Is being too far "Left" just as bad as being too far "Right"?

[Placebo]

I believe being too extreme one way or another isn't the way to go. You have to find a balance between the two if you're going to get anything positive done in this world of ours. It's as old as political history, really. Even in ancient times philosophers like Aristotle were lecturing about finding a virtuous mean between opposing extremes.

I don't know, I'm just throwing this question out there for the sake of conversation, not trying to indict anyone personally. :hi:

[Fenris]

1. Extremism is never pretty, right or left.

[Warpy]

11. Ah, but the greatest danger to any democracy or republic

has always come from the right, not the left. There is no exception to this in recorded history.

The left tends to concentrate on crimes against property, which pisses people off no end, but it's the left extremists that manage to shift the mushy middle ever so slightly to favor human beings over property.

[David__77]

2. There is no such thing as too far left -- that would be actually rightist.

Unproductive "leftism" is really rightism, since it obstructs progressive change.

[2diagnosis]

3. What is "too far Left"? nt

[Sal Minella]

4. Hunter said, it's when go far enough to meet loonies like

yourself coming from the other direction.

[2diagnosis]

18. OK, that's a pretty good line from Hunter, but

I was looking for something a bit more specific.

[chicagojoe]

40. Communism/ full blown Socialism.

In the end, we are NOT all equal in this respect: there are a large number of people who are just plain lazy. In a collectivist society, they wouldn't pull their weight.

[Arkana]

5. I'm with you on that one

I think extremism, no matter where it comes from, is dangerous, and it would mean the same thing regardless of its place on the political spectrum.

David_77 is right--leftist extremism is actually rightist (if that's even a word).

[Maccagirl]

6. If you lose your basic decency and humanity

because of idealogy (not to be confused with idealism), than yes, it's wrong. Hitler and Stalin were just different sides of the same coin, weren't they? They both used the same methods to achieve their goal of world domination.

[realisticphish]

7. right

though stalin might be a bad example, cause stalinism really isnt leftist. but still, you make a good point

[mikehiggins]

8. What passes for "left" in the US is a joke

If we don't like Walmart we're radical extremists.

This is a country where Christians can call for the bombing of innocent men, women and children and then go to Church on Sunday and feel justified in the eyes of Jesus.

Where is the "balance"? Aristotle would laugh out loud at the thought that we are too left, if he could even grasp the concept.

Extremism in defense of liberty, as one old timer used to say, is no vice.

Bizarre that we could live in a world where Barry Goldwater could be labeled a "liberal".

[chicagojoe]

41. Who called Goldwater a liberal?

[me b zola]

42. And for that reason I voted other

It seems that what once was considered a moderate Dem is now called the fringe, even by people who say that they are Democrats.

[American Tragedy]

9. Yes. Unfortunately, either extreme seems to lead to authoritarian systems

at least based on the historical examples. That is highly undesirable to me, since I value freedom above all and I hate invasive, abusive government.

Of course, I suppose it also depends on how one defines 'extreme right' and 'extreme left'.

[jdots]

10. same as I allways was

out in left field with the fascist corportalists stinking up the game.,cheating.

[Psephos]

12. Arthur Koestler wrote a seminal piece on this in 1945

In "The Yogi and the Commissar," he argues brilliantly about how the political spectrum is not linear, but spherical (so to speak) - if you go far enough in one direction, you find yourself among your "opposites."

It's transparent to me that extremists of any stripe (political, religious, pychological, etc.) have much in common. They become unable to see the world except through a rigidly polarizing filter. They are slaves of dogma.

This question has direct relevance to how we will take back this country from repug domination, btw. (Think about it.)

Peace.

[intheflow]

13. Definitely yes.

I always consider myself a conservative, and people just laugh laugh laugh! "You?! The peacenik do-gooder protester a conservative? WaaaHaaaaaHaaaa!!!"

Yet I insist: I am conservative! It's just that what I want to conserve differs from what the RW wants to conserve. I'm every bit as radical, though. And it certainly doesn't always translate into graceful, diplomatic conversation.


But I'm working on it.

[quinnox]

14. I think so

I don't think fanaticism on either side is helpful to the debate. What is curious is those on the far right and far left usually have an attitude of "my way is the only correct one" and it is a very rigid view of what they consider proper or acceptable i.e. if you don't agree with them on an issue then you are the "enemy" (a communist or DLC/corporatist depending on which extreme they are coming from)

[flaminbats]

15. triangulation is a winner in politics

Who decides the length of each side on a triangle? Suppose each angle represented the ideology of a national party, and each opposing line represented the political leverage of such a party. The wider and more inclusive any party is toward extreme viewpoints, the more leverage such a party has over the political system. The less inclusive and narrow a party's ideology is of opposing viewpoints, the less leverage such a party has over our political system.

The leverage each political party has over the center is governed by how narrowly or broadly its ideology is defined.

[Tactical Progressive]

16. No such thing as too far left on 'moral' issues.

Racism, bigotry, poverty, etc.

