The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount

[BlackSand]

Some help defining extremism from voluntaryist.com


What Is Political "Extremism"?

by Laird Wilcox
From Issue 27 - Aug. 1987

Roger Scruton, in the Dictionary Of Political Thought (Hill & Wang, New York, 1982) defines "extremism" as:

"A vague term, which can mean: 1. Taking a political idea to its limits, regardless of 'unfortunate' repercussions, impracticalities, arguments and feelings to the contrary, and with the intention not only to confront, but also to eliminate opposition. 2. Intolerance towards all views other than one's own. 3. Adoption of means to political ends which show disregard for the life, liberty, and human rights of others."
This is a very fair definition and it reflects my experience that "extremism" is essentially more an issue of style than of content. In the twenty-five years that I have been investigating political groups of the left and right, I have found that many people can hold very radical or unorthodox political views and still present them in a reasonable, rational and non-dogmatic manner. On the other hand, I have met people whose views were shrill, uncompromising and distinctly authoritarian. The latter demonstrated a starkly extremist mentality while the former demonstrated only ideological unorthodoxy, which is hardly to be feared in a free society such as our own.

I don't mean to imply that content is entirely irrelevant. People who tend to adopt the extremist style most often champion causes and adopt ideologies that are essentially "fringe" positions on the political spectrum. Advocacy of "fringe" positions, however, gives our society the variety and vitality it needs to function as an open democracy, to discuss and debate all aspects of an issue and to deal with problems we may otherwise have a tendency to ignore. I think this is the proper role of radical movements, left and right, in our system. The extremist style is another issue altogether, however, in that it seriously hampers our understanding of important issues, it muddies the waters of discourse with invective, fanaticism and hatred, and it impairs our ability to make intelligent, well-informed choices.

Another, perhaps more popular, definition of "extremism" is that it represents points of view we strongly disagree with, advocated by someone we dislike whose interests are contrary to our own!

Political ideologues often attempt definitions of extremism which specifically condemn the views of their opponents and critics while leaving their own relatively untouched, or which are otherwise biased toward certain views but not others. To be fair, a definition must be equally applicable across the entire political spectrum.

In point of fact, the terms "extremist" and "extremism" are often used thoughtlessly an epithets, "devilwords" to curse or condemn opponents and critics with! I find, however, that the extremist style is not the monopoly of any sector of the political spectrum. It is just as common on the "left" as it is on the "right," and sometimes it shows up in the political "center" as well!

In analyzing the rhetoric and literature of several hundred "fringe" and militant "special interest" groups I have identified several specific traits that tend to represent the extremist style. I would like to caution you with the admonition, however, that we are all fallible and anyone, without bad intentions, may resort to some of these devices from time to time. But with bonafide extremists these lapses are not occasional and the following traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. The late Robert Kennedy, in The Pursuit Of Justice (1964), said; "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."

1. Character Assassination.

Extremists often attack the character of an opponent or critic rather than deal with the facts and issues that he raises or debate the points of his arguments. They will question his motives, qualifications, past associations, values, personality, mental health and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration.

2. Name Calling And Labeling.

Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hatemonger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, Un-American, Anti-Semite, Red, Commie, Nazi, Kook, etc.) to label and condemn an opponent in order to divert attention from his arguments and to discourage other from hearing him out.

3. Irresponsible Sweeping Generalizations.

Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things are alike in some respects they must be alike in all or most respects! Analogy is a treacherous form of logic and its potential for distortion and false conclusions even when the premises are basically correct is enormous.

4. Inadequate Proof For Assertions.

Extremists tend to be very fuzzy on what constitutes proof for their assertions. They also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their "before" and "after" relationship). They tend to project "wished for" conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information which confirms their prejudices and to derogate or ignore information which contradicts them.

5. Advocacy Of Double Standards.

Extremists tend to judge themselves in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith but they demand proof for yours. They also tend to engage in "special pleading" on behalf of their group, because of some special status, past persecution or present disadvantage.

6. Extremists Tend To View Their Opponents And Critics As Essentially Evil.

Their enemies hold opposing views because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, cruel, etc., and not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests of are perhaps even mistaken!

7. Extremists Tend To Have A Manichean Worldview.

That is, they tend to see the world in terms of absolutes of good and evil, for them or against them, with no middle ground or intermediate positions. All issues are ultimately moral issues of right and wrong. Their slogan tends to be "he who is not with me, is against me!"

8. Extremists Very Often Advocate Some Degree Of Censorship And Repression Of Their Opponents And Critics.

This may range from an active campaign to keep them from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning, or "quarantining" dissident spokesmen, or actually lobbying for repressive legislation against speaking, teaching or instructing the "forbidden" information. They may attempt to keep certain books out of stores or off of library shelves or card catalogs, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, keep spokesmen for offending views off the airwaves, or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each instance the goal is some kind of information control. Extremists would prefer that you only listen to them.

9. Extremists Tend To Identify Themselves In Terms Of Who Their Enemies Are,

who they hate and who hates them! Accordingly, they often become emotionally bound to their enemies, who are often competing extremists on the opposite pole of the ideological spectrum. They tend to emulate their enemies in certain respects, adopting the same style and tactics to a certain degree. Even "anti-extremist" groups often exhibit extremist behavior in this regard!

10. Extremists Are Given To Arguments By Intimidation.

That is, they frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them, they imply, is to ally oneself with the devil or give aid and comfort to the "bad guys." This ploy allows them to define the parameters of debate, cut off troublesome lines of argument, and keep their opponents on the defensive.

11. Wide Use Of Slogans, Buzzwords And Thought-Stopping Cliches.

For many extremists simple slogans substitute for more complex abstractions in spite of a high level of intelligence. Shortcuts in thinking and reasoning matters out seems to be necessary in order to appease their prejudices and to avoid troublesome facts and counter-arguments.

12. Doomsday Thinking.

Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from failure to follow a specific course, and they exhibit a kind of "crisis-mindedness." It can be a Communist takeover, a Nazi revival, nuclear war, currency collapse, worldwide famine, drought, earthquakes, floods or the wrath of God. Whatever it is, it's just around the corner unless we follow their program and listen to their special insights or the wisdom that only the enlightened have access to!

13. Extremists Often Claim Some Kind Of Moral Or Other Superiority Over Others.

Most obvious are claims of general racial superiority -- a master race, for example. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alleged victimhood, a special relationship with God, membership in a special "elite" or revolutionary vanguard. They also take great offense when one is "insensitive" enough to dispute these claims or challenge their authority.

14. Extremists Tend To Believe That It's OK To Do Bad Things In The Service Of A "Good" Cause.

They may deliberately lie, distort, misquote, slander or libel their opponents and critics, or advocate censorship or repression in "special cases" involving their enemies. This is done with no remorse as long as it's useful in defeating the Commies or Fascists (or whoever). Defeating an "enemy" becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the ends often justify the means.

15. Extremists Tend To Place Great Value On Emotional Responses.

They have a reverence for propaganda, which they may call education or consciousness-raising. Consequently, they tend to drape themselves and their cause in a flag of patriotism, a banner of righteousness or a shroud of victimhood. Their crusades against "enemies" may invoke images of the swastika, the hammer and sickle or some other symbol, as the case may be. In each instance the symbol represents an extremely odious concept in terms of their ideological premises. This ploy attempts to invoke an uncritical gut-level sympathy and acceptance of their position which discourages examination of their premises or the conclusions which they claim necessarily derive from them.

