An “extreme” candidate is “a candidate whose positions are too far from mine”. Therefore it is going to be a lot harder for a liberal candidate to be “extreme”, whereas practically any Republican will be considered so, especially if he or she is running for President.
Look at G-SE’s cite. A clear majority support the repeal of the ACA, yet keeping it is considered a centrist position hereabouts. About half the population of the US favors some kind of restriction on abortion, yet opposition to late-term abortion or support for parental notification is considered an extreme position.
It all depends on how the question is asked. Repealing the ACA is far more unpopular than the ACA as a bill (when the alternatives are phrased in a certain way).
The same is true for abortion, as well – depending on how the question is asked, there are ‘majorities’ on all sides.
This is a pretty odd way to define extremism. You’ve made any change from the status quo into an extreme position. It’s nonsensical.
For example*: [ul]
[li]The majority of Americans want to raise taxes on XYZ group, that’s extreme![/li][li]The majority of Americans want universal background checks on firearm purchases, that’s extreme![/li][li]The majority of Americans want to increase the minimum wage, that’s extreme![/li][/ul]
I don’t think opposition to the ACA is extreme. But it’s not going to happen with Obama in office – continuing to demand votes in Congress for the same thing 40+ times when the outcome is already known is extreme.
Not at all! The examples that BrainGlutton gave – abolishing the Federal Reserve or Social Security – represent the abolishment of major longstanding socioeconomic institutions. Medicare would be another example. The examples you gave are incremental policy changes.
The only arguable question is whether the ACA ranks up there with those other storied institutions. It doesn’t yet have the equivalent history and legacy but it has a good chance of having it eventually, and leading on to even greater things. So yes, I would argue, wanting to abolish it is extremism, and the futile effort of trying to abolish it is idiocy. Republicans so far are doing a good job of proving that they are both extremists and idiots.
Just as an aside, one might also note that by the standards of most of the rest of the world so-called “extremists” like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders would be considered wishy-washy centrists, if not outright conservatives. And people like Ted Cruz would be committed for psychiatric observation.
It’s because you’re taking what BG said out of context. The idea is that something is the status quo (ACA). Then he said federal reserve or social security, since those are also status quo. The only descriptor is whether or not something is the status quo. The idea that he was talking only about longstanding socioeconomic institutions is of your own creation.
As it stands, BG’s suggestion is a nonsensical construction of the term extreme.
[ul]
[li]Ending the war in Afghanistan is extreme[/li][li]Repealing the Bush tax cuts is extreme[/li][li]Extending the institution of marriage to gays is extreme[/li][/ul]
These were all “major longstanding socioeconomic institutions”, not incremental policy changes. So were these extreme positions, or is BrainGlutton’s definition of extreme wrong, or something else?
There is no “right” definition of extreme. Generally I define extreme as taking a position way out of the political mainstream. For example, being pro-life or pro-choice is not extreme, since the country is divided 50-50 on the issue. Attempts to label either mainstream version of the position extreme is politically motivated and pure nonsense by any definition of the word. However, if one favors elective abortion all the way up to birth, that’s extreme. If one is pro-life without exceptions, that’s extreme too.
The reason I called Warren’s plan to expand SS as extreme was because it would require a lot of taxpayer money, which could only be acquired in ways that the public would never support. If she proposes to just borrow the money, then she’s just incredibly irresponsible, not necessarily extreme. But I’m assuming she’s not a moron, so assume she plans to actually raise the money somehow. That will require a payroll tax increase on all American workers.
I’m not clear on whether you’re suggesting those are extreme or not, but I would argue they are not, but my definition stands. Ending a war whose basic objectives have been accomplished and whose ending is expected and supported by the public can hardly be gauged to be “extreme”. Starting it wasn’t extreme, either, though it was certainly a Big Deal, because it was necessary, expected, and had broad support. Starting the Iraq war was, however, extreme – an act perpetrated by extremists.
Repealing the Bush tax cuts is the very definition of incremental policy – a change in tax rates, and moreover, a return to more conventional progressive taxation. How is that extreme?
Extending the institution of marriage to gays has to be viewed in the prevailing social context. It would have been extreme in 1940. It is not extreme today. It doesn’t create a new social environment; it just codifies one that has plainly and openly existed for many years, without taking anything away from the existing institution. Extremism is not defined by the intensity with which a small minority happens to dislike something.
I agree with your definition, but not with how you’ve applied it to Warren’s SS plan. The fact that many voters have been conditioned by ceaseless right-wing lobbying to knee-jerk hysteria by the trigger words “tax increase” – like Pavlov’s dogs at the sound of a bell – doesn’t necessarily make it extremist. Taxes go up and down all the time in response to different policies at different times, and any tax increase has to be evaluated against the corresponding societal benefits. Extremism would be supporting or rejecting any tax policy on the basis of ideology without even looking at its merits, which seems to me to be what you have done.
