The benefits of extremism

[Augustus]

This was a part of a British party political election advert in 1987 (for the centrist SDP-Liberal Alliance), and was shared by John Cleese on Twitter.

How accurately do you believe this describes the current political climate?

 

[Sunstone]

I think it's a remarkably accurate description up to a point. However, I also think that today's politics (in America at least) have gone beyond the British politics of Cleese's 1987 ad.

So there are now ways in which his points have been rendered irrelevant by events. While watching his ad I felt that if someone tried to make the exact same points today, I would wonder where they had been these past 12 years, and especially these past three and a half. Is there a cave so deep that the news we have a genuine extremist in the White House cannot reach all of its chambers?

History teaches there are times when opposing extremism with moderation plays into the hands of the extremists. For instance, I recall Martin Luther King, jr. had some pretty hard words for those white liberals who would tell blacks to go slow, work within the system, and be patient.

Now, having said all of that, I would add that hatred gets you nowhere you really want to go. You can oppose someone, some group, or some movement without hating them, and you should.

 

[Stevicus]

This was a part of a British party political election advert in 1987 (for the centrist SDP-Liberal Alliance), and was shared by John Cleese on Twitter.

How accurately do you believe this describes the current political climate?

One thing that should be mentioned is that extremists don't pop up out of the blue for no reason. That's the part that's always missing from any criticism of extremism. Their view of extremism always involves the "after" picture, but they never want to talk about what was going on "before" the extremists started to become noticed.

 

[exchemist]

One thing that should be mentioned is that extremists don't pop up out of the blue for no reason. That's the part that's always missing from any criticism of extremism. Their view of extremism always involves the "after" picture, but they never want to talk about what was going on "before" the extremists started to become noticed.

A very good point.

I think in the present climate the causes must be partly the development of partisan TV channels, pioneered by Rupert Murdoch, which turn politics into a form of entertainment. Then of course there is the by now notorious echo chamber effect of the internet, which has allowed people to go through life only choosing news stories and discussion with people with the same worldview and sets of prejudices as themselves. The internet has one other damaging effect, namely the shortening of attention spans, which tends to reduce political discussion to childishness. The effect has been to exacerbate perceived differences between groups of people, facile demonisation of groups outside the one in question and the collapse of any sense of solidarity or common purpose across society.

However, as always, there are ills in society that create the dissatisfaction that extremism then exploits: the effect of global competition on traditional industry, the effect of IT in dehumanising and impoverishing retail workers, and so on.

Abysmal leaders like Trump are the natural end product of this divisive, infotainment, soundbite political culture.

 

[sun rise]

I absolutely *LOVED* that video. Of course, the list of enemies is different today, but the point about extremism, actually fanaticism is spot on - it fills an emotional need to have enemies to hate.

History teaches there are times when opposing extremism with moderation

People can act strongly to oppose injustice without becoming a hater. Witness this Martin Luther King quote: “We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies.”

And there are times when being a moderate is a cover for not being willing to change as this classic (to me) song illustrates:

I cheered when humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
Of the a.f.l. c.i.o. board
I love puerto ricans and negros
As long as they don't move next door
So love me,…

 

[Nakosis]

This was a part of a British party political election advert in 1987 (for the centrist SDP-Liberal Alliance), and was shared by John Cleese on Twitter.

How accurately do you believe this describes the current political climate?

Humor allows us to examine what offends us in less threatening ways.

 

[Secret Chief]

A very good point.

I think in the present climate the causes must be partly the development of partisan TV channels, pioneered by Rupert Murdoch, which turn politics into a form of entertainment. Then of course there is the by now notorious echo chamber effect of the internet, which has allowed people to go through life only choosing news stories and discussion with people with the same worldview and sets of prejudices as themselves. The internet has one other damaging effect, namely the shortening of attention spans, which tends to reduce political discussion to childishness. The effect has been to exacerbate perceived differences between groups of people, facile demonisation of groups outside the one in question and the collapse of any sense of solidarity or common purpose across society.

However, as always, there are ills in society that create the dissatisfaction that extremism then exploits: the effect of global competition on traditional industry, the effect of IT in dehumanising and impoverishing retail workers, and so on.

Abysmal leaders like Trump are the natural end product of this divisive, infotainment, soundbite political culture.

tl;dr