December 1, 2022

“You’re an extremist!” If you are at all involved in the American political discourse you have probably heard this phrase used quite often. If you are at all principled in your beliefs, chances are you have been accused of being an extremist yourself by people that oppose your positions. What exactly does it mean to be “extreme” in America? If you are a passionate advocate in support of our Constitution and our Founding principles, does that make you an “extremist?” If you listen to certain voices on the Left it does. This is not only a nasty politically-motivated slur, but it is also illogical and dangerous to our Union.

All things considered, the Constitution of the United States is far from an “extreme” document. Likewise, a supporter of the Constitution and its philosophic backing ought not be considered as such either. How should we orient ourselves regarding the Constitution and the Founding principles? The concept of the Golden Mean as discussed by philosophers such as Aristotle may help. The Golden Mean is a concept that considers a virtue as existing between two vices at each end. For example, the virtue of courage is found in between the vices of cowardice (deficient courage) and foolhardiness (excessive courage). A courageous man acts despite fear, but is humble enough to know his limits. He does not avoid danger when it must be faced, but he also does not arrogantly run into danger without prudent planning and reasonable expectations of success. The Founders of the United States created a Constitution that is similar to this mean of virtue in many ways. They were aware of the known dangers of authoritarianism on one hand and pure democracy on the other. Our system however was crafted from first principles and consists of liberal rights-based Federalism, enumerated authority, limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances and the rule of law concept. It is meant to virtuously ensure justice, fairness, and the longevity of the union. It was also meant to share power between various competing factions and natural divides in the population (urban/rural, industrial/agrarian, rich/poor, etc). The most important point however is that the central orientation of our Republic is liberty and the inalienable rights of the people, as reflected by the Declaration of Independence. We are not first oriented around utility alone, and the Founders avoided the “middle ground fallacy” (more on this below) by starting from first moral principles derived from reason. So if the Constitution and its supporters are espousing a logical, objectively reasonable position, how have things changed to the point many of its supporters are being labeled “extreme” today?

Definitions

There are two relevant definitions of “extreme” that have a slight variation in concept. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, these are:

1. Existing in a very high degree, going to great or exaggerated lengths, radical, exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected

2. situated at the farthest possible point from a center

As you can see from both of these definitions, “extreme” is clearly a relative concept. There must be something else to compare the “extreme” to in order for it to have any meaning at all. In American politics, the first of the two definitions is more subjective and changeable in nature whereas the second is more objective and fixed. The reason the second definition is more objective and fixed is because of the US Constitution and the Founding philosophy/principles of our nation. We have a definitive “center” to which we can compare various political policy positions, opinions, beliefs, and tactics. The closer any given political position is to the Founding ideals and the Constitution/Rule of Law, the less “extreme” it is per the second definition. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and is literally the “centrist” position in our nation.

The first definition as it relates to American political discourse is based more on popular opinion and cultural norms. This sort of makes “extreme” an ultimately meaningless concept because it is devoid of any objective measure of worth (moral, legal, practical). Someone labeled as “extreme” by this definition can be simultaneously good or bad depending on the observer. Someone that vigorously defends a legitimate long-held moral position in line with the founding principles will be “extreme” compared to and judged by a mass of disinterested citizens that blindly follow the talking heads on television espousing a popular but polar opposite position contrary to founding principles. Furthermore, a person that promotes demonstrably destructive policy for selfish ends may be “extreme” at first but might one day find themselves as part of the norm if the same policy becomes popular. The policy in this case is equally terrible, but it is no longer “extreme” by this definition (a morally decent policy may be the “extreme” one).

The “Center” of America

The whole point of the American experiment in government was to center our political system around logically valid and sound, self-evident truths and act as necessary after careful deliberation. These truths are based on objective moral principles derived from reason, not from opinion, selfish desires, or worldly authority. We are founded in a basis of natural law and fundamental inalienable human rights – on freedom and liberty with consideration for a responsibility and duty to others (mutual respect of fundamental rights). Our system is based on consent, on checked, separated, government limited to the least restrictive means of accomplishing its enumerated goals at each level in the Federalist system. This gives us a base upon which to measure the worth any given policy proposal or political position in itself rather than just defaulting to how well it achieves some desired end. Simply put, America has a moral base and a defined political base at its center. Americans that respect and abide by this base are centrists, not extremists, by the second definition mentioned above. This holds regardless of how far the masses and popular opinion shift away from the Constitution and Founding principles.