16. Some Extremists, Particularly Those Involved In "Cults" Or

religious movements such as fundamental evangelical Christians, Zionists, members of the numerous new age groups and followers of certain "gurus," claim some kind of supernatural, mystical or divinely-inspired rationale for their beliefs and actions. Their willingness to force their will on others, censor and silence opponents and critics, and in some cases actively persecute certain groups, is ordained by God! This is surprisingly effective because many people, when confronted by this kind of claim, are reluctant to challenge it because it represents "religious belief" or because of the sacred cow status of some religions. Extremists traits tend to have three things in common:

The represent some attempt to distort reality for themselves and others.
They try to discourage critical examination of their beliefs, either by false logic, rhetorical trickery or some kind of intimidation.
They represent an attempt to act out private, personal grudges or rationalize the pursuit of special interests in the name of public welfare.
Remember, human beings are imperfect and fallible. Even a rational, honest, well-intentioned person may resort to some of these traits from time to time. Everyone has strong feelings about some issues and anyone can get excited and "blow off" once in awhile. We still retain our basic common sense, respect for facts and good will toward others. The difference between most of us and the bonafide extremist is that these traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. Extremists believe they're doing the right thing when they act this way in the service of their cause.

The truth of a proposition cannot be inferred merely from the manner in which arguments in its behalf are presented, from the fact that its advocates censor and harass their opponents, or because they commit any other act or combination of acts suggested in this essay. Ultimately, the truth of any proposition rests on the evidence for it. To impeach a proposition merely because it is advocated by obvious "extremists" is to dismiss it ad hominem, that is, because of who proposes it. The fact is that extremists are sometimes right -- sometimes very right -- because they often deal with the gut issues, the controversial issues many people choose to avoid. So, before you perfunctorily write off somebody as an "extremist" and close your eyes and ears to his message, take a look at his evidence. It just might be that he's on to something!


[Laird Wilcox is editor of The Wilcox Report Newsletter , Box 2047, Olathe, Kansas 66061. He is founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political Movements in the Kenneth Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas]

What a wonderful exercise in introspection ... I am sure that if you read it every time before you post ... It will help you get a better grip on yourself and your struggle with extremism PMZ.
Good luck in your endeavors ... And the rest of us anxiously await your return to a more civil stance on debate.

.

 

[PMZ]

Some help defining extremism from voluntaryist.com


What Is Political "Extremism"?

by Laird Wilcox
From Issue 27 - Aug. 1987

Roger Scruton, in the Dictionary Of Political Thought (Hill & Wang, New York, 1982) defines "extremism" as:

"A vague term, which can mean: 1. Taking a political idea to its limits, regardless of 'unfortunate' repercussions, impracticalities, arguments and feelings to the contrary, and with the intention not only to confront, but also to eliminate opposition. 2. Intolerance towards all views other than one's own. 3. Adoption of means to political ends which show disregard for the life, liberty, and human rights of others."
This is a very fair definition and it reflects my experience that "extremism" is essentially more an issue of style than of content. In the twenty-five years that I have been investigating political groups of the left and right, I have found that many people can hold very radical or unorthodox political views and still present them in a reasonable, rational and non-dogmatic manner. On the other hand, I have met people whose views were shrill, uncompromising and distinctly authoritarian. The latter demonstrated a starkly extremist mentality while the former demonstrated only ideological unorthodoxy, which is hardly to be feared in a free society such as our own.

I don't mean to imply that content is entirely irrelevant. People who tend to adopt the extremist style most often champion causes and adopt ideologies that are essentially "fringe" positions on the political spectrum. Advocacy of "fringe" positions, however, gives our society the variety and vitality it needs to function as an open democracy, to discuss and debate all aspects of an issue and to deal with problems we may otherwise have a tendency to ignore. I think this is the proper role of radical movements, left and right, in our system. The extremist style is another issue altogether, however, in that it seriously hampers our understanding of important issues, it muddies the waters of discourse with invective, fanaticism and hatred, and it impairs our ability to make intelligent, well-informed choices.

Another, perhaps more popular, definition of "extremism" is that it represents points of view we strongly disagree with, advocated by someone we dislike whose interests are contrary to our own!

Political ideologues often attempt definitions of extremism which specifically condemn the views of their opponents and critics while leaving their own relatively untouched, or which are otherwise biased toward certain views but not others. To be fair, a definition must be equally applicable across the entire political spectrum.

In point of fact, the terms "extremist" and "extremism" are often used thoughtlessly an epithets, "devilwords" to curse or condemn opponents and critics with! I find, however, that the extremist style is not the monopoly of any sector of the political spectrum. It is just as common on the "left" as it is on the "right," and sometimes it shows up in the political "center" as well!

In analyzing the rhetoric and literature of several hundred "fringe" and militant "special interest" groups I have identified several specific traits that tend to represent the extremist style. I would like to caution you with the admonition, however, that we are all fallible and anyone, without bad intentions, may resort to some of these devices from time to time. But with bonafide extremists these lapses are not occasional and the following traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. The late Robert Kennedy, in The Pursuit Of Justice (1964), said; "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."

1. Character Assassination.

Extremists often attack the character of an opponent or critic rather than deal with the facts and issues that he raises or debate the points of his arguments. They will question his motives, qualifications, past associations, values, personality, mental health and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration.

2. Name Calling And Labeling.

Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hatemonger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, Un-American, Anti-Semite, Red, Commie, Nazi, Kook, etc.) to label and condemn an opponent in order to divert attention from his arguments and to discourage other from hearing him out.

3. Irresponsible Sweeping Generalizations.

Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things are alike in some respects they must be alike in all or most respects! Analogy is a treacherous form of logic and its potential for distortion and false conclusions even when the premises are basically correct is enormous.

4. Inadequate Proof For Assertions.

Extremists tend to be very fuzzy on what constitutes proof for their assertions. They also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their "before" and "after" relationship). They tend to project "wished for" conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information which confirms their prejudices and to derogate or ignore information which contradicts them.

5. Advocacy Of Double Standards.

Extremists tend to judge themselves in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith but they demand proof for yours. They also tend to engage in "special pleading" on behalf of their group, because of some special status, past persecution or present disadvantage.

6. Extremists Tend To View Their Opponents And Critics As Essentially Evil.

Their enemies hold opposing views because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, cruel, etc., and not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests of are perhaps even mistaken!

7. Extremists Tend To Have A Manichean Worldview.

That is, they tend to see the world in terms of absolutes of good and evil, for them or against them, with no middle ground or intermediate positions. All issues are ultimately moral issues of right and wrong. Their slogan tends to be "he who is not with me, is against me!"

8. Extremists Very Often Advocate Some Degree Of Censorship And Repression Of Their Opponents And Critics.

This may range from an active campaign to keep them from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning, or "quarantining" dissident spokesmen, or actually lobbying for repressive legislation against speaking, teaching or instructing the "forbidden" information. They may attempt to keep certain books out of stores or off of library shelves or card catalogs, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, keep spokesmen for offending views off the airwaves, or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each instance the goal is some kind of information control. Extremists would prefer that you only listen to them.

9. Extremists Tend To Identify Themselves In Terms Of Who Their Enemies Are,

who they hate and who hates them! Accordingly, they often become emotionally bound to their enemies, who are often competing extremists on the opposite pole of the ideological spectrum. They tend to emulate their enemies in certain respects, adopting the same style and tactics to a certain degree. Even "anti-extremist" groups often exhibit extremist behavior in this regard!

