No, We Are Not "Just as Crazy" as The Other Side

Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?”-Martin Luther King Jr.

The centrism of our time is the gