Obama's Extremism

It's not easy being a right winger these days; or as most liberals prefer to call us: extremists.

No sooner you fancy you are a welcomed member of society's rich and diverse cultural tapestry then someone goes and compares you to folk who stake out thematic museums for target practice.

Interestingly enough, liberals hardly ever draw similar parallels anymore between say, Islamist Jihadists and right wingers. It may be because the former have become part of an ever growing fellowship of protected people groups whose subversive activities do not hold a candle to the appalling kinds of extremism that right wingers, given the right circumstances, are allegedly prone to engage in.

But maybe a definition of what extremism actually means is in order.

Being an extremist means operating at the farthest end of the generally agreed upon spectrum of cultural norms by which a particular society seeks to abide. Consequently, defining something as extreme often hinges upon the prevalent cultural paradigm in which the qualifier itself is applied. Something that would be considered extreme in one particular cultural setting for example, may very well be part of daily life in another.  

Hence since extremism is not a concept that will invariably transcend political, socio-economic or ideological boundaries, any attempts to define it places one in something of a semantics minefield. In a world where moderation is held at a premium, it gets even more complicated when trying to determine who can officially assign -- and to whom can be applied -- a definitive, unprejudiced rendering of this highly incendiary adjective. This is especially true between fiercely entrenched cultural divides in this country, where some may judge certain acts as particularly extreme -- albeit within the margins of the law -- while others view the same acts as inalienable human rights.  

But extremism is not synonymous with evil.  Some of the noblest human enterprises have been achieved through one form of extremism or another, as well as some of the cruelest social machinations in history.

The question is, why do liberals rush to make such spurious comparisons between deranged murderers and right wingers in the first place? Why such eagerness to reinforce stereotypes that have no basis on fact and are only cause for more division? Why not, instead, while they enjoy majority status, explore a different approach and seize this unprecedented opportunity to build consensus by engaging in serious debate with the opposition? One could very well argue that the possible motives behind this strained analogy betrayed a trace of acerbic rhetorical extremism on the part of the journalist, who only sought to demonize a very diverse group of mostly decent, contributing members of society. But when the charge of extremism is conjured up by liberals in this fashion, it is strictly aimed at browbeating conservatives into a dispassionate frame of sterile moderation.

In this context, consider Obama's deliberate coddling of the media, which in return offers its unflagging cover against any objective criticism directed at his grand vision of "Re-making America". This nefarious affair has emboldened the young president to summarily discount anything that in his sheltered universe he can not but deem as extreme and unwarranted personal attacks on his integrity or uninformed resistance to his policies. Conversely, many of the media's unscrupulous, self-proclaimed moral arbiters have propitiously turned the concept of extremism into a label through which those disillusioned with the present administration can be effectively neutralized.  Predictably this rather iniquitous partnership has only helped to foster an atmosphere where this and other dissenting minorities can be derisively cast as embracing extreme positions.  

Extremism for its part, serves merely to qualify the level of commitment to their respective ideologies; it is not analogous to them. In other words, though extremism may appear to be indigenous to some ideologies, our concerns should not lie with extremism itself but rather with the substance of an ideology. The reality is that this country is home to legion, genuinely altruistic savants and dilettantes of various ideological strains who need no special incentive for civil cohabitation. Extremism in the level of commitment to their respective ideologies, Thus extremism may appear to be indigenous to various ideologies, so our concerns should not lie with extremism itself but rather with the substance of an ideology.

Most sensible folk do not have time to carefully study the extremist character of the ideology behind utopian mandates that liberals actually want to implement. Mandates which often bear the seeds of a most corrosive breed, and are bound to have dire repercussions for this country's future. And whenever liberals have encountered a well justified reticence in the past from the more informed masses, they have sought to enact them through the aid of monocratic judicial activism.

Now that they command the empathy of the President, boast of a majority in Congress, and can revel in the fulsome patronage of the media, it is understandable that they no longer feel the need to indulge in any pretences of moderation. Which brings us back to Obama's imperturbable vehemence and formidable speed at which he is seeking to actualize his lavish egalitarian designs, employing what can not but necessarily be deemed as extreme measures.

For if there's one thing that Obama has learned in his relatively brief political career, is that nothing of any lasting consequence has ever been accomplished by men who only moderately believed in something. 
It's not easy being a right winger these days; or as most liberals prefer to call us: extremists.

