# What is the historical endgame for a spiral of political extremism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 27, 2010, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060 "2010-03-27T22:06:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/21 "2010-03-28T16:37:19Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Could be, but then the next cycle will bring it back closer to balance. Americans just don’t seem to like to give too much power to any one party. There’s a self-correcting process that goes on, and these cycles repeat themselves. It’s a pendulum, swinging back and forth. That’s a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/22 "2010-03-28T16:40:16Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > “On this board”? In general. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/23 "2010-03-28T17:38:35Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Could be, but then the next cycle will bring it back closer to balance. Americans just don’t seem to like to give too much power to any one party. There’s a self-correcting process that goes on, and these cycles repeat themselves. Really? The Republicans pretty much locked the Dems out of power after the Civil War, then the Dems were fairly dominant from 1932-1980. And the Republicans more or less steadily increased their power from 1980-2006. And at least since I’ve been old enough to pay attention to politics (20ish years), one or the other party has held both chambers of congress and the Presidency close to 50% of the time. There’s a certain amount of “regression to the mean”, a party with huge majorities tend to loose them just because huge majorities are harder to grow then they are to shrink, but in general the public seems to be alright having one party or the other keep the upper hand for extended periods of time. ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/24 "2010-03-28T18:05:11Z")
I suppose the underlying fear is a Weimar Republic situation, where extremists parties tear away at the center to the point that a real-world politically moderate compromise-making government is no workable. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/25 "2010-03-28T19:26:35Z")
The historical endgame is we’ll have an election. If the majority of people think the Republicans are right and the health care plan is a bad idea, then they’ll win a lot of seats and have control of Congress. If the majority of people think the Republicans have gone off the deep end, then they’ll lose a lot of seats and the Democrats will keep control of Congress and be able to say they have a mandate on health care reform. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/26 "2010-03-28T20:19:09Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The historical endgame is we’ll have an election. If the majority of people think the Republicans are right and the health care plan is a bad idea, then they’ll win a lot of seats and have control of Congress. If the majority of people think the Republicans have gone off the deep end, then they’ll lose a lot of seats and the Democrats will keep control of Congress and be able to say they have a mandate on health care reform. Thanks rick romero. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/27 "2010-03-28T20:27:35Z")
Sometimes, of course, the endgame of a cycle of political extremism is revolution. But the conditions have to be just right for that, and they are extremely rare in history. In America we have not had a true revolutionary situation since Reconstruction ended – not even in the 1930s nor the 1960s – and I don’t see any on the horizon. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/28 "2010-03-28T21:30:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Thanks rick romero. The guy that pitches for the Blue Jays? The pro wrestler who died in 2006? The consumer affairs reporter for KABC in Los Angeles? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/29 "2010-03-29T07:25:21Z")
Eventually they’ll either get too extreme and implode or moderate itself by kicking out the lunatics. However, with their professed good vs. evil mentality, the Pubs will have a hard time moderating until a large number of the nutjobs simply die due to old age. Obama’s health care has given them a few extra years though ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/30 "2010-03-29T07:43:20Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Really? The Republicans pretty much locked the Dems out of power after the Civil War, then the Dems were fairly dominant from 1932-1980. And the Republicans more or less steadily increased their power from 1980-2006. And at least since I’ve been old enough to pay attention to politics (20ish years), one or the other party has held both chambers of congress and the Presidency close to 50% of the time. > > There’s a certain amount of “regression to the mean”, a party with huge majorities tend to loose them just because huge majorities are harder to grow then they are to shrink, but in general the public seems to be alright having one party or the other keep the upper hand for extended periods of time. Any Freshman political science class will teach the incoming newbies that off-year elections (that is, non-presidential) is usually helpful to the minority party. There are very few exceptions to this rule. I think Simplicio’s reasoning is correct. The Dems are unlikely to lose a majority in either house. It’s a long way until November, and that time will be very important to those actively campaigning. The Republicans are not actively campaigning, the Tea Bag folks are hogging the spotlight, and they are not helping the Republicans. They are stirring the pot and raising money so they can afford to have Sarah Palin come speak. Revolution and civil war and the fall of governments are the usual result of extremism spiraling out of control. I don’t see the Tea Baggers succeeding or even seriously attempting such a thing. The dozen violent incidents seem to be separate and just fallout of Rush’s farts. (I really want to believe that.) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/31 "2010-03-29T08:01:22Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Revolution and civil war and the fall of governments are the usual result of extremism spiraling out of control. I don’t see the Tea Baggers succeeding or even seriously attempting such a thing. I don’t see them coming even close to succeeding; but I wouldn’t be at all be surprised for them to try in some ineffectual but bloody fashion. Such as something like a reprise of Timothy McVeigh’s bombing, killing a bunch of people with the sublime conviction it will spark off a revolution. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/32 "2010-03-29T08:35:27Z")
