When is it less accurate to call someone a 'conservative' than to call them a 'radical extremist'?

[Sunstone]

When is it less accurate to call someone a 'conservative' than to call them a 'radical extremist'?

I would suggest the test is -- not in comparison to a nation's contemporary politics -- but in comparison to its long established traditions, institutions, political culture, and formal or informal constitution.

For instance, I think an apparently growing number of self-identifying American "conservatives" nowadays reject (often without knowing it) American political traditions, institutions, etc that are anywhere from several decades to over 200 years old. I would no longer call them 'conservatives'. I would at the very least call them radicals or extremists, for they are promoting or encouraging radical changes to those traditions, institutions, and such.​

Yet, if one looks at them only in terms of recent political trends, one might not think of them as radicals at all. So at least a lot of what one calls an 'extremist' depends on the time frame one is looking at.​

Much the same could be said for some allegedly 'liberal' or 'progressive' groups. Is it really liberal or progressive to, say, advocate criminalizing hate speech on philosophical grounds that were only relatively recently advanced for the first time by Joel Feinberg, and which are repudiations of the traditional grounds for allowing hate speech as advanced by John Stuart Mill in the mid-1800s? Personally, I would consider such people 'radical extremists', but not 'liberals' or 'progressives'.​

But what's your take on it?

Let the pettifoggery begin!

 

[Cooky]

When is it less accurate to call someone a 'conservative' than to call them a 'radical extremist'?

I would suggest the test is -- not in comparison to a nation's contemporary politics -- but in comparison to its long established traditions, institutions, political culture, and formal or informal constitution.

For instance, I think an apparently growing number of self-identifying American "conservatives" nowadays reject (often without knowing it) American political traditions, institutions, etc that are anywhere from several decades to over 200 years old. I would no longer call them 'conservatives'. I would at the very least call them radicals or extremists, for they are promoting or encouraging radical changes to those traditions, institutions, and such.​

Yet, if one looks at them only in terms of recent political trends, one might not think of them as radicals at all. So at least a lot of what one calls an 'extremist' depends on the time frame one is looking at.​

Much the same could be said for some allegedly 'liberal' or 'progressive' groups. Is it really liberal or progressive to, say, advocate criminalizing hate speech on philosophical grounds that were only relatively recently advanced for the first time by Joel Feinberg, and which are repudiations of the traditional grounds for allowing hate speech as advanced by John Stuart Mill in the mid-1800s? Personally, I would consider such people 'radical extremists', but not 'liberals' or 'progressives'.​

But what's your take on it?

Let the pettifoggery begin!

My understanding is that the opposite of Conservative is a Progressive. An "Extremist" is someone who goes to the extreme, as opposed to a "moderate".

...So, It's never really accurate to call a Conservative an extremist, unless he's unwilling to change anything.. IOW, he or she is totally against all change.

 

[crossfire]

Extremist is a loose term. Use a more accurately descriptive term, such as reactionary, fascist, or whatever else is an accurate descriptor.

 

[Sunstone]

I love it when people pettifog. It seems to have become part of the RF 'Culture of Excellence'.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Back when I was younger, the extremist conservatives were known as "Reactionary."

The term radical was reserved for the extremists on the liberal side.

 

[Sunstone]

Back when I was younger, the extremist conservatives were known as "Reactionary."

The term radical was reserved for the extremists on the liberal side.

I recall that was the usual practice, but not the only practice. 'Radical' was at times used to denote any thorough departure from the traditions of right or left.

Then again, would 'reactionary' really fit today's radical right-wingers? The majority of them, I mean? I'm not sure how much they are reacting to the left these days as they are promoting their own agendas. Example: Is the Dominionist Movement a reaction? Or is it more of an expression of Christian utopianism?

Interesting thoughts, BHBFA. Thank you.

 

[crossfire]

I love it when people pettifog. It seems to have become part of the RF 'Culture of Excellence'.

Ask, and ye shall receive!
[pettifoggery] LOL, you were the one asking about accuracy in the OP. [/pettifoggery]

 

[Scott C.]

When is it less accurate to call someone a 'conservative' than to call them a 'radical extremist'?

