The Cost of Radicalism

Let me get at the point I’ve been trying to make in some of my foregoing posts recently and have touched upon occasionally over the last several years. What I think we’re seeing is the cost of radicalism in our politics. Part of the process of becoming radicalized is one of “consciousness raising”. When you consciousness has been raised with respect to a particular factor you tend to view every event, every issue through the prism of that factor.

African Americans who have been radicalized with respect to race see race as the overt or hidden cause behind everything. Blacks inability to get ahead is because of race. Opposition to the president is solely because of his race. Whatever it is is because of race.

Politicians in Africa and the Middle East who have been radicalized with respect to colonialism see colonialism behind every action of any other country. Israel is a colonial power. The U. S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are American colonialism as is its bombing in Libya. Any country that sides with the U. S. on any issue for any reason whatever is an American puppet.

And people who have been radicalized with respect to government size or actions similarly see the hand of an overwhelming state in everything.

The remedy for radicalism is not an opposing radicalism. That is driving us to the brink of collapse or civil war. The solution is moderation in policy and style. We need to dial everything back to about a 3.

15 comments… add one
  • michael reynolds Link

    Dialing back to a 3 is exactly what the White House is trying to do and has done. It does not seem to have cured the radicalization problem.

    I don’t think moderation works very well. It only takes one to tango in the political world, and the power often goes to the loudest and the craziest. I hope Obama succeeds at his soft-voiced, open-handed approach, but I’m not seeing it work yet.

  • If that’s what he’s doing clearly it is not working. It has been done in combination with confrontational statements and actions (“elections have consequences”, “don’t let a good crisis go to waste”, failure to meet with Congressional Republicans for months after election, ridiculing the Supreme Court during the SOTU, etc.) that convey at best a mixed message.

    I think the president needs to try harder to convince his opponents. What’s the alternative?

    Persuasion is hard. It’s harder than power politics.

  • Michael,

    What’s the alternative?

  • I think that if it came to a revolution, you and I would probably be among the first put up against the wall, Michael. Regardless of who wins.

  • michael reynolds Link

    You can’t persuade mental patients.

    Those quotes you cite are nonsense. I can go through any president’s speeches and pull a thousand more confrontational quotes.

    This is not one of those “on the one hand. . . on the other hand . . .” The White House is willing to make very serious cuts. The House Republicans are willing only to destroy the economy. There are extremists, but only on one side.

    And the winning move here is not to waste still more time trying to convince people who believe default would be kinda cool, but to go to the American people and turn on the blast furnace. So far Obama has resisted. I’m not sure he has that in him, to be honest.

    But if Bill Clinton were president today the GOP would be in very deep trouble for this hostage-taking of theirs.

  • You’re missing the point about radicalism. Radicals see only the bad, never the good. Do you really think that louder, more stident counter-shouting will win the day?

  • michael reynolds Link

    Dave:

    Well, sure, just on general principles you’d be shot. Then I’d get shot for being unable to keep my mouth shut.

  • 😉 You understand my point precisely.

  • Sam Link

    but their radicals are worse than our radicals!

  • Michael,

    Sure, I have no problem with the President going to the American people over this issue. Indeed, that’s what he’s done recently with a host of press conferences. But methods matter. If his appeal looks like partisan demagoguery then what will that accomplish?

    The fundamental question is how does one build political legitimacy to support a particular policy. The blast furnace approach isn’t likely to work on those who can be convinced.

  • steve Link

    We have whole industries devoted to keeping people angry. Trivial statements become the faux outrage of the day. Things are not going to get better as long as cable TV and talk radio hold sway.

    Steve

  • michael reynolds Link

    Andy:

    Not everyone can be convinced. Can you convince a fundamentalist to consider agnosticism? Obama has tried the convincing. He’s made the case. He’s sat down endlessly with these people.

    These are the people who decided that Romney Care was the end of the world when relabeled Obama Care. They’re the people who think tax cuts equal jobs despite the utter lack of proof. They’re people who can’t accept their very own deficit-reduction proposals once Democrats agree. They’re the people who think everything was lovely until January of 2009 and suddenly went to hell when Obama was elected.

    They are mentally unbalanced. They are delusional.

  • john personna Link

    Don’t stop your consciousness raising with 1 subject, is all. After 10 or 12, you can probably see the competing truths.

  • Michael,

    Not everyone can be convinced. Can you convince a fundamentalist to consider agnosticism?

    Of course not, never suggested that everyone could. Simplistically, you can break people into three groups – people who are completely convinced (ie. tribal partisans on your side), people who cannot be convinced (ie. tribal partisans on the other side), and everyone else. Since I usually count myself in the “everyone else” category and for me partisan demagoguery isn’t very convincing. There’s a reason that party identification is at an all time low.

    Of course, going after those undecideds isn’t easy. It takes a lot of time and effort but if one wants to create lasting political consensus, then that’s the only way.

  • I’m not sure “radicalism” is the right word for seeing the world through a one-color prism, understanding it through one idea and one alone. What’s the word, monomaniacalism?

Leave a Comment