I think that James Wallner is wrong in his central claim at Liberty and Law:
Properly understood, politics represents the space in which our lives unfold in community with others. And republican politics requires the existence of a shared space in which the political activity of citizens can occur. In Athens, it was denoted by the polis. In Rome, it was the res publica. And in America, the institutional venues established by the Constitution create the space where politics takes place.
We need a shared space in which to make decisions affecting society because human beings are all equal. They are all equal only in the sense that they are all different. That is, no two people can be considered the same in any respect other than the fact that they are each unique individuals possessing their own abilities, characteristics, interests, hopes and fears. And because people with different views participate in politics on the basis of equality, political activity inevitably generates conflict in the space where politics occurs. Put simply, political conflict is an essential and legitimate element in the process by which people come together on the basis of equality to resolve their differences and compromise.
Needless to say, this is not how we think about politics today. We instead hold politics in contempt. That is why we almost always look outside of the political realm for solutions to political problems. Implicit in this approach is the assumption that imposing objective truths on citizens is the only way to end political dysfunction.
We don’t hold politics in contempt. Most of us aren’t interested enough in politics to do so. We hold politicians in contempt and can you blame us? It’s a grand old American tradition, as old as the republic. Listen to any American politician these days. Do you find a lot there to respect other than the office they hold?
It’s a bit tangential, but I think this is related:
https://quillette.com/2018/07/02/political-moderates-are-lying/
The thesis:
Vincent Harinam makes a lot of sense in this article, but he never addressed why the two political camps seem to have a numerical equilibrium nationally, which I’ve always thought curious.
That’s a good point Gray.
Too many assumptions here. Who defines what constitutes extremist ideology, and who defines the middle? It goes without saying those who define themselves as moderates, most prominently the D.C. consensus types, are at least as inflexible as those they call ideologues. Tariq Ali coined the phrase “extreme centrism” as a way to show the supposed middle is nothing of the sort.
I question whether anything that can be called moderate has ever existed in American politics. More likely a large proportion of the country is and always has been outright apathetic.
But not apathetic about social acceptance and inclusion, which is the point. Apathetic is a better name for moderate, but the theory still looks good.