From my religious point of view, extremism is a large deviation from standards set by God. From this point of view, right and wrong are not relative nor affected by what the majority or minority believe. But from a purely political point of view, I think I agree with you that extremism is deviation from long established norms. But what starts as extremism becomes mainstream as time passes, and as more and more people adopt the new ideas. When slavery was practiced in the USA, that was extremely racist and extremely wrong from an immovable, non-relative moral reality. Yet it was not perceived as an extremist position, given the culture of the day and the view of the masses. I believe in my lifetime the USA has moved further to the left than to the right. So, it's easier for me to identify that which used to be considered "extreme left" ideas, which are now considered mainstream ideas. How many issues could we list where a well accepted idea today was considered radical left 50 years ago? On the other hand, how many can we list that are well accepted today which were considered radical right 50 years ago? Is this movement to the left good or bad? It depends on the issue.

 

[epronovost]

I love it when people pettifog. It seems to have become part of the RF 'Culture of Excellence'.

Have you ever thought that people ''pettifog'' about the subject ou want to discuss because you are often very poorly educated about those subject and the vocabulary to use? If everyone is the problem, maybe you are the problem.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I recall that was the usual practice, but not the only practice. 'Radical' was at times used to denote any thorough departure from the traditions of right or left.

Then again, would 'reactionary' really fit today's radical right-wingers? The majority of them, I mean? I'm not sure how much they are reacting to the left these days as they are promoting their own agendas. Example: Is the Dominionist Movement a reaction? Or is it more of an expression of Christian utopianism?

Interesting thoughts, BHBFA. Thank you.

that's the question about trying to fit broad swaths of the population under a limited number of classifications...even the best definition will have exceptions...

I observe, though, that a good many of Trump's supporters seem to be in favor of abolishing all this newfangled "democracy" and 'rule of law' stuff and reinstating...or rather, instating...a new God-ordained monarchy

 

[crossfire]

that's the question about trying to fit broad swaths of the population under a limited number of classifications...even the best definition will have exceptions...

I observe, though, that a good many of Trump's supporters seem to be in favor of abolishing all this newfangled "democracy" and 'rule of law' stuff and reinstating...or rather, instating...a new God-ordained monarchy

Call each group what is fitting for each group. (Divide and conquer!)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then again, would 'reactionary' really fit today's radical right-wingers? The majority of them, I mean? I'm not sure how much they are reacting to the left these days as they are promoting their own agendas. Example: Is the Dominionist Movement a reaction? Or is it more of an expression of Christian utopianism?

Yes: the Dominionist movement is a reaction to secularism, IMO.

 

[Sunstone]

Yes: the Dominionist movement is a reaction to secularism, IMO.

Interesting! What do you base your opinion on?

 

[Left Coast]

When is it less accurate to call someone a 'conservative' than to call them a 'radical extremist'?

I would suggest the test is -- not in comparison to a nation's contemporary politics -- but in comparison to its long established traditions, institutions, political culture, and formal or informal constitution.

For instance, I think an apparently growing number of self-identifying American "conservatives" nowadays reject (often without knowing it) American political traditions, institutions, etc that are anywhere from several decades to over 200 years old. I would no longer call them 'conservatives'. I would at the very least call them radicals or extremists, for they are promoting or encouraging radical changes to those traditions, institutions, and such.​

Yet, if one looks at them only in terms of recent political trends, one might not think of them as radicals at all. So at least a lot of what one calls an 'extremist' depends on the time frame one is looking at.​

Much the same could be said for some allegedly 'liberal' or 'progressive' groups. Is it really liberal or progressive to, say, advocate criminalizing hate speech on philosophical grounds that were only relatively recently advanced for the first time by Joel Feinberg, and which are repudiations of the traditional grounds for allowing hate speech as advanced by John Stuart Mill in the mid-1800s? Personally, I would consider such people 'radical extremists', but not 'liberals' or 'progressives'.​

But what's your take on it?

Let the pettifoggery begin!

Interesting thread!

What radical changes to American tradition do you see conservatives advocating? Maybe some examples would help clarify how to label them/their behavior.

 

[Ratt Blastard]

Interesting thread!

What radical changes to American tradition do you see conservatives advocating? Maybe some examples would help clarify how to label them/their behavior.

Well, all that rhetoric about overthrowing the government and sedition seems advocating radical change.

 

[Ratt Blastard]

When is it less accurate to call someone a 'conservative' than to call them a 'radical extremist'?

I would suggest the test is -- not in comparison to a nation's contemporary politics -- but in comparison to its long established traditions, institutions, political culture, and formal or informal constitution.