You could be too far left on other things, such as economic principles, regulation, environment etc, to the extent that the specific issues exist at levels above moral depravity. But even then the question is misleading because while you *could* go too far left on practical governance issues, and some do, for the most part being very far left on most of these is still more rational and reasonable than being even a little right.

[TreasonousBastard]

17. Every opinion, right or left...

and no matter how outlandish or just plain stupid should be out there. they may both be wrong most of the time, but they have the right to be wrong. And they are occasionally correct.

What I don't want is either the extreme right or left to actually be running things. Neither of them have the capacity to engage in serious debate or properly manage complex situations.

[Solon]

19. Totally depends on the terms used...

I have no idea what is too far left, I believe that the government has no place on social issues, like gay marriage, abortions, and morality. Those are left up to individuals and the government should have no power to restrict a person's rights as a citizen or human being. In addition to this, I believe that our current economic system is far too corrupt, and should be reined in by the government, through not only regulations, but giving the government teeth against those Corporations that violate the law. The government should have the power to enforce the law, plain and simple, and since fines seem to do little, and considering many are capped, then the government should put in the ultimate penalty against Corporate offenders, Charter revocation and asset seizures. You know, at one time, before the Civil War, this was common place in our country, now, Corporations last a century or more, and now many are so big and so powerful and wealthy that the latest fine slapped on them is only the cost of doing business. Its becoming too expensive to follow the law, and is cheaper for them to break it. We need to stop that cycle, and this is but one way to do it. Now the question is, does that make me a wild eyed radical, or a conservative, economically?

[Yosie]

20. Yes

Between some of the appenders on the I/P Forum, and some of my "Neighbors" up 101 in SF and up 880 in Berkeley, and some of the appends about Bob Casey Jr and about Rev. Jim Wallis, it is definitely possible to be "Too Far Left."

[tkmorris]

21. Sure it is, BUT, and it's a big but.......

There is really no such thing as extreme leftism in the United States.

That really is the problem right now. The far right DOES exist, in fact they have begun to discover different flavors of far right extremism. What serves as it's polar opposite in this country is actually more of a moderate group rather than leftists. Those we call "left" in the US are mainly pro-corporate Democrats, with the barest touch of Socialism thrown in, being ever so careful not to have too much.

Of course, when you really begin to analyze things you are forced to conclude that a simple two-sided dialectic is too simplistic to describe the range of potential political philosophies.

[TreasonousBastard]

22. True, but...

this is cyclical.

Throughout our history there has always been a fairly strong conservative influence. This is probably the norm, since anyone who has something would rather not lose what he has, and that sort of defines conservatism. Most societies are loathe to move too fast in any direction without a catastrophe to start things off.

But, leftist ideas have always popped up in the strangest places-- usually when some group felt threatened. Not only were there those old Socialist labor unions, but even Midwestern farmers headed leftward when they felt threatened by Eastern financial interests.

The Left is always at a disadvantage, but still always seems to come back from the dead when needed.

Never forget the days of Nixon-- Republicans were in such bad shape they couldn't pay the rent on RNC HQ in Washington. We had almost all the governors, most of Congress, and a lot of state legislatures.

Times are different now, and Republicans are far more zealous than they were in the Rockefeller days, but I don't doubt the Left will have a voice again.

[Psephos]

23. Good point n/t

[blondeatlast]

24. Other: the Left extreme is marginally preferable to the Right

since it is less inclined to eliminate humane policy entirely, but only marginally better.

Remember that at their most extreme, both ideaologies eventually meet at the hair that divides fascism and totalitarianism.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Padraig18]

26. Extremism in either direction is foolish, and possibly dangerous. n/t

[lonestarnot]

27. nope n/t

[RandomKoolzip]

28. Neither being extreme right nor extreme left are, by themselves,

harmful on an individual level. It is when there is systemic or corporate power enforcing such a philosophy that we get involved in a value judgement debate.

However, since I'm biased, I'd have to say that being extreme left is a far more humane proposition than being far right (the far left rarely advocates genocide, murder, or military adventurism for the hell of it in their literature. Usually the "extreme" left in America is calling for protecting the lives and rights of others. Why that would be considered "bad" is beyond me.)

Plus, the extreme left, in America, could never have any systemic power enforcing it; the very tenets of extreme leftism call for the meaninglessness of systemic power.

This is why I always get a laugh when I hear freeper-types complain about "Communism" (and their fear of it) when delineating liberal behavior; there is just no fuckin' way corporate funding would find its way into the pockets of Communists, therefore it ain't no threat.....however, the corporate bucks seem to flow towards the ever more extreme right alarmingly often. In other words, extreme leftism is a shadowboxer's punching bag, whereas extreme rightism is a real threat, since they have the money and the resources to enforce their philosophies.

[Just Me]

30. Very well stated. When power becomes concentrated in the hands of,...

,...extremists,...it would naturally endanger the hope and health of democracy.