The political autocatalytic reaction hasn’t died down so if there are electoral gains for the Republicans in the mid-terms then they will probably on harden their resolve further. The “we would have won even more if we’d been more hardline gambit”. Systems naturally overshoot before they start to correct. Recent equivalent in Aussie was the Whitlam government that had reformists zeal and very bad maths. Based on a constitutional crisis they lost power and copped a shellacking in the '75 election. But it was only after they copped an even bigger hiding in 1977 that they realised that they had to work/reform to get themselves re-electable, and it took them another 2 elections before Bob Hawke won in 1983. Experience in parliamentary democracies like Aust, NZ and the UK would indicate that when a government fall through being too far left or right of their constituents they are warming the opposition benches for at least two election cycles. So, if the current Republican sentiment is grossly out of line with the average American voter then winning seats in the mid-terms will hand the Democrats a landslide in 2012 and indulgent magorities in the 2014 midterms. If the current Republican sentiment is in line with the average American voter, that’s a whole different scenario ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/33 "2010-03-29T13:09:48Z")
Everyone keeps talking about the Republicans abandoning the “wing nuts” like the far right is an unimportant, and tiny fraction of the party. As was demonstrated in the last presidential election, the religious right, the hyperpatriots, and the white power fringes are a critical portion of the electorate to the Republican party. No, the majority of the party are not really all that much in favor of the opinions of these factions, but maintaining a consensus with them is an absolute necessity for the party to maintain power. Face it, these are the exact folks that no power on earth could cause to vote for a Democrat for any reason. The extreme opposition on the left are routinely ignored by the mainstream of the Democratic party, because everyone knows they are not going to vote Republican no matter what. But the Republicans don’t just need their fringe to not vote against them, they need them to actively support the party, and SUPPORT THE PARTY LINE. It is not because of some inherent quality of conservative versus liberal that this is true. The current political landscape is so contentious because of the lack of real differences between the parties on the overwhelming majority of the issues of real day to day governance. Particularism is the moving force of our party system. If I want something, I don’t have to convince the whole country to agree, I need to convince slightly more than half of the middle third of the country. As long as I don’t piss off the wide fringe on the “other side” it won’t be hard at all. But, in the current decade, the Republican party is in the demographic position that it cannot achieve a majority of the electorate simply by not pissing off it’s extreme wing, it needs that segment to be active, and involved and voting in large numbers. (a consequence of how little Americans actually care about politics) With the current split, the actual commies, socialists, anarchists, etc. on the other end are irrelevant, unless they get involved heavily as well, and they pretty much don’t. The end game is that drift in one way or another will cause the parties to either engage, or disengage with their extremists in such a way that the new center becomes less unfavorable to them, and the extreme wings go back to sleep. The only thing that won’t change is the actual names of the parties. Brand loyalty is important in politics, actual philosophic consistency is not. Tris ---
**Author:** ![Doughbag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Doughbag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doughbag)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/34 "2010-03-29T13:11:46Z")
In the US there seams to be a political problem: only two parties Neither one is better or worse (for this argument), since they are both mainstream. What this means is, that it becomes stagnant and no change really can happen and the US is loosing its flexibility to cope with future problems. On the other hand, if you have a Weimarer Republic where too many parties get involved you can not come to a decission, because to many people have something to say. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/35 "2010-03-29T16:01:07Z")
Two parties is an inevitable consequence of our voting system. It doesn’t matter what the two parties are named. A third party can’t get anywhere, because in our system you either win the election or you lose the election. And if you don’t win, you get nothing. So the current “Republican” and “Democratic” parties have absolutely no ideological or philosophical continuity with the parties that were founded with those names. The original Republican party was a party of northern liberal abolitionists, the origianl Democratic party was a party of Southern conservative agrarians. It’s possible that one of the major parties will crumble to irrelevance, but that just means that their place will be taken by another major party, and we’ll still have a two party system. What’s more likely is that the irrelevant husk of the old party will be taken over by new people and brought back to major party status with the same name but completey different policies and beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/36 "2010-03-29T17:26:40Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Two parties is an inevitable consequence of our voting system. It doesn’t matter what the two parties are named. A third party can’t get anywhere, because in our system you either win the election or you lose the election. And if you