10. Extremists Are Given To Arguments By Intimidation.

That is, they frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them, they imply, is to ally oneself with the devil or give aid and comfort to the "bad guys." This ploy allows them to define the parameters of debate, cut off troublesome lines of argument, and keep their opponents on the defensive.

11. Wide Use Of Slogans, Buzzwords And Thought-Stopping Cliches.

For many extremists simple slogans substitute for more complex abstractions in spite of a high level of intelligence. Shortcuts in thinking and reasoning matters out seems to be necessary in order to appease their prejudices and to avoid troublesome facts and counter-arguments.

12. Doomsday Thinking.

Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from failure to follow a specific course, and they exhibit a kind of "crisis-mindedness." It can be a Communist takeover, a Nazi revival, nuclear war, currency collapse, worldwide famine, drought, earthquakes, floods or the wrath of God. Whatever it is, it's just around the corner unless we follow their program and listen to their special insights or the wisdom that only the enlightened have access to!

13. Extremists Often Claim Some Kind Of Moral Or Other Superiority Over Others.

Most obvious are claims of general racial superiority -- a master race, for example. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alleged victimhood, a special relationship with God, membership in a special "elite" or revolutionary vanguard. They also take great offense when one is "insensitive" enough to dispute these claims or challenge their authority.

14. Extremists Tend To Believe That It's OK To Do Bad Things In The Service Of A "Good" Cause.

They may deliberately lie, distort, misquote, slander or libel their opponents and critics, or advocate censorship or repression in "special cases" involving their enemies. This is done with no remorse as long as it's useful in defeating the Commies or Fascists (or whoever). Defeating an "enemy" becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the ends often justify the means.

15. Extremists Tend To Place Great Value On Emotional Responses.

They have a reverence for propaganda, which they may call education or consciousness-raising. Consequently, they tend to drape themselves and their cause in a flag of patriotism, a banner of righteousness or a shroud of victimhood. Their crusades against "enemies" may invoke images of the swastika, the hammer and sickle or some other symbol, as the case may be. In each instance the symbol represents an extremely odious concept in terms of their ideological premises. This ploy attempts to invoke an uncritical gut-level sympathy and acceptance of their position which discourages examination of their premises or the conclusions which they claim necessarily derive from them.

16. Some Extremists, Particularly Those Involved In "Cults" Or

religious movements such as fundamental evangelical Christians, Zionists, members of the numerous new age groups and followers of certain "gurus," claim some kind of supernatural, mystical or divinely-inspired rationale for their beliefs and actions. Their willingness to force their will on others, censor and silence opponents and critics, and in some cases actively persecute certain groups, is ordained by God! This is surprisingly effective because many people, when confronted by this kind of claim, are reluctant to challenge it because it represents "religious belief" or because of the sacred cow status of some religions. Extremists traits tend to have three things in common:

The represent some attempt to distort reality for themselves and others.
They try to discourage critical examination of their beliefs, either by false logic, rhetorical trickery or some kind of intimidation.
They represent an attempt to act out private, personal grudges or rationalize the pursuit of special interests in the name of public welfare.
Remember, human beings are imperfect and fallible. Even a rational, honest, well-intentioned person may resort to some of these traits from time to time. Everyone has strong feelings about some issues and anyone can get excited and "blow off" once in awhile. We still retain our basic common sense, respect for facts and good will toward others. The difference between most of us and the bonafide extremist is that these traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. Extremists believe they're doing the right thing when they act this way in the service of their cause.

The truth of a proposition cannot be inferred merely from the manner in which arguments in its behalf are presented, from the fact that its advocates censor and harass their opponents, or because they commit any other act or combination of acts suggested in this essay. Ultimately, the truth of any proposition rests on the evidence for it. To impeach a proposition merely because it is advocated by obvious "extremists" is to dismiss it ad hominem, that is, because of who proposes it. The fact is that extremists are sometimes right -- sometimes very right -- because they often deal with the gut issues, the controversial issues many people choose to avoid. So, before you perfunctorily write off somebody as an "extremist" and close your eyes and ears to his message, take a look at his evidence. It just might be that he's on to something!


[Laird Wilcox is editor of The Wilcox Report Newsletter , Box 2047, Olathe, Kansas 66061. He is founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political Movements in the Kenneth Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas]

What a wonderful exercise in introspection ... I am sure that if you read it every time before you post ... It will help you get a better grip on yourself and your struggle with extremism PMZ.
Good luck in your endeavors ... And the rest of us anxiously await your return to a more civil stance on debate.

.

You really don't see yourself in those words?

You need some exercise in introspection.

 

[Listening]

The best thing about the end of conservative extremism in America is watching you all stew in your own juices. Self inflicted irrelevance. The end of the politics of hate.

You and the Taliban.

ROTFLMAO

More state houses and getting better.

You need to find out what states will survive and hope they can fund all the goodie give-aways (for a while).

Because then, you'lll need to find a job.

We are not going anywhere.

 

[Listening]

Some help defining extremism from voluntaryist.com


What Is Political "Extremism"?

by Laird Wilcox
From Issue 27 - Aug. 1987

Roger Scruton, in the Dictionary Of Political Thought (Hill & Wang, New York, 1982) defines "extremism" as:

"A vague term, which can mean: 1. Taking a political idea to its limits, regardless of 'unfortunate' repercussions, impracticalities, arguments and feelings to the contrary, and with the intention not only to confront, but also to eliminate opposition. 2. Intolerance towards all views other than one's own. 3. Adoption of means to political ends which show disregard for the life, liberty, and human rights of others."
This is a very fair definition and it reflects my experience that "extremism" is essentially more an issue of style than of content. In the twenty-five years that I have been investigating political groups of the left and right, I have found that many people can hold very radical or unorthodox political views and still present them in a reasonable, rational and non-dogmatic manner. On the other hand, I have met people whose views were shrill, uncompromising and distinctly authoritarian. The latter demonstrated a starkly extremist mentality while the former demonstrated only ideological unorthodoxy, which is hardly to be feared in a free society such as our own.

I don't mean to imply that content is entirely irrelevant. People who tend to adopt the extremist style most often champion causes and adopt ideologies that are essentially "fringe" positions on the political spectrum. Advocacy of "fringe" positions, however, gives our society the variety and vitality it needs to function as an open democracy, to discuss and debate all aspects of an issue and to deal with problems we may otherwise have a tendency to ignore. I think this is the proper role of radical movements, left and right, in our system. The extremist style is another issue altogether, however, in that it seriously hampers our understanding of important issues, it muddies the waters of discourse with invective, fanaticism and hatred, and it impairs our ability to make intelligent, well-informed choices.

Another, perhaps more popular, definition of "extremism" is that it represents points of view we strongly disagree with, advocated by someone we dislike whose interests are contrary to our own!

Political ideologues often attempt definitions of extremism which specifically condemn the views of their opponents and critics while leaving their own relatively untouched, or which are otherwise biased toward certain views but not others. To be fair, a definition must be equally applicable across the entire political spectrum.

In point of fact, the terms "extremist" and "extremism" are often used thoughtlessly an epithets, "devilwords" to curse or condemn opponents and critics with! I find, however, that the extremist style is not the monopoly of any sector of the political spectrum. It is just as common on the "left" as it is on the "right," and sometimes it shows up in the political "center" as well!

In analyzing the rhetoric and literature of several hundred "fringe" and militant "special interest" groups I have identified several specific traits that tend to represent the extremist style. I would like to caution you with the admonition, however, that we are all fallible and anyone, without bad intentions, may resort to some of these devices from time to time. But with bonafide extremists these lapses are not occasional and the following traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. The late Robert Kennedy, in The Pursuit Of Justice (1964), said; "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."