I also agree with your awesome characterization, "extreme leftism is a shadowboxer's punching bag, whereas extreme rightism is a real threat"!!! What a spot on statement.

[mdguss]

29. Communism and fascism are both totaltarian:

They should both be opposed. Thankfully, the world is relatively free of both at the moment.

[rman]

34. Right vs Left is virtually irrelevant - the common factor

..the common factor in all totalitarianism is lack of democracy.
Makes sense because logically the only way for a small exploitative minority to gain power is to suppress the will of the majority of the people, by means of force and/or deception.

Though such ideas as democracy being "the tyranny of the majority" tend to be more common on the (New) Right.
On the far left there are ideas such as Anarcho Syndicalism, but as far as i know it does include democracy.

[retread]

36. Have you looked closely at what passes for our government these days?

#

[kevsand]

31. One of my all time favorite quotes from James Thurber:

"You might as well fall flat on your face, as bend over too far backward."

Like most great quotes, this one can actually be taken at least two ways. First, and most obvious, is the concept that extreme modes of behavior are indistinguishable in their outcome.

The other thought this suggests is that, if you're likely to fail anyway, you may as well fail while moving forward; i.e., on offense rather than defense. This would mean stick to your beliefs, without giving in to unnecessary compromises for the sake of moderation.

Personally, the Taoist in me resists extremism on general principle.

[Jackie97]

32. Yes, it can be.

I'm pretty far to the left. I'm against the wars. I'm 100% pro-choice. I'm 100% for gay rights. I'm for social programs. I don't make apologies for my politics because unlike Hillary, I don't think they're immoral (or won't act like it, whatever Hillary is doing).

However, I've seen how being too far to the left can make some people just as dumb and/or dangerous as somebody too far to the right. There are some leftists that hate Bush so much, that they won't acknowledge certain things done on his watch that were good such as Iraqi elections, the idea of allowing more immigrants to come up here, making rules requiring that all teachers be qualified, etc. People think that being against unjust wars means being against the elections later on. People think that being against the No Child Left Behind Act means not acknowledging that it's good that it required that every teacher be highly qualified. I think the Act probably needs some modifying (like taking out the rule demanding that every school allow military recruiters there to get federal funding, the educational system of course needs to be better funded). Do you all realize how bad the educational system has been getting? Even Kerry himself supported some of Bush's actions.

I think it's also on the dangerous side because it's getting to the point that some far leftists are acting like Bush. They're declaring that if you're not with them, then you're against them. This causes division against people that we don't necesary need to be divided from on every issue. It also causes less of our goals to get done. One thing I hate about the conservative side is that they often act like you need to be like them or else be declared the enemy. They won't work with the "enemy" on issues they agree with. They act like moderates are all on the other side (and the bad thing is that most of America is moderate). Another thing about the conservative side that I hate is that they think they're right on everything and that the other side is always wrong. I fear I'm seeing that more often on the liberal side now. I want the liberal side to be better than this.

I think what can solve some of this problem would be to be a realist along with a liberal. I don't think one can survive in life going only by conservative or liberal ideology because neither one of them are always realistic. If you're not a realist, you won't survive in life and you won't succeed in obtaining any of your goals.

[JerseygirlCT]

33. I don't know that extremism is measured by your place on a spectrum

as much as your willingness to listen to other opinions with an open mind.

Extremists know they are right, have all the answers, and no one else has anything they care to listen to. That happens to people on the right or the left. I'm guilty at times, myself.

People can have beliefs that might rate them a spot on the far left or far right, but there are still people there who are willing to look for common ground and seek opposing opinions. Even if they don't change their minds. (These people do seem rare these days, I admit.)

[retread]

35. Your far left may be my middle-of-the-road. You need to define

your terms and provide examples of each.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Power and the concetration of wealth is the problem.

Whether it's in the hands of political parties, emperors, kings, corporations, bankers, or the bully down the block.

That's why I'm an Anarchist (aka Libertarian Socialist).

[kentuck]

38. The only difference being....

The "too far right" put their ideas into practice. When was the last "too far left" idea put into practice??

[Anarcho-Socialist]

39. The extreme-left or extreme-right authoritarian dictatorships

are never cool. I'm a very left-wing person myself, but Stalinism is intolerable to me as fascism is.

[bread_and_roses]

43. Why not use behavior rather than philosophy to define "bad?"

The only real question, to my mind, is: "are you willing to use force to impose your agenda on others? If the answer is "yes" you are a menace to civilization - whatever your philosophy.

By that criteria, it seems to me to be pretty obvious which side is the greater menace in the US today.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. Not inherently, but neither can being too far right

Being on the extreme left means that we entrust almost all of our entities to the government. The trouble is that the government can become corrupt and take advantage of its power. The same can be said for being too far right. If we entrust our society to fascism, it could work great as long as the owners of the corporations are nice guys who genuinely care about people. Oh wait, what world am I living in?