I am not sure that I would say they want to be "special" as much as I would say that they want to have "special information that no one else has".
Extremists often to engage in Binary thinking where decisions are clear with clear virtues and clear vices, with clear heroes and clear villains.
I have always maintained that economic models of any kind do not really work as stand alone systems except in very small communities. Communism and Capitalism tend to work well in smaller populations, but once you get past a certain point, there are issues that neither system addresses sufficiently. The answer is to take the best parts of both systems and try to work them together into something that works for the most people. HOWEVER, as you said, the idea of that offends the extremists on either side of the spectrum because then they do not hold the "answer".
I would also venture to say that people did not abstain from voting for Hillary Clinton because she was "mainstream". It happened because they became convinced, by a coordinated effort over the past 30+ years to paint Hillary Clinton as a corporate loving, lying, Machiavellian person. On one hand you have the populist right winger and on the other you have the Democratic Socialist who rails against the "billionaires" and forced into the middle you have the Left leaning pragmatist who knows more about politics, policy (foreign and domestic), than the other two could learn in a lifetime. Yet, she was an equally bad choice based on the information and biases that were held by the two poles.
It isn't so much about being special as it is about being correct and confirming your bias.
When you talk to extreme left people and, well now, just your average right winger, you will hear similar excuses about failures of policy and that response will be: "It/HE/SHE wasn't (liberal/conservative/whatever) enough" It can never be their policy or belief system that was incorrect, it has to be that it wasn't applied purely enough. That is the binary thinking and the confirmation bias.
I would suggest that voters select the candidate that can win, who will most fully support policies that are important to them. Stein will never win an election. No Green, Peace and Freedom, Libertarian, or other minor party candidate will win a national election. You have to look at the policy platforms of the viable candidates and choose the one that is most in line with your views.
Full disclosure, I was rooting for Bernie Sanders in the primary. When all of the information about the debates and suspending Sander's access to the database, and all that was coming out, I had reactions to it. I did not like how Wasserman-Schultz was handling some of what was happening. I also knew that whoever won the primary, would be my candidate because whoever that was, was going to be better than ANYONE the Republicans would be running because their platform and policies are against everything I stand for as a citizen.
Life is complicated. People are flawed and complicated. There is never going to be a candidate that has all upside and no downside. That is what adult life is about. When I was a little kid, my dad was the biggest, strongest, bravest man ever. I wanted to be like him. As I grew up, I saw the wrinkles, the flaws, the faults, and while he was no longer the biggest, strongest, bravest man ever; I STILL want to be like him in many ways because he is a good man. Ideals are great to strive for and no one should ever stop, but people need to understand that "the Revolution" may not bring you the outcome that you want. It may bring something much worse. It is better to try to pull the system to where it helps the most people by instilling your values into your children, by being active and informed, and by making the smartest choices of the people you want to represent your interests in government.
= new reply since forum marked as read