1. Character Assassination.

Extremists often attack the character of an opponent or critic rather than deal with the facts and issues that he raises or debate the points of his arguments. They will question his motives, qualifications, past associations, values, personality, mental health and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration.

2. Name Calling And Labeling.

Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hatemonger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, Un-American, Anti-Semite, Red, Commie, Nazi, Kook, etc.) to label and condemn an opponent in order to divert attention from his arguments and to discourage other from hearing him out.

3. Irresponsible Sweeping Generalizations.

Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things are alike in some respects they must be alike in all or most respects! Analogy is a treacherous form of logic and its potential for distortion and false conclusions even when the premises are basically correct is enormous.

4. Inadequate Proof For Assertions.

Extremists tend to be very fuzzy on what constitutes proof for their assertions. They also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their "before" and "after" relationship). They tend to project "wished for" conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information which confirms their prejudices and to derogate or ignore information which contradicts them.

5. Advocacy Of Double Standards.

Extremists tend to judge themselves in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith but they demand proof for yours. They also tend to engage in "special pleading" on behalf of their group, because of some special status, past persecution or present disadvantage.

6. Extremists Tend To View Their Opponents And Critics As Essentially Evil.

Their enemies hold opposing views because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, cruel, etc., and not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests of are perhaps even mistaken!

7. Extremists Tend To Have A Manichean Worldview.

That is, they tend to see the world in terms of absolutes of good and evil, for them or against them, with no middle ground or intermediate positions. All issues are ultimately moral issues of right and wrong. Their slogan tends to be "he who is not with me, is against me!"

8. Extremists Very Often Advocate Some Degree Of Censorship And Repression Of Their Opponents And Critics.

This may range from an active campaign to keep them from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning, or "quarantining" dissident spokesmen, or actually lobbying for repressive legislation against speaking, teaching or instructing the "forbidden" information. They may attempt to keep certain books out of stores or off of library shelves or card catalogs, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, keep spokesmen for offending views off the airwaves, or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each instance the goal is some kind of information control. Extremists would prefer that you only listen to them.

9. Extremists Tend To Identify Themselves In Terms Of Who Their Enemies Are,

who they hate and who hates them! Accordingly, they often become emotionally bound to their enemies, who are often competing extremists on the opposite pole of the ideological spectrum. They tend to emulate their enemies in certain respects, adopting the same style and tactics to a certain degree. Even "anti-extremist" groups often exhibit extremist behavior in this regard!

10. Extremists Are Given To Arguments By Intimidation.

That is, they frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them, they imply, is to ally oneself with the devil or give aid and comfort to the "bad guys." This ploy allows them to define the parameters of debate, cut off troublesome lines of argument, and keep their opponents on the defensive.

11. Wide Use Of Slogans, Buzzwords And Thought-Stopping Cliches.

For many extremists simple slogans substitute for more complex abstractions in spite of a high level of intelligence. Shortcuts in thinking and reasoning matters out seems to be necessary in order to appease their prejudices and to avoid troublesome facts and counter-arguments.

12. Doomsday Thinking.

Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from failure to follow a specific course, and they exhibit a kind of "crisis-mindedness." It can be a Communist takeover, a Nazi revival, nuclear war, currency collapse, worldwide famine, drought, earthquakes, floods or the wrath of God. Whatever it is, it's just around the corner unless we follow their program and listen to their special insights or the wisdom that only the enlightened have access to!

13. Extremists Often Claim Some Kind Of Moral Or Other Superiority Over Others.

Most obvious are claims of general racial superiority -- a master race, for example. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alleged victimhood, a special relationship with God, membership in a special "elite" or revolutionary vanguard. They also take great offense when one is "insensitive" enough to dispute these claims or challenge their authority.

14. Extremists Tend To Believe That It's OK To Do Bad Things In The Service Of A "Good" Cause.

They may deliberately lie, distort, misquote, slander or libel their opponents and critics, or advocate censorship or repression in "special cases" involving their enemies. This is done with no remorse as long as it's useful in defeating the Commies or Fascists (or whoever). Defeating an "enemy" becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the ends often justify the means.

15. Extremists Tend To Place Great Value On Emotional Responses.

They have a reverence for propaganda, which they may call education or consciousness-raising. Consequently, they tend to drape themselves and their cause in a flag of patriotism, a banner of righteousness or a shroud of victimhood. Their crusades against "enemies" may invoke images of the swastika, the hammer and sickle or some other symbol, as the case may be. In each instance the symbol represents an extremely odious concept in terms of their ideological premises. This ploy attempts to invoke an uncritical gut-level sympathy and acceptance of their position which discourages examination of their premises or the conclusions which they claim necessarily derive from them.

16. Some Extremists, Particularly Those Involved In "Cults" Or

religious movements such as fundamental evangelical Christians, Zionists, members of the numerous new age groups and followers of certain "gurus," claim some kind of supernatural, mystical or divinely-inspired rationale for their beliefs and actions. Their willingness to force their will on others, censor and silence opponents and critics, and in some cases actively persecute certain groups, is ordained by God! This is surprisingly effective because many people, when confronted by this kind of claim, are reluctant to challenge it because it represents "religious belief" or because of the sacred cow status of some religions. Extremists traits tend to have three things in common:

The represent some attempt to distort reality for themselves and others.
They try to discourage critical examination of their beliefs, either by false logic, rhetorical trickery or some kind of intimidation.
They represent an attempt to act out private, personal grudges or rationalize the pursuit of special interests in the name of public welfare.
Remember, human beings are imperfect and fallible. Even a rational, honest, well-intentioned person may resort to some of these traits from time to time. Everyone has strong feelings about some issues and anyone can get excited and "blow off" once in awhile. We still retain our basic common sense, respect for facts and good will toward others. The difference between most of us and the bonafide extremist is that these traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. Extremists believe they're doing the right thing when they act this way in the service of their cause.

The truth of a proposition cannot be inferred merely from the manner in which arguments in its behalf are presented, from the fact that its advocates censor and harass their opponents, or because they commit any other act or combination of acts suggested in this essay. Ultimately, the truth of any proposition rests on the evidence for it. To impeach a proposition merely because it is advocated by obvious "extremists" is to dismiss it ad hominem, that is, because of who proposes it. The fact is that extremists are sometimes right -- sometimes very right -- because they often deal with the gut issues, the controversial issues many people choose to avoid. So, before you perfunctorily write off somebody as an "extremist" and close your eyes and ears to his message, take a look at his evidence. It just might be that he's on to something!


[Laird Wilcox is editor of The Wilcox Report Newsletter , Box 2047, Olathe, Kansas 66061. He is founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political Movements in the Kenneth Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas]

Mr. Wilcox is more concerned about communists than he is worried about the Tea Party (because he is probably a member).

Dipshyt.

 

[P@triot]

The best thing about the end of conservative extremism in America is watching you all stew in your own juices. Self inflicted irrelevance. The end of the politics of hate.

You and the Taliban.

Considering conservative "extremism" never started, I don't think you have to worry about its "end".

Now tell us again how Medicare's complete and total insolvency is "Republican propaganda" as Barack Obama stands before a mic in front of the world pitching Obamacare as an urgent need due to Medicare's complete and total insolvency. And I added the video to prove what a laying, propaganda-spreading, parasite, asshole that you are.

