “but the enlightened ones agree with me” card in its stead. Even if your claim were true, which I doubt, then the most it would show is that Bush’s views on the Patriot Act are likely to be wrong; it wouldn’t show that they were “extremist.”
Except for these silly things called facts which back up my point: Americans claim to be okay with the PATRIOT Act until they’re given specifics about how it works. In the one case that I found, sneak-a-peek warrants, 71% of those polled disapprove.
As far as playing the “enlightened ones” card, you’re the one who opened the door with the “evil ACLU” card. Libertarians detest the PATRIOT ACT and they’re far from friends of the ACLU. It’s not the “liberal fringe,” it’s the people who are paying attention, from all across the political spectrum, including conservative Republicans. But it’s all the evil ACLU’s fault.
All that said, one wonders what would qualify as “extremist” in your lexicon if indefinite suspension of key civil liberties does not qualify as such.
Your reference to “two centuries of church/state separation” is pure historical revisionism. At the time the country was founded, some states had official religions, as well they could under the First Amendment as written.
Here you are at least partially correct. As with civil rights, church/state separation has taken some time to be implemented. But it was in the 1870’s (read: late 19th century) that states began amending their constitutions to specifically prohibit tax dollars from funding religion, directly or indirectly, federal first amendment notwithstanding. Currently, most states have more stringent church-state provisions in their constitutions than the federal one allows for.
But none of this is what makes Bush’s plan “extremist” in my mind. What makes his plan extremist is that he would allow charities that receive federal tax dollars to discriminate on religious grounds. He wants the government to fund religious discrimination.
Nor is there any evidence that support for faith-based initiatives is particularly unpopular politically, as it would have to be for the term “extremist” to be warranted here.
At the risk of invoking Godwin’s law, Hitler was exceptionally popular. Was he not an extremist? (No, I’m not comparing Bush to Hitler — I’m only using Hilter as an example to show that something needn’t be unpopular to be extremist.)
While I’m thinking about it, another extremist Bush plan: amending the Constitution to prohibit homosexual marriage. Never mind how you feel about the issue of homosexual marriage, the fact remains that such an amendment would be only the second to restrict rights rather than guarantee or protect them. The first was prohibition, and we all know how well that worked.
And lest you paint me as blindly partisan, I oppose church/state mingling and constitutional meddling no matter what letter follows the proposer’s name.
May 6th, 2004 at 10:37 pm
Xrlg:
Oh, I forgot to address the abortion issue. On that issue, there are two extremes: universally legal abortion, and universally illegal abortion. Since Bush ultimately supports the latter, he supports an extremist view. As a supporter of the former, I also hold an extremist view, and I’m willing to admit it. The majority of America falls somewhere in the middle, in line with neither myself nor Mr. Bush, both of whom are extremists.
Unless, of course, you’re working with a completely different definition of “extremist” than I am.
May 7th, 2004 at 9:22 am
Tom, writing about it and doing it are different things. As XRLQ said, it’s a recent phenomenon.
You USA Today link merely tries to make your assertion that the more enlightented ones do and notes that most support the patriot act (which, btw, i don’t).
And as i said before (and you’re falling for it tom) if someone disagrees with me, they’re extreme.
And since you mentioned hitler, i can’t respond any more 🙂
May 7th, 2004 at 12:27 pm
Uncle:
You USA Today link merely tries to make your assertion that the more enlightented ones do and notes that most support the patriot act
Call it an “enlightened ones” argument if you want to, but do you dispute my assertion that most Americans have at best a poor understanding of what the PATRIOT ACT actually does? Assuming I’m correct on this, does that make the net effect of USA PATRIOT any less extreme?
And as i said before (and you’re falling for it tom) if someone disagrees with me, they’re extreme.
That’s overly simplistic. There are lots of issues (e.g., health care, affirmative action, the environment) where people who disagree with me aren’t “extreme.” Even on the most divisive issues such as abortion and gun control, most of the people who disagree with me aren’t what I would call extreme.