No sooner you fancy you are a welcomed member of society's rich and diverse cultural tapestry then someone goes and compares you to folk who stake out thematic museums for target practice.

Interestingly enough, liberals hardly ever draw similar parallels anymore between say, Islamist Jihadists and right wingers. It may be because the former have become part of an ever growing fellowship of protected people groups whose subversive activities do not hold a candle to the appalling kinds of extremism that right wingers, given the right circumstances, are allegedly prone to engage in.

But maybe a definition of what extremism actually means is in order.

Being an extremist means operating at the farthest end of the generally agreed upon spectrum of cultural norms by which a particular society seeks to abide. Consequently, defining something as extreme often hinges upon the prevalent cultural paradigm in which the qualifier itself is applied. Something that would be considered extreme in one particular cultural setting for example, may very well be part of daily life in another.  

Hence since extremism is not a concept that will invariably transcend political, socio-economic or ideological boundaries, any attempts to define it places one in something of a semantics minefield. In a world where moderation is held at a premium, it gets even more complicated when trying to determine who can officially assign -- and to whom can be applied -- a definitive, unprejudiced rendering of this highly incendiary adjective. This is especially true between fiercely entrenched cultural divides in this country, where some may judge certain acts as particularly extreme -- albeit within the margins of the law -- while others view the same acts as inalienable human rights.  

But extremism is not synonymous with evil.  Some of the noblest human enterprises have been achieved through one form of extremism or another, as well as some of the cruelest social machinations in history.

The question is, why do liberals rush to make such spurious comparisons between deranged murderers and right wingers in the first place? Why such eagerness to reinforce stereotypes that have no basis on fact and are only cause for more division? Why not, instead, while they enjoy majority status, explore a different approach and seize this unprecedented opportunity to build consensus by engaging in serious debate with the opposition? One could very well argue that the possible motives behind this strained analogy betrayed a trace of acerbic rhetorical extremism on the part of the journalist, who only sought to demonize a very diverse group of mostly decent, contributing members of society. But when the charge of extremism is conjured up by liberals in this fashion, it is strictly aimed at browbeating conservatives into a dispassionate frame of sterile moderation.

In this context, consider Obama's deliberate coddling of the media, which in return offers its unflagging cover against any objective criticism directed at his grand vision of "Re-making America". This nefarious affair has emboldened the young president to summarily discount anything that in his sheltered universe he can not but deem as extreme and unwarranted personal attacks on his integrity or uninformed resistance to his policies. Conversely, many of the media's unscrupulous, self-proclaimed moral arbiters have propitiously turned the concept of extremism into a label through which those disillusioned with the present administration can be effectively neutralized.  Predictably this rather iniquitous partnership has only helped to foster an atmosphere where this and other dissenting minorities can be derisively cast as embracing extreme positions.  

Extremism for its part, serves merely to qualify the level of commitment to their respective ideologies; it is not analogous to them. In other words, though extremism may appear to be indigenous to some ideologies, our concerns should not lie with extremism itself but rather with the substance of an ideology. The reality is that this country is home to legion, genuinely altruistic savants and dilettantes of various ideological strains who need no special incentive for civil cohabitation. Extremism in the level of commitment to their respective ideologies, Thus extremism may appear to be indigenous to various ideologies, so our concerns should not lie with extremism itself but rather with the substance of an ideology.

Most sensible folk do not have time to carefully study the extremist character of the ideology behind utopian mandates that liberals actually want to implement. Mandates which often bear the seeds of a most corrosive breed, and are bound to have dire repercussions for this country's future. And whenever liberals have encountered a well justified reticence in the past from the more informed masses, they have sought to enact them through the aid of monocratic judicial activism.

Now that they command the empathy of the President, boast of a majority in Congress, and can revel in the fulsome patronage of the media, it is understandable that they no longer feel the need to indulge in any pretences of moderation. Which brings us back to Obama's imperturbable vehemence and formidable speed at which he is seeking to actualize his lavish egalitarian designs, employing what can not but necessarily be deemed as extreme measures.

For if there's one thing that Obama has learned in his relatively brief political career, is that nothing of any lasting consequence has ever been accomplished by men who only moderately believed in something.