There's a reason you're all alone here with only one idiot asshole troll (Dante) coming to your aid. Because we've stuffed this thread so full of undeniable facts regarding the failure of Obamacare, even the Dumbocrats on USMB realize it is credibility suicide to attempt to deny it.

"Considering conservative "extremism" never started, I don't think you have to worry about its "end"."

How would you define extremism?

People like you who eschew facts and reality for brainwashed ideology.

The Medicare trust fund has a surplus invested in US Treasuries for now, but it's spending more now than taking in. Something has to be done.

Wait a second - just a few posts ago you were claiming this very statement was "Republican propaganda". Apparently, PMZ only believes something if he sees Obama say it (man, does that explain a lot).

There are several variables that could be put into play in addressing the problem. Some are revenue solutions some are expense solutions.

The root causes of all of the problems are our population growth, our relatively poor health habits and the success of medical technology.

The root cause is Dumbocrat communism. The root solution is good old fashioned American free market capitalism.

Despite our relatively poor health habits we are living, and living well, longer, due to more and more expensive diagnostic and treatment alternatives, and our below world standard health care delivery and insurance cost effectiveness. We are way behind the rest of the developed world in cost and benefit effectiveness for health care as evidenced by our 2X costs and 1/2Y results compared to our global business competition.

What don't you agree with so far?

The part where you ignorantly and wrongfully claimed that Medicare's insolvency was "Republican propaganda" and the part where you ignorantly claim we have "below world standard health care delivery" (when in fact we have the most elite health care delivery in world history), and the part where you believe "revenue solutions" would address the problem.

 

[PMZ]

Some help defining extremism from voluntaryist.com


What Is Political "Extremism"?

by Laird Wilcox
From Issue 27 - Aug. 1987

Roger Scruton, in the Dictionary Of Political Thought (Hill & Wang, New York, 1982) defines "extremism" as:

"A vague term, which can mean: 1. Taking a political idea to its limits, regardless of 'unfortunate' repercussions, impracticalities, arguments and feelings to the contrary, and with the intention not only to confront, but also to eliminate opposition. 2. Intolerance towards all views other than one's own. 3. Adoption of means to political ends which show disregard for the life, liberty, and human rights of others."
This is a very fair definition and it reflects my experience that "extremism" is essentially more an issue of style than of content. In the twenty-five years that I have been investigating political groups of the left and right, I have found that many people can hold very radical or unorthodox political views and still present them in a reasonable, rational and non-dogmatic manner. On the other hand, I have met people whose views were shrill, uncompromising and distinctly authoritarian. The latter demonstrated a starkly extremist mentality while the former demonstrated only ideological unorthodoxy, which is hardly to be feared in a free society such as our own.

I don't mean to imply that content is entirely irrelevant. People who tend to adopt the extremist style most often champion causes and adopt ideologies that are essentially "fringe" positions on the political spectrum. Advocacy of "fringe" positions, however, gives our society the variety and vitality it needs to function as an open democracy, to discuss and debate all aspects of an issue and to deal with problems we may otherwise have a tendency to ignore. I think this is the proper role of radical movements, left and right, in our system. The extremist style is another issue altogether, however, in that it seriously hampers our understanding of important issues, it muddies the waters of discourse with invective, fanaticism and hatred, and it impairs our ability to make intelligent, well-informed choices.

Another, perhaps more popular, definition of "extremism" is that it represents points of view we strongly disagree with, advocated by someone we dislike whose interests are contrary to our own!

Political ideologues often attempt definitions of extremism which specifically condemn the views of their opponents and critics while leaving their own relatively untouched, or which are otherwise biased toward certain views but not others. To be fair, a definition must be equally applicable across the entire political spectrum.

In point of fact, the terms "extremist" and "extremism" are often used thoughtlessly an epithets, "devilwords" to curse or condemn opponents and critics with! I find, however, that the extremist style is not the monopoly of any sector of the political spectrum. It is just as common on the "left" as it is on the "right," and sometimes it shows up in the political "center" as well!

In analyzing the rhetoric and literature of several hundred "fringe" and militant "special interest" groups I have identified several specific traits that tend to represent the extremist style. I would like to caution you with the admonition, however, that we are all fallible and anyone, without bad intentions, may resort to some of these devices from time to time. But with bonafide extremists these lapses are not occasional and the following traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. The late Robert Kennedy, in The Pursuit Of Justice (1964), said; "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."

1. Character Assassination.

Extremists often attack the character of an opponent or critic rather than deal with the facts and issues that he raises or debate the points of his arguments. They will question his motives, qualifications, past associations, values, personality, mental health and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration.

2. Name Calling And Labeling.

Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hatemonger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, Un-American, Anti-Semite, Red, Commie, Nazi, Kook, etc.) to label and condemn an opponent in order to divert attention from his arguments and to discourage other from hearing him out.

3. Irresponsible Sweeping Generalizations.

Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things are alike in some respects they must be alike in all or most respects! Analogy is a treacherous form of logic and its potential for distortion and false conclusions even when the premises are basically correct is enormous.

4. Inadequate Proof For Assertions.

Extremists tend to be very fuzzy on what constitutes proof for their assertions. They also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their "before" and "after" relationship). They tend to project "wished for" conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information which confirms their prejudices and to derogate or ignore information which contradicts them.

5. Advocacy Of Double Standards.

Extremists tend to judge themselves in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith but they demand proof for yours. They also tend to engage in "special pleading" on behalf of their group, because of some special status, past persecution or present disadvantage.

6. Extremists Tend To View Their Opponents And Critics As Essentially Evil.

Their enemies hold opposing views because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, cruel, etc., and not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests of are perhaps even mistaken!

7. Extremists Tend To Have A Manichean Worldview.

That is, they tend to see the world in terms of absolutes of good and evil, for them or against them, with no middle ground or intermediate positions. All issues are ultimately moral issues of right and wrong. Their slogan tends to be "he who is not with me, is against me!"

8. Extremists Very Often Advocate Some Degree Of Censorship And Repression Of Their Opponents And Critics.

This may range from an active campaign to keep them from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning, or "quarantining" dissident spokesmen, or actually lobbying for repressive legislation against speaking, teaching or instructing the "forbidden" information. They may attempt to keep certain books out of stores or off of library shelves or card catalogs, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, keep spokesmen for offending views off the airwaves, or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each instance the goal is some kind of information control. Extremists would prefer that you only listen to them.

9. Extremists Tend To Identify Themselves In Terms Of Who Their Enemies Are,

who they hate and who hates them! Accordingly, they often become emotionally bound to their enemies, who are often competing extremists on the opposite pole of the ideological spectrum. They tend to emulate their enemies in certain respects, adopting the same style and tactics to a certain degree. Even "anti-extremist" groups often exhibit extremist behavior in this regard!

10. Extremists Are Given To Arguments By Intimidation.

That is, they frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them, they imply, is to ally oneself with the devil or give aid and comfort to the "bad guys." This ploy allows them to define the parameters of debate, cut off troublesome lines of argument, and keep their opponents on the defensive.

11. Wide Use Of Slogans, Buzzwords And Thought-Stopping Cliches.

For many extremists simple slogans substitute for more complex abstractions in spite of a high level of intelligence. Shortcuts in thinking and reasoning matters out seems to be necessary in order to appease their prejudices and to avoid troublesome facts and counter-arguments.

12. Doomsday Thinking.

Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from failure to follow a specific course, and they exhibit a kind of "crisis-mindedness." It can be a Communist takeover, a Nazi revival, nuclear war, currency collapse, worldwide famine, drought, earthquakes, floods or the wrath of God. Whatever it is, it's just around the corner unless we follow their program and listen to their special insights or the wisdom that only the enlightened have access to!

