Thanks for the reply!You write: 'I think the…
Thanks for the reply!
You write: 'I think the issue right now is that the only folks being extremist in politics right now are those who are "extremist for hate."'
By "politics" do you mean people in or angling for elected office? (As opposed to, e.g., political activists like you & me, who do politics but don't hold elected office?) If so, I agree with you. But I think that's a problem with the "moderate" liberal politicians: the unwillingness to go to extremes for the causes they claim to believe in. I think the political problems they are having right now just are due to people's disillusionment with their unprincipled "moderation" (i.e., uncritical acceptance of the post-Bush status quo) on the war, state secrets and executive power, immigration reform, corporate bail-outs, etc. People were promised positive "change," and have seen less than none of it, so not surprisingly a lot of people aren't as willing to turn out for the folks who made all those promises back in 2006 and 2008.
You write: "I'm a firm believer that radical and liberal change has to occur simultaneously."
Maybe so, but I don't see how this can happen when the moderates are laying the blame on "extremism" just as such, while ignoring or obscuring the question of what different "extremists" may be "extreme" about. I mean, when some incredibly privileged Democratic office-holder telling me that the problem with politics today is all the "extremism," rather than, say, the massive rhetorical and literal violence against marginalized people (which they are so willing to compromise with, in the interests of political comity), well, it's hard for me not to hear them saying that the enemy is me, that the views of "moderate" conservative creeps (say, a David Brooks or the like) are O.K. but mine aren't. And when they tell me that politics needs to be more "civil" it's hard for me not to hear them telling me quiet down about issues that I'm "uncivil" about because they are really matters of life and death for my friends -- all so that these same incredibly privileged politicians can keep their seats and roll a few more logs with the Republican caucus. But if that really is what they're after, it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that it's worth our time to promote. Certainly, if moderates want to scapegoat "extremism" per se, then they are going out of their way to demonize a necessary component of any serious movement for social change, and speaking as a proud Left-wing extremist, I don't know what to do but push back on that.
Does that make sense?
You write: 'I think the issue right now is that the only folks being extremist in politics right now are those who are "extremist for hate."'
By "politics" do you mean people in or angling for elected office? (As opposed to, e.g., political activists like you & me, who do politics but don't hold elected office?) If so, I agree with you. But I think that's a problem with the "moderate" liberal politicians: the unwillingness to go to extremes for the causes they claim to believe in. I think the political problems they are having right now just are due to people's disillusionment with their unprincipled "moderation" (i.e., uncritical acceptance of the post-Bush status quo) on the war, state secrets and executive power, immigration reform, corporate bail-outs, etc. People were promised positive "change," and have seen less than none of it, so not surprisingly a lot of people aren't as willing to turn out for the folks who made all those promises back in 2006 and 2008.
You write: "I'm a firm believer that radical and liberal change has to occur simultaneously."
Maybe so, but I don't see how this can happen when the moderates are laying the blame on "extremism" just as such, while ignoring or obscuring the question of what different "extremists" may be "extreme" about. I mean, when some incredibly privileged Democratic office-holder telling me that the problem with politics today is all the "extremism," rather than, say, the massive rhetorical and literal violence against marginalized people (which they are so willing to compromise with, in the interests of political comity), well, it's hard for me not to hear them saying that the enemy is me, that the views of "moderate" conservative creeps (say, a David Brooks or the like) are O.K. but mine aren't. And when they tell me that politics needs to be more "civil" it's hard for me not to hear them telling me quiet down about issues that I'm "uncivil" about because they are really matters of life and death for my friends -- all so that these same incredibly privileged politicians can keep their seats and roll a few more logs with the Republican caucus. But if that really is what they're after, it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that it's worth our time to promote. Certainly, if moderates want to scapegoat "extremism" per se, then they are going out of their way to demonize a necessary component of any serious movement for social change, and speaking as a proud Left-wing extremist, I don't know what to do but push back on that.
Does that make sense?