From Since You Asked, because Joe Klein had said that “the real enemies of the state are ... ideological extremists” in a way that seemed to imply that Duncan Black (also known as Atrios) is one of them. This seemed odd to many people who actually read Eschaton, because he is, essentially, a fiercely partisan center-left Democrat. Well, his partisan nature is more anti-Republican than pro-Democrat, but that’s everybody these days, isn’t it?
Anyway, I was interested in the list, because after all, Your Humble Blogger considers himself pretty far left. I mean, I support the nationalization of vital industries, including but not limited to passenger air travel, telephone communications and health care. I think that capitalism is fine in its place, but as far as YHB is concerned, its place would be a lot smaller than it is here. Now, I understand that in a lot of the world, such economic wishy-washiness would disqualify me from anything left of the center, but still, in the US, it seems to me like the word extreme would not be out of place in describing my ideology. And yet, of course, I don’t think I am an enemy of the state (although if we disagree about what is meant by state, we may well disagree about that).
It turns out, though, that when he imagines ideological extremists Mr. Klein does not have in mind people whose ideology is very far from the center. Of course, center here is also difficult to define. You might think that the center is the midpoint between the policy platforms of the two parties. On the other hand, the public (even the voting public) largely supports my Party’s platform (as policy measures, not as a party platform) and largely eschews the other Party’s platform (again, taken as policy measures). You could also say, with a great deal of truth, that one Party believes that it is appropriate for the might of the Federal government to be put a trifle more actively into helping individuals in need against those people and institutions who control resources, and that the other party feels that the Federal government should be a trifle less active in that regard. In that case, the center might be that the Federal government should stay exactly as active as it is now, only of course since it isn’t always exactly as active as it was a minute ago, that would make the center’s ideal level of activity somewhat nonsensical. Not necessarily false, but still.
Anyway, as with many things, there are blurry edges, but there are lots of things that aren’t near the blurry edges, and I think my economic philosophy is nowhere near the blurry edge of the center, vaddevah dat means. Does that make it extreme? Well, it makes me extremely liberal (again, vaddevah dat means), but it doesn’t make me a liberal extremist. Because that’s not exactly what extremist means. Extremism, as I understand it, connotes hostility and intolerance toward the other side. Yes, I’m a long way from the center, but I view the existence of people on the other side of the center with equanimity. We’re all in it together, this democracy stuff, and I take for granted that most of them on that side are no more enemies of the state (yep) than I am.
So when Mr. Klein says that a left-wing extremist “believes the United States is a fundamentally negative force in the world”, that has nothing to do with any prescriptions for change, left or right. It’s the hostility that he sees connected with extremism, not any particular philosophy. Similarly, his left-wing extremist “believes that corporations are fundamentally evil”, “is intolerant of good ideas when they come from conservative sources”, and “regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives”. It’s perfectly plausible to me that somebody could be ever-so-slightly left of center, in Bill Clinton territory, really, and still be described as an extremist. If, for instance, his solution to the evil corporations is to put the motherfucking CEOs in a sack and deregulate them with a bit of lead pipe, that’s extreme all right, but not very leftist. It doesn’t address the resource issue at all, right?
But there’s something else going on here, which Mr. Klein, I think, misses, and which I don’t know if Left Blogovia has done a good job of clarifying. Let’s take the case of Your Humble Blogger. Gentle Readers will have predicted that just as I am patting myself on the proverbial for view[ing] the existence of people on the other side of the center with equanimity, I am gearing up to mention that the reason Our Only President, his secretive cabal of incompetents and crooks, and his toad-eating Republican legislators are so unpopular is because of all their failures. Is that extremism? No, I don’t think so. Why not? Because the failures are real, because the incompetence and criminality is real, and because I believe that they have betrayed the people on the right of center.
I understand that extremism (as I understand Mr. Klein to understand it) is dangerous. But if it’s always wrong to call your political opponents knaves and fools, then what do you do when your political opponents are knaves and fools? Or assholes and wankers? If our political discourse was poisoned (by, let’s say, one Party impeaching the other Party’s president on transparently political grounds, and then abandoning all the norms of legislative practice, and then sending troops to die under false pretences while calling their political opposition treasonous), is the solution to allow fools and knaves to go unnamed?
I fear extremism. I don’t want a revolution, televised or not. It pains me—seriously, it pains me—to write that Our Only President has surrounded himself with knaves and fools. I don’t expect to be governed by angels, you know, or even by honest men. The point of democracy—the choosing, not the chosen, remember?—is not to find the incorruptibles and give them the power. It’s to find the corrupted and remove them. And if, when we see the corruption, we curse a bit, well, you’ll have to forgive us. We also swear when we stub our toes. Because it hurts.
Tolerabimus quod tolerare debemus,
-Vardibidian.