13. Extremists Often Claim Some Kind Of Moral Or Other Superiority Over Others.

Most obvious are claims of general racial superiority -- a master race, for example. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alleged victimhood, a special relationship with God, membership in a special "elite" or revolutionary vanguard. They also take great offense when one is "insensitive" enough to dispute these claims or challenge their authority.

14. Extremists Tend To Believe That It's OK To Do Bad Things In The Service Of A "Good" Cause.

They may deliberately lie, distort, misquote, slander or libel their opponents and critics, or advocate censorship or repression in "special cases" involving their enemies. This is done with no remorse as long as it's useful in defeating the Commies or Fascists (or whoever). Defeating an "enemy" becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the ends often justify the means.

15. Extremists Tend To Place Great Value On Emotional Responses.

They have a reverence for propaganda, which they may call education or consciousness-raising. Consequently, they tend to drape themselves and their cause in a flag of patriotism, a banner of righteousness or a shroud of victimhood. Their crusades against "enemies" may invoke images of the swastika, the hammer and sickle or some other symbol, as the case may be. In each instance the symbol represents an extremely odious concept in terms of their ideological premises. This ploy attempts to invoke an uncritical gut-level sympathy and acceptance of their position which discourages examination of their premises or the conclusions which they claim necessarily derive from them.

16. Some Extremists, Particularly Those Involved In "Cults" Or

religious movements such as fundamental evangelical Christians, Zionists, members of the numerous new age groups and followers of certain "gurus," claim some kind of supernatural, mystical or divinely-inspired rationale for their beliefs and actions. Their willingness to force their will on others, censor and silence opponents and critics, and in some cases actively persecute certain groups, is ordained by God! This is surprisingly effective because many people, when confronted by this kind of claim, are reluctant to challenge it because it represents "religious belief" or because of the sacred cow status of some religions. Extremists traits tend to have three things in common:

The represent some attempt to distort reality for themselves and others.
They try to discourage critical examination of their beliefs, either by false logic, rhetorical trickery or some kind of intimidation.
They represent an attempt to act out private, personal grudges or rationalize the pursuit of special interests in the name of public welfare.
Remember, human beings are imperfect and fallible. Even a rational, honest, well-intentioned person may resort to some of these traits from time to time. Everyone has strong feelings about some issues and anyone can get excited and "blow off" once in awhile. We still retain our basic common sense, respect for facts and good will toward others. The difference between most of us and the bonafide extremist is that these traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. Extremists believe they're doing the right thing when they act this way in the service of their cause.

The truth of a proposition cannot be inferred merely from the manner in which arguments in its behalf are presented, from the fact that its advocates censor and harass their opponents, or because they commit any other act or combination of acts suggested in this essay. Ultimately, the truth of any proposition rests on the evidence for it. To impeach a proposition merely because it is advocated by obvious "extremists" is to dismiss it ad hominem, that is, because of who proposes it. The fact is that extremists are sometimes right -- sometimes very right -- because they often deal with the gut issues, the controversial issues many people choose to avoid. So, before you perfunctorily write off somebody as an "extremist" and close your eyes and ears to his message, take a look at his evidence. It just might be that he's on to something!


[Laird Wilcox is editor of The Wilcox Report Newsletter , Box 2047, Olathe, Kansas 66061. He is founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political Movements in the Kenneth Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas]

Mr. Wilcox is more concerned about communists than he is worried about the Tea Party (because he is probably a member).

Dipshyt.

"because he is probably a (Tea Party) member".

What's the evidence of that?

 

[PMZ]

Considering conservative "extremism" never started, I don't think you have to worry about its "end".

Now tell us again how Medicare's complete and total insolvency is "Republican propaganda" as Barack Obama stands before a mic in front of the world pitching Obamacare as an urgent need due to Medicare's complete and total insolvency. And I added the video to prove what a laying, propaganda-spreading, parasite, asshole that you are.

There's a reason you're all alone here with only one idiot asshole troll (Dante) coming to your aid. Because we've stuffed this thread so full of undeniable facts regarding the failure of Obamacare, even the Dumbocrats on USMB realize it is credibility suicide to attempt to deny it.

"Considering conservative "extremism" never started, I don't think you have to worry about its "end"."

How would you define extremism?

People like you who eschew facts and reality for brainwashed ideology.

The Medicare trust fund has a surplus invested in US Treasuries for now, but it's spending more now than taking in. Something has to be done.

Wait a second - just a few posts ago you were claiming this very statement was "Republican propaganda". Apparently, PMZ only believes something if he sees Obama say it (man, does that explain a lot).

There are several variables that could be put into play in addressing the problem. Some are revenue solutions some are expense solutions.

The root causes of all of the problems are our population growth, our relatively poor health habits and the success of medical technology.

The root cause is Dumbocrat communism. The root solution is good old fashioned American free market capitalism.

Despite our relatively poor health habits we are living, and living well, longer, due to more and more expensive diagnostic and treatment alternatives, and our below world standard health care delivery and insurance cost effectiveness. We are way behind the rest of the developed world in cost and benefit effectiveness for health care as evidenced by our 2X costs and 1/2Y results compared to our global business competition.

What don't you agree with so far?

The part where you ignorantly and wrongfully claimed that Medicare's insolvency was "Republican propaganda" and the part where you ignorantly claim we have "below world standard health care delivery" (when in fact we have the most elite health care delivery in world history), and the part where you believe "revenue solutions" would address the problem.

Medicare is definitely not insolvent. If Republicans are claiming that it is propaganda.

 

[Listening]

Some help defining extremism from voluntaryist.com


What Is Political "Extremism"?

by Laird Wilcox
From Issue 27 - Aug. 1987

Roger Scruton, in the Dictionary Of Political Thought (Hill & Wang, New York, 1982) defines "extremism" as:

"A vague term, which can mean: 1. Taking a political idea to its limits, regardless of 'unfortunate' repercussions, impracticalities, arguments and feelings to the contrary, and with the intention not only to confront, but also to eliminate opposition. 2. Intolerance towards all views other than one's own. 3. Adoption of means to political ends which show disregard for the life, liberty, and human rights of others."
This is a very fair definition and it reflects my experience that "extremism" is essentially more an issue of style than of content. In the twenty-five years that I have been investigating political groups of the left and right, I have found that many people can hold very radical or unorthodox political views and still present them in a reasonable, rational and non-dogmatic manner. On the other hand, I have met people whose views were shrill, uncompromising and distinctly authoritarian. The latter demonstrated a starkly extremist mentality while the former demonstrated only ideological unorthodoxy, which is hardly to be feared in a free society such as our own.

I don't mean to imply that content is entirely irrelevant. People who tend to adopt the extremist style most often champion causes and adopt ideologies that are essentially "fringe" positions on the political spectrum. Advocacy of "fringe" positions, however, gives our society the variety and vitality it needs to function as an open democracy, to discuss and debate all aspects of an issue and to deal with problems we may otherwise have a tendency to ignore. I think this is the proper role of radical movements, left and right, in our system. The extremist style is another issue altogether, however, in that it seriously hampers our understanding of important issues, it muddies the waters of discourse with invective, fanaticism and hatred, and it impairs our ability to make intelligent, well-informed choices.

Another, perhaps more popular, definition of "extremism" is that it represents points of view we strongly disagree with, advocated by someone we dislike whose interests are contrary to our own!

Political ideologues often attempt definitions of extremism which specifically condemn the views of their opponents and critics while leaving their own relatively untouched, or which are otherwise biased toward certain views but not others. To be fair, a definition must be equally applicable across the entire political spectrum.

In point of fact, the terms "extremist" and "extremism" are often used thoughtlessly an epithets, "devilwords" to curse or condemn opponents and critics with! I find, however, that the extremist style is not the monopoly of any sector of the political spectrum. It is just as common on the "left" as it is on the "right," and sometimes it shows up in the political "center" as well!

In analyzing the rhetoric and literature of several hundred "fringe" and militant "special interest" groups I have identified several specific traits that tend to represent the extremist style. I would like to caution you with the admonition, however, that we are all fallible and anyone, without bad intentions, may resort to some of these devices from time to time. But with bonafide extremists these lapses are not occasional and the following traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. The late Robert Kennedy, in The Pursuit Of Justice (1964), said; "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."

1. Character Assassination.

Extremists often attack the character of an opponent or critic rather than deal with the facts and issues that he raises or debate the points of his arguments. They will question his motives, qualifications, past associations, values, personality, mental health and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration.

2. Name Calling And Labeling.

Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hatemonger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, Un-American, Anti-Semite, Red, Commie, Nazi, Kook, etc.) to label and condemn an opponent in order to divert attention from his arguments and to discourage other from hearing him out.

3. Irresponsible Sweeping Generalizations.

Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things are alike in some respects they must be alike in all or most respects! Analogy is a treacherous form of logic and its potential for distortion and false conclusions even when the premises are basically correct is enormous.

4. Inadequate Proof For Assertions.

Extremists tend to be very fuzzy on what constitutes proof for their assertions. They also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their "before" and "after" relationship). They tend to project "wished for" conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information which confirms their prejudices and to derogate or ignore information which contradicts them.

5. Advocacy Of Double Standards.

Extremists tend to judge themselves in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith but they demand proof for yours. They also tend to engage in "special pleading" on behalf of their group, because of some special status, past persecution or present disadvantage.

6. Extremists Tend To View Their Opponents And Critics As Essentially Evil.

Their enemies hold opposing views because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, cruel, etc., and not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests of are perhaps even mistaken!

7. Extremists Tend To Have A Manichean Worldview.

That is, they tend to see the world in terms of absolutes of good and evil, for them or against them, with no middle ground or intermediate positions. All issues are ultimately moral issues of right and wrong. Their slogan tends to be "he who is not with me, is against me!"

8. Extremists Very Often Advocate Some Degree Of Censorship And Repression Of Their Opponents And Critics.

This may range from an active campaign to keep them from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning, or "quarantining" dissident spokesmen, or actually lobbying for repressive legislation against speaking, teaching or instructing the "forbidden" information. They may attempt to keep certain books out of stores or off of library shelves or card catalogs, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, keep spokesmen for offending views off the airwaves, or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each instance the goal is some kind of information control. Extremists would prefer that you only listen to them.

9. Extremists Tend To Identify Themselves In Terms Of Who Their Enemies Are,

who they hate and who hates them! Accordingly, they often become emotionally bound to their enemies, who are often competing extremists on the opposite pole of the ideological spectrum. They tend to emulate their enemies in certain respects, adopting the same style and tactics to a certain degree. Even "anti-extremist" groups often exhibit extremist behavior in this regard!

10. Extremists Are Given To Arguments By Intimidation.

That is, they frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them, they imply, is to ally oneself with the devil or give aid and comfort to the "bad guys." This ploy allows them to define the parameters of debate, cut off troublesome lines of argument, and keep their opponents on the defensive.

11. Wide Use Of Slogans, Buzzwords And Thought-Stopping Cliches.

For many extremists simple slogans substitute for more complex abstractions in spite of a high level of intelligence. Shortcuts in thinking and reasoning matters out seems to be necessary in order to appease their prejudices and to avoid troublesome facts and counter-arguments.

12. Doomsday Thinking.

Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from failure to follow a specific course, and they exhibit a kind of "crisis-mindedness." It can be a Communist takeover, a Nazi revival, nuclear war, currency collapse, worldwide famine, drought, earthquakes, floods or the wrath of God. Whatever it is, it's just around the corner unless we follow their program and listen to their special insights or the wisdom that only the enlightened have access to!

13. Extremists Often Claim Some Kind Of Moral Or Other Superiority Over Others.

Most obvious are claims of general racial superiority -- a master race, for example. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alleged victimhood, a special relationship with God, membership in a special "elite" or revolutionary vanguard. They also take great offense when one is "insensitive" enough to dispute these claims or challenge their authority.

14. Extremists Tend To Believe That It's OK To Do Bad Things In The Service Of A "Good" Cause.

They may deliberately lie, distort, misquote, slander or libel their opponents and critics, or advocate censorship or repression in "special cases" involving their enemies. This is done with no remorse as long as it's useful in defeating the Commies or Fascists (or whoever). Defeating an "enemy" becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the ends often justify the means.

15. Extremists Tend To Place Great Value On Emotional Responses.

They have a reverence for propaganda, which they may call education or consciousness-raising. Consequently, they tend to drape themselves and their cause in a flag of patriotism, a banner of righteousness or a shroud of victimhood. Their crusades against "enemies" may invoke images of the swastika, the hammer and sickle or some other symbol, as the case may be. In each instance the symbol represents an extremely odious concept in terms of their ideological premises. This ploy attempts to invoke an uncritical gut-level sympathy and acceptance of their position which discourages examination of their premises or the conclusions which they claim necessarily derive from them.

16. Some Extremists, Particularly Those Involved In "Cults" Or

religious movements such as fundamental evangelical Christians, Zionists, members of the numerous new age groups and followers of certain "gurus," claim some kind of supernatural, mystical or divinely-inspired rationale for their beliefs and actions. Their willingness to force their will on others, censor and silence opponents and critics, and in some cases actively persecute certain groups, is ordained by God! This is surprisingly effective because many people, when confronted by this kind of claim, are reluctant to challenge it because it represents "religious belief" or because of the sacred cow status of some religions. Extremists traits tend to have three things in common:

The represent some attempt to distort reality for themselves and others.
They try to discourage critical examination of their beliefs, either by false logic, rhetorical trickery or some kind of intimidation.
They represent an attempt to act out private, personal grudges or rationalize the pursuit of special interests in the name of public welfare.
Remember, human beings are imperfect and fallible. Even a rational, honest, well-intentioned person may resort to some of these traits from time to time. Everyone has strong feelings about some issues and anyone can get excited and "blow off" once in awhile. We still retain our basic common sense, respect for facts and good will toward others. The difference between most of us and the bonafide extremist is that these traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. Extremists believe they're doing the right thing when they act this way in the service of their cause.

The truth of a proposition cannot be inferred merely from the manner in which arguments in its behalf are presented, from the fact that its advocates censor and harass their opponents, or because they commit any other act or combination of acts suggested in this essay. Ultimately, the truth of any proposition rests on the evidence for it. To impeach a proposition merely because it is advocated by obvious "extremists" is to dismiss it ad hominem, that is, because of who proposes it. The fact is that extremists are sometimes right -- sometimes very right -- because they often deal with the gut issues, the controversial issues many people choose to avoid. So, before you perfunctorily write off somebody as an "extremist" and close your eyes and ears to his message, take a look at his evidence. It just might be that he's on to something!


[Laird Wilcox is editor of The Wilcox Report Newsletter , Box 2047, Olathe, Kansas 66061. He is founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political Movements in the Kenneth Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas]

Mr. Wilcox is more concerned about communists than he is worried about the Tea Party (because he is probably a member).