For instance, I think an apparently growing number of self-identifying American "conservatives" nowadays reject (often without knowing it) American political traditions, institutions, etc that are anywhere from several decades to over 200 years old. I would no longer call them 'conservatives'. I would at the very least call them radicals or extremists, for they are promoting or encouraging radical changes to those traditions, institutions, and such.​

Yet, if one looks at them only in terms of recent political trends, one might not think of them as radicals at all. So at least a lot of what one calls an 'extremist' depends on the time frame one is looking at.​

Much the same could be said for some allegedly 'liberal' or 'progressive' groups. Is it really liberal or progressive to, say, advocate criminalizing hate speech on philosophical grounds that were only relatively recently advanced for the first time by Joel Feinberg, and which are repudiations of the traditional grounds for allowing hate speech as advanced by John Stuart Mill in the mid-1800s? Personally, I would consider such people 'radical extremists', but not 'liberals' or 'progressives'.​

But what's your take on it?

Let the pettifoggery begin!

We have people being tortured in Gitmo for speaking the same sort of crap that Republicans are preaching. When can we start calling them terrorists?

 

[Left Coast]

Well, all that rhetoric about overthrowing the government and sedition seems advocating radical change.

Extremely few right-wingers are actually interested in "overthrowing the government." About the same proportion of left-wingers who are, it seems to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

My understanding is that the opposite of Conservative is a Progressive. An "Extremist" is someone who goes to the extreme, as opposed to a "moderate".

...So, It's never really accurate to call a Conservative an extremist, unless he's unwilling to change anything.. IOW, he or she is totally against all change.

In the Ameristanian political sense, "conservative" means something different,
ie, more towards religious fundamentalism, law-&-order, old school patriot,
capitalism. "Extremist" doesn't work....the word by itself doesn't say if it's
about left, right, or other extreme views.
If this is about those who want to overthrow the election to keep Trump
in office, "extreme" describes that view, but doesn't rise to the level of
a label. Even "extreme conservative" doesn't work.
I suggest "extreme Trump supporter".

 

[QuestioningMind]

When is it less accurate to call someone a 'conservative' than to call them a 'radical extremist'?

I would suggest the test is -- not in comparison to a nation's contemporary politics -- but in comparison to its long established traditions, institutions, political culture, and formal or informal constitution.

For instance, I think an apparently growing number of self-identifying American "conservatives" nowadays reject (often without knowing it) American political traditions, institutions, etc that are anywhere from several decades to over 200 years old. I would no longer call them 'conservatives'. I would at the very least call them radicals or extremists, for they are promoting or encouraging radical changes to those traditions, institutions, and such.​

Yet, if one looks at them only in terms of recent political trends, one might not think of them as radicals at all. So at least a lot of what one calls an 'extremist' depends on the time frame one is looking at.​

Much the same could be said for some allegedly 'liberal' or 'progressive' groups. Is it really liberal or progressive to, say, advocate criminalizing hate speech on philosophical grounds that were only relatively recently advanced for the first time by Joel Feinberg, and which are repudiations of the traditional grounds for allowing hate speech as advanced by John Stuart Mill in the mid-1800s? Personally, I would consider such people 'radical extremists', but not 'liberals' or 'progressives'.​

But what's your take on it?

Let the pettifoggery begin!

It seems to me that conservatives in the country used to actually stand for something... like fiscal responsibility. Nowadays they only care about excessive spending if there's a Democrat in the Whitehouse.

They've abandoned trying to articulate a plan for the nation... instead they simply mischaracterize liberals and then run against the 'socialist/communists'. That's how they can get voters to support convicted sex offenders over ANYONE who runs as a Democrat.

 

[sun rise]

I have a reference to a piece from a Trump supporter who makes the kind of distinction this thread is about: Trumpianity is a Weird Religion

This piece to me is all about conservatives vs extremists:
...
Setting aside the stench of prosperity theology present in the suggestion that God’s favor necessarily translates into political victory, what disturbs me most about these kinds of assertions is the speaker’s conviction that somehow he has direct access to knowledge of God’s will, and that God’s will just happens to coincide with his political loyalties.

As far as I can see, the practical effect of this often starkly apocalyptic language has not been to inaugurate some new era of authentic Christian spirituality in the public square, producing in abundance repentance and the fruits of the Holy Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, etc.).
...
I fear that that is what we are now facing. The political right is in disorder, unmoored from many of its fundamental principles, and floundering in the face of the likely demise of its hero. Trump will not, barring a bona fide miracle, win the election. And yet we haven’t even begun a serious conversation about how to counteract the dangers of a Biden presidency, because our attention is entirely consumed by this cosmic (and, all too often, comic) struggle to win the election.

The furthest we’ve got is to talk about a 2024 Trump run. He’ll come back then and save us. This is delusional. If political salvation is in our future, it’s going to demand a lot more from us than waiting for the second coming of Trump.