It is of course true that in certain instances in our nation’s history, there has been a disconnect between our human law, even the Constitution itself, and the self-evident moral principles as reflected in natural law that our nation is based upon. It is a testament to the genius and utility of the Constitution and our system that we were able to remedy many of these discrepancies and secure more protections for more people throughout the years without destroying the system itself (and we have also successfully defended it with force). Some of the views that instituted these changes may have been considered “extreme” initially by the first definition mentioned above. In some ways they were even “extreme” by the second definition as it pertains to the law. If the changes were and are compatible with objectively-derived moral principles however, they were never truly “extreme” in themselves, they were logically sound. The practice out of sync with the objective moral imperative was “extreme.” Slavery is the best example from our history. By identifying how our practice (human law and/or behaviors) contradicted our objective principles, we were able to correct ourselves without destroying our foundations. Continuing to identify these contradictions and fix them is the legitimate challenge we face as we progress towards a more just world. If all Americans were oriented towards this goal, we would have passionate, yet respectful practical disagreements on how to get there but less fighting about what the goals are in themselves.

Subjective “Extremism” Today

Unfortunately we do not have the necessary fundamental agreement in America today to work towards true progress efficiently without contradicting our foundations. Ideologically and morally we are fundamentally divided. The most powerful and loud voices in our culture today often divide people not so much around an orientation of the second definition of “extreme,” but the first. “Extreme” becomes a charge against anyone that is passionately out of step with the status quo powers and their preferred political positions, right or wrong. At this point it should be clear why this is a problem for a country like America based on objective principles. Powerful factions and popular opinion setting the standard for normality and extremes is a danger the Founders warned against and made efforts to limit. Those protections are purposely being eroded to “fundamentally transform” America. In fact, the opinion that they ought to be preserved is in itself considered “extreme” by many people these days. Terms like “our democracy” and “our truth” take precedent over “extremist” viewpoints that favor fundamental rights protections and Constitutional limits on what the founders deemed the “tyranny of the majority.”

Shifting America away from an objective standard towards a subjective one undermines the intent of the Founders and makes us more like a game show than a principled nation. A majority vote may be a great way to determine the next American Idol, but it is not always the best way to determine the course of the entire nation. If the Constitution is central, and you have self-interested political and ideological groups around the outside, things will remain stable so long as the Constitution is respected as the center. But if one ideological position successfully places itself at one end and the Constitution is at the other, it creates a slow shift towards their position with a new center that is further from the true constitutional center. Over time the center becomes closer to their desired position. In our desperate attempts to solve problems and seem like we are doing something, we often resort to some sort of “bipartisan” compromise position that may commit the middle ground fallacy – in this case a sacrifice of objective principles to appease self-interested factions in violation of what is morally right and constitutionally permitted. Appealing to popular opinion is the MO of those that seek to shift our center in such a way, and there are a plethora of rhetorical tricks they deploy to “nudge” opinion in the direction they desire.

Two common tactics are guilt by association and appeals to (false) authority. Left-oriented groups like the Anti Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center act as de facto authorities in defining and labeling “extremism” and “extremists” in America. They are then quoted by like-minded journalists and even politicians as authorities on the subject even though their reasoning and evidence is often flawed. These groups like to identify fringe people with specifically troublesome ideology/actions and then link more mainstream thought with them via incidential associations and loosely shared beliefs. The fringe people and groups then become a strawman to attack instead of the relevant arguments in the larger debates while vicious motives are substituted for the desire to adhere to traditional principles, respect rights, or follow proper legal procedures. The topic of Immigration and border security is a great example. A decade ago there was much more agreement between political parties and ideological divisions that there was a problem with immigration policy and border security in the country regarding illegal immigration, visa overstays, etc. Today, the exact same positions and honest arguments have been labeled racism and xenophobia perpetuated by ideological “extremists” and “far-right” “white nationalists.” The reasonable, objective arguments that were shared by most not too long ago have morphed into a divisive partisan attack. It is wholly absurd and makes it difficult to have honest debate but easier for the Left to force their desired outcomes onto the country.