Dipshyt.

"because he is probably a (Tea Party) member".

What's the evidence of that?

Go look at his website.

 

[PMZ]

Mr. Wilcox is more concerned about communists than he is worried about the Tea Party (because he is probably a member).

Dipshyt.

"because he is probably a (Tea Party) member".

What's the evidence of that?

Go look at his website.

http://www.lairdwilcox.com/

No evidence there.

 

[Listening]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EPd2i4Jshs]Krugman gets p3wned on Canadian Health Care - YouTube[/ame]

Paul Krugman gets his ass handed to him on Canadian Health Care...something he crowed about.

 

[BlackSand]

You really don't see yourself in those words?
You need some exercise in introspection.

I have no questions as to what I believe ... What I think about politics and policies ... Nor how it relates to the rest of the world.
If you think not giving a damn about your silly political stance is extreme ... Then you may want to evaluate your own understanding more appropriately.
Other than that ... You could apply most of what you posted to yourself ... Well, anyone else could and I really don't think you are capable of achieving that level of introspection, humility or relative self-awareness.

But anyway, back on topic since any intellectual honesty on your part is a pipe dream ...

What do you think about President Obama backtracking on yet another requirement as far as the ACA is concerned?
You know when he lied about people being able to keep their insurance ... And then acknowledged that Americans who were unable to keep their insurance as he promised would not be fined making the Individual Mandate a joke.
Or how about the fact President Obama took extra measures to ensure that affordable plans were available for purchase by offering lower cost/higher deductible Catastrophic Care Plans?
Those plans don't include the mandated requirements the President and Congress made applicable to every other insurance policy that caused people to lose the original policies they had in the first place.

How much longer do you think the Liberals like you and Democrats are going to be able to support the absolute failure the ACA is becoming?
How long are you going to support the ability of the President to change the ACA law at his own discretion with executive privilege and without Congressional oversight?
How long will people like you try to keep giving CPR to the utter failure the Democrats came up with as a solution for healthcare?

Every week the President has to change the requirements in hopes of saving what little is left of the original law passed by Democrats in Congress ...
And with the understanding that if it came back to a vote today ... There is no way the ACA would be passed by the House or Senate.

.

 

[beagle9]

It used to be quite common to put workers in situations where their health, or even life, was put at risk by their work. We found that technology and regulations eliminated virtually all of that barbaric practice (except for the military although it's greatly improved there too).

If we ask people to work at wages that make health care unaffordable for them, aren't we recreating what we left behind decades ago?

Yes, but does Obama-care fix all this in the same ways ? You see this is what people want you to show them that it does, but I guess you can't.

Now if you can't show them that part of it at least, then they are on towards other solutions, and hopefully quickly if you ask me.

 

[PMZ]

You really don't see yourself in those words?
You need some exercise in introspection.

I have no questions as to what I believe ... What I think about politics and policies ... Nor how it relates to the rest of the world.
If you think not giving a damn about your silly political stance is extreme ... Then you may want to evaluate your own understanding more appropriately.
Other than that ... You could apply most of what you posted to yourself ... Well, anyone else could and I really don't think you are capable of achieving that level of introspection, humility or relative self-awareness.

But anyway, back on topic since any intellectual honesty on your part is a pipe dream ...

What do you think about President Obama backtracking on yet another requirement as far as the ACA is concerned?
You know when he lied about people being able to keep their insurance ... And then acknowledged that Americans who were unable to keep their insurance as he promised would not be fined making the Individual Mandate a joke.
Or how about the fact President Obama took extra measures to ensure that affordable plans were available for purchase by offering lower cost/higher deductible Catastrophic Care Plans?
Those plans don't include the mandated requirements the President and Congress made applicable to every other insurance policy that caused people to lose the original policies they had in the first place.

How much longer do you think the Liberals like you and Democrats are going to be able to support the absolute failure the ACA is becoming?
How long are you going to support the ability of the President to change the ACA law at his own discretion with executive privilege and without Congressional oversight?
How long will people like you try to keep giving CPR to the utter failure the Democrats came up with as a solution for healthcare?

Every week the President has to change the requirements in hopes of saving what little is left of the original law passed by Democrats in Congress ...
And with the understanding that if it came back to a vote today ... There is no way the ACA would be passed by the House or Senate.

.

Every month of his administrations Republicans spin another monumental Obama error that will for sure do him in. Every single one of them at the end of the month have completely flopped as the public learns the truth.

I encourage you to keep it up.

 

[PMZ]

It used to be quite common to put workers in situations where their health, or even life, was put at risk by their work. We found that technology and regulations eliminated virtually all of that barbaric practice (except for the military although it's greatly improved there too).

If we ask people to work at wages that make health care unaffordable for them, aren't we recreating what we left behind decades ago?

Yes, but does Obama-care fix all this in the same ways ? You see this is what people want you to show them that it does, but I guess you can't.

Now if you can't show them that part of it at least, then they are on towards other solutions, and hopefully quickly if you ask me.

Only open minded people learn.

 

[Listening]

It used to be quite common to put workers in situations where their health, or even life, was put at risk by their work. We found that technology and regulations eliminated virtually all of that barbaric practice (except for the military although it's greatly improved there too).

If we ask people to work at wages that make health care unaffordable for them, aren't we recreating what we left behind decades ago?

Yes, but does Obama-care fix all this in the same ways ? You see this is what people want you to show them that it does, but I guess you can't.

Now if you can't show them that part of it at least, then they are on towards other solutions, and hopefully quickly if you ask me.

Only open minded people learn.

IOW: You have nothing.

 

[PMZ]

Yes, but does Obama-care fix all this in the same ways ? You see this is what people want you to show them that it does, but I guess you can't.

Now if you can't show them that part of it at least, then they are on towards other solutions, and hopefully quickly if you ask me.

Only open minded people learn.

IOW: You have nothing.

Are you disagreeing with my statement?

 

[Listening]

Only open minded people learn.

IOW: You have nothing.

Are you disagreeing with my statement?

Your answer is simply a deflection to his claim you can't produce (which is apparently true).

 

[PMZ]

IOW: You have nothing.

Are you disagreeing with my statement?

Your answer is simply a deflection to his claim you can't produce (which is apparently true).

Are you disagreeing with my statement? Yes or no?

 

[BlackSand]

Every month of his administrations Republicans spin another monumental Obama error that will for sure do him in. Every single one of them at the end of the month have completely flopped as the public learns the truth.

I encourage you to keep it up.

Try answering the questions ... Try to post something other than liberal robot talking points.
You cannot blame what President Obama is continually changing in the ACA, due to its failures, on the Republicans any longer.

The Republicans cannot be blamed for the President's lie and then what he does to try and make up for it.
The Republicans cannot be blamed for the President's desire to offer substandard healthcare options to people he doesn't care about because they lost their insurance.
The Republicans haven't made the President go back on the Individual Mandate or Mandated Requirements for healthcare in the ACA ... President Obama is doing that by executive order.

I guess all the President needed was a law to work with ... Because nothing is what it was intended to be and President Obama changes the requirements weekly.
You are the one behind my friend ... Have been ... And only someone like you is unable to accept the fact that President Obama is undoing the trash the ACA is and always has been.


.

 

[Listening]

Are you disagreeing with my statement?

Your answer is simply a deflection to his claim you can't produce (which is apparently true).

Are you disagreeing with my statement? Yes or no?

I am saying you are a bullshyt artist.