don’t win, you get nothing. > > So the current “Republican” and “Democratic” parties have absolutely no ideological or philosophical continuity with the parties that were founded with those names. The original Republican party was a party of northern liberal abolitionists, the origianl Democratic party was a party of Southern conservative agrarians. > > It’s possible that one of the major parties will crumble to irrelevance, but that just means that their place will be taken by another major party, and we’ll still have a two party system. What’s more likely is that the irrelevant husk of the old party will be taken over by new people and brought back to major party status with the same name but completey different policies and beliefs. e.g., the Federalists, the Democratic-Republicans, the Whigs, etc. Alternatively, entirely new issues will arise and either the party will take a position on those new issues or what the party stands for will be changed by the issues shifting under it. For example, the Republicans have always been the big business/ finance/ industrialist party. This was radical in the early 1860s and conservative by the 1960s. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/37 "2010-03-29T17:40:17Z")
> [@](#): > > In the US there seams to be a political problem: only two parties > > Neither one is better or worse (for this argument), since they are both mainstream. What this means is, that it becomes stagnant and no change really can happen and the US is loosing its flexibility to cope with future problems. > > On the other hand, if you have a Weimarer Republic where too many parties get involved you can not come to a decission, because to many people have something to say. I disagree (as I have in the part). The two party system arose because that’s what the people wanted. On the occasions when a third party has arisen, either it gets aborbed into the big two or it replaces one of the big two - we always return to the two parties. (This doesn’t make them stagnant - the parties themselves change. In the last thirty years, both parties have moved to the right.) The two big parties succeed because they represent broad numbers of voters. Third parties don’t. And in a democracy, the system shouldn’t be rigged to let them succeed. Why should a party that represents one percent of the voters have power comparable to a party that represent forty-five percent of the voters? Third party supporters will argue that just their ideas might be right even if they aren’t popular with the majority. True in theory. But how do you seperate the unpopular ideas that are right from the unpopular ideas that are wrong? The best system we’ve been able to come up with is to say that unpopular good ideas will eventually become popular and win majority approval while unpopular bad ideas will fail to grow (and popular bad ideas will fade away). It’s a slow and inefficient process but it’s better than giving equal weight to every idea, good or bad, popular or unpopular. The Weimar Republic, as you noted, had a system that was designed to give small parties a large amount of power. The result was that the Social Democrats and the Centrists had to work alongside the Nazis and the Communists. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/38 "2010-03-29T19:21:38Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I disagree (as I have in the part). The two party system arose because that’s what the people wanted. No. \*\*Lemur \*\*is right-- it’s a function of winner take all. If we had a parliamentary system, we’d have more parties, but not because people’s “wants” had changed. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/39 "2010-03-29T19:35:44Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I don’t see them coming even close to succeeding; but I wouldn’t be at all be surprised for them to try in some ineffectual but bloody fashion. Such as something like a reprise of Timothy McVeigh’s bombing, killing a bunch of people with the sublime conviction it will spark off a revolution. [This](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_fbi_raids) being an example. > [@](#): > > Nine suspects tied to a Christian militia in the Midwest are charged with conspiring to kill police officers, then attack a funeral in the hopes of killing more law enforcement personnel, federal prosecutors said Monday. > > \ > > Once other officers gathered for a slain officer’s funeral, the group planned to detonate homemade bombs at the funeral, killing more, according to newly unsealed court papers. > > According to the indictment, the idea of attacking a police funeral was one of numerous scenarios discussed as ways to go after law enforcement officers. Other scenarios included a fake 911 call to lure an officer to his or her death, or an attack on the family of a police officer. > > After such attacks, the group allegedly planned to retreat to “rally points” protected by trip-wired improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, for what they expected would become a violent standoff with law enforcement personnel. > > “It is believed by the Hutaree that this engagement would then serve as a catalyst for a more wide-sread uprising against the government,” the indictment charges. Fortunately, these ones were stopped in time. But I find the underlined interesting because it demonstrates one of the odd features of these people; they really don’t seem to actually realize they ARE a fringe movement. ---
**Author:** ![Icarus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icarus/32/72_2.png) [@Icarus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icarus)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060/40 "2010-03-29T20:16:39Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Fortunately, these ones were stopped in time. But I find the underlined interesting because it demonstrates one of the odd features of these people; they really don’t seem to actually realize they ARE a fringe movement. Well, they do get a lot of seeming reinforcement for their beliefs by the more frothy media voices, of which there seems to be an abundant supply. So, naturally they think they are not a small minority. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-historical-endgame-for-a-spiral-of-political-extremism/534060.md?page=3)