The list of traditional positions and beliefs now labeled “extreme” or “far right” by people on the Left is never-ending. Depending on what is the target of demonization, religious liberty advocates might be “extremists” undermining public health or they might be “Christian nationalists” trying to oppress others and impose their religious preferences on the nation. The moral imperatives that demand we respect the religious liberty of all are disregarded in the debate and the supposed selfish ends of those deemed undesirable and worthy of coercion are substituted in their place. Similarly, the Supreme Court conservative majority are now “far-right” “extremist” activist judges in the minds of many because they have acted to restore Constitutional precedent in a handful of cases. For example, despite the constitutional and moral arguments, Roe v. Wade opponents and pro-life advocates are “extremists” that hate women according to many on the Left. Second Amendment supporters are fringe militant “extremists” that are responsible for every gun crime committed in America and more. Millions of MAGA Republicans have been labeled “extreme” by Joe Biden despite their primary concern simply being government overreach and expansion away from the traditional center. Similarly, Libertarian-leaning Tenth Amendment supporters are “extremist” anti-government advocates (nevermind adhering to the Constitution is literally pro-government). Anti-lockdown protesters and medical freedom advocates are “extremist” “conspiracy theorists” (despite the years of actual government policy that infringed upon rights in the name of fighting COVID).  Parental rights advocates and education traditionalists are not concerned for their children’s education and opposing certain policies they deem harmful, they are labeled “extremists,” “domestic terrorists,” and bigots that hate trans kids and hate minorities. Even Hillsdale College, a Constitutionally-oriented institution of higher learning that has been advocating traditional western values since it was founded in 1844 by abolitionists, is now guilty by association for being involved in projects with people the SPLC considers “extremists” and are regarded as an indoctrination center in the eyes of many on the Left.

How to Respond to the “Extremist” Label and Tactics

It takes much more effort to make a proper argument on all these topics and act within a logical, checked political system than it does for self-interested people like Leftists to demonize their opponents, equate their motives with vices, and call them “extreme” in order to shift the narrative in their direction. Over time, this discrepancy takes a toll on ordered liberty and our Republic. We cannot change their behavior, we can only react to it. Doing the same to them wouldn’t be virtuous and it wouldn’t help promote our positions. The first thing we ought to do when confronted with the “extremist” label and these “nudging” tactics on a given topic is quickly distinguish the two relevant definitions of “extreme” as mentioned above. Next, identify the moral center and briefly explain the actual moral imperatives that justify your reasonable position. Finally, we should embrace the second definition of “extreme” but reframe it as a passionate defense of the moral center, similar to how Martin Luther King Jr described it in his Letter From Birmingham Jail,

“…Now this approach is being dismissed as extremist. I must admit that I was initially disappointed in being so categorized. But as I continued to think about the matter, I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist in love? — “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.” Was not Amos an extremist for justice? — “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.” Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ? — “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” Was not Martin Luther an extremist? — “Here I stand; I can do no other so help me God.” Was not John Bunyan an extremist? — “I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a mockery of my conscience.” Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist? — “This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.” Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist? — “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” So the question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?”

For example, when the “extremist” label gets thrown out by people accusing Second Amendment supporters of caring more about guns than children, it is prudent to immediately identify the fundamental rights at the heart of the matter. We all have the fundamental right to life and from this is logically derived the fundamental right of self defense. The Second Amendment recognizes this and secures the right to use the tools necessary for the defense of these rights from infringement. This immediately shifts the argument away from the subjectivist ends-based rationalization and places it back in the context of objective reasoning from a valid center. Their personal opinion on what is “extreme” is neutered and it becomes a matter of passionately defending principle and looking for solutions within the Constitutional framework, versus their desire to limit gun rights. If they want to persist with the “extreme” labeling, it becomes an “extreme” defense of fundamental rights and the duty to protect the self and others, versus an “extreme” position of disregarding these objective truths in order to achieve a certain selfish end. Framed within the second definition of “extreme,” it is their position that is further from the objective center and it must be recognized as such. A similar course of action can be deployed regarding any topic.

None of this is to suggest anyone, including Leftists, cannot express their opinions or must accept anything from other viewpoints. It simply means we ought to reject their attempts to manipulate narratives with dishonest tactics and we ought to frame things from a more objectively-derived center. Robert F Kennedy once said regarding extremists, “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.” Little is more intolerant than refusing to even address the true arguments of others, especially when they stem from objectively-derived sources and are compatible with fundamental rights. So as you may expect, accusations of “extremism” are usually just projections of one’s own subjectively “extreme” positions that require a certain amount of unjust coercion to bring them to fruition. There are few problems we face today that we cannot solve within our objectively valid moral and political framework. We just need to reject the hyperbole and focus on what works without sacrificing our principles.