May 7th, 2004 at 2:29 pm
You didn’t actually read that article, did you? If you had, you might have noticed that a recurring theme: most of the caterwauling about “the Patriot Act,” whether it comes from the ACLU left or the looneytarian right, has precious little to do with the substance of the Patriot Act itself, and more to do with popular misconceptions about both it and the state of the law before it was enacted. The article presents the “sneak and peek” issue as an exception to that rule, but by and large, it’s not. Even if it were, any definition of “extremist” that included 29% of the U.S. population strikes me as a tad broad.
I’m not sure why you cite the Blaine Amendments as an example of enlightened non-extremism. Those amendments were motivated more by anti-Catholic bigotry than by any principled support for separation of church and state per se. Also, your use of the word “notwithstanding” in the phrase “federal first amendment notwithstanding” is anachronistic. By its terms, the First Amendment does not apply to the states, and notion that courts would invent a judicial fiction that the 14th extends it to them was not on anyone’s radar screen in the 1870s. At that point, there simply was nothing for the states to “notwithstand.”
I assume that was a typo, i.e., you meant to say most states have more stringent provisions than the federal constitution requires. Am I correct in this assumption, or are you suggesting that the Blaine Amednments are themselves unconstitutional as discrimintatory against religion (more of a “free exercise” problem)?
Oh, please. One minute you label Bush an “extremist” solely because he doesn’t share your absolutist interpretation of the Establishment Clause – which, BTW, is sooooo damned fundamental to democracy that few of the world’s democracies have even bothered to enact one at all. The next you compare that issue to mass genocide, which is universally condemned by democracy-loving folk around the world? Give me an effing break. Any political label that applies to both Bush and Hitler is worse than meaningless.
That said, I doubt that Hitler’s extremist methods were as popular as you indicate. Call me naive, but even at the German anti-Semitism, I don’t think the “Final Solution” would have survived a referendum.
Never confuse Hitler with Hilter. Hilter, you may recall, was the pacifist whose dog lacked a nose and smelled awful.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Neither the FMA nor the more watered down version that Bush supports would, if passed, restrict anyone’s “rights.” You can’t take away a “right” that was never there in the first place. Nor would your statement about past amendments be true, even if such an amendment did strip anyone of their rights. Examples:
Argue all you want against the wisdom of the FMA, or even the watered down equivalent that Bush supports. That’s fine. But pretending that anyone who advocates such views is “extremist” is not – unless you defining the term “extremist” to include everyone whose political views differ significantly from your own.
As to abortion, I suppose you could define the term “extremist” to include anyone who either supports abortion on demand or opposes abortion altogether. I don’t; there are simply too many decent, normal, law-abiding folk at both ends of the abortion spectrum to justify such politically charged terminology. Better to restrict the “e” word to those who advocate extreme means toward that end. I suppose that the pro-abortion extreme may justify the label, since it advocates the killing of what is essentially a healthy baby. But the anti-abortion extreme doesn’t, unless it accompanied by support for extreme measures, such as blowing up abortion clinics, murdering their staff, etc.
Last and least, the final letter of my handle is Q, not G.
May 7th, 2004 at 5:07 pm
Xlrq:
Fair enough. Uncle’s underline munges the ‘q’.
Your assumption was correct, I did indeed mean “requires” rather than “allows for.”
As to the rest, it’s clear that you have quite different working definition of what “extreme” is. I would be curious to know what you think would qualify as “extremist.” It seems to me that if something doesn’t involve violence, it doesn’t qualify as “extreme” in your lexicon.
Re: the Amendments, point taken, I was too inspecific, although I think you play a bit hard and fast with the difinition of what a “right” is (particularly with amendment #16). But that’s not even necessary for my point, so I don’t mind conceding it. I argue that amending the constitution for any reason constitutes an extreme measure. Clearly, you disagree.
As for USA PATRIOT, I’ll assume that you’re not actually defending it, but rather saying that it doesn’t meet your definition of “extreme.” To me, eroding key civil liberties and eliminating key checks and balances combine to make an extreme measure. And PATRIOT does exactly that, taking away meaningful judicial oversight (judges do not have the authority to reject section 215 warrant requests).
Also, whether or not you need to be informed that you’ve been surveilled depends on the section under which they surveilled you. In most cases, they don’t need to tell you that they conducted the search unless they decide to prosecute you. If they don’t prosecute you, they don’t have to tell you.
Lastly, I could be wrong, but I’m not aware that the USA PATRIOT act has been responsible for the arrest of even one terrorist.
Oh, please. One minute you label Bush an “extremist” solely because he doesn’t share your absolutist interpretation of the Establishment Clause – which, BTW, is sooooo damned fundamental to democracy that few of the world’s democracies have even bothered to enact one at all.
Could say the all same things about the second amendment, but I digress. And it’s not solely because he doesn’t share my interpretation. It’s because he scoffs at decades of judicial interpretation. I’m just a two-bit shmuck, so what I think counts for bupkis. But judicial precedent generally frowns upon the idea of forcing Catholics to fund organizations which refuse to hire Catholics, and that’s where Bush’s proposal crosses the line.
unless you defining the term “extremist” to include everyone whose political views differ significantly from your own.
I have already stated that I do not define it this way.
May 7th, 2004 at 8:53 pm
Not quite right, but not too far off, either. Calling someone names like “extremist” tends to chill rational debate, so I don’t believe in dropping “e-bombs” gratuitously, at least as to issues on which reasonable people may disagree. Anyone who advocates criminal (though not necessarily violent) activity to support a political agenda counts as an extremist in my book, regardless of how radical, moderate, or downright boring the underlying political goals may be. On the other hand, someone who asks his duly elected Congressman to abolish speed limits, income tax, etc., is not an extremist, even though his political goals may be rather radical.
This is not to say that I don’t think anyone who doesn’t resort to, or advocate, criminal activity can ever be an extremist. A few ideas are so far out there that the term may be warranted even for those who adhere to the constitutional process. Anyone who wants to re-institute slavery, end religious freedom, abolish elections, etc. would qualify as an “extremist” in my book no matter how true he remained to the proper constitutional process. But to qualify as “extremist,” it has to be extreme. Not caring about the establishment clause – let alone your overly restrictive interpretation of the same – simply doesn’t cut it. Neither does amending the Constitution; that’s allowed, and has been done for much more mundane reasons than preserving the traditional definition of “marriage.” [For the record, I oppose FMA.]
As I mentioned before, the “sneak and peek” provisions are relatively technical – except when compared with popular misconceptions about how the law was before PATRIOT was enacted. Ditto for the government not having to tell you you’ve been surveilled. I don’t doubt that PATRIOT has expanded their powers to do so under certain circumstances, but again, the difference seems pretty technical. Then again, maybe I’m a bit jaded. Working in an ultra-regulated industry that Big Brother has been watching for years can do that to you.
I don’t know how many terrorists have been arrested since the Patriot Act was enacted, or of those, how many of the arrests might not have happened but for the Patriot Act. I am pretty sure, however, that tearing down Gorelick’s wall a few years earlier would have gotten at least some of the 9-11 terrorists arrested earlier, and may have foiled the plot altogether.
Could and, IMO, should. I’m a big fan of the Second Amendment myself, but I don’t call Second Amendment opponents “extremists,” unless they resort to extreme measures to accomplish their goals. As to the goals themselves, I am satisfied to refer to them simply as “wrong.”
OK, perhaps I should rephrase that:
Do you have any specific cases in mind, which you believe Bush’s faith based initiative would violate? And if so, are the rulings so self-evident that no reasonable President could disagree with them? Surely mere disagreement with a(-n) (alleged) court ruling does not qualify someone for status as an “extremist?”
May 8th, 2004 at 11:26 pm
Xrlq:
OK, I can live with your refined definition of “extremist,” and in light of the connotation of the term, I don’t mind picking a different term. I just can’t think of one. “Way the hell away from moderate” springs to mind. 😉
As for taxpayer-funded religious descrimination, I must admit that I don’t have a specific case handy. Could be that I’m wrong, and that this has been okay all along, bu then why all the hubbub? The only specific case I’m aware of is under appeal at the moment:
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5614&abbr=cs_&security=1001&news_iv_ctrl=1046
It’s the last entry, concerning Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children. Although, in this case, the case is somewhat less cut-and-dry because the plaintiff is a lesbian, and homosexuals are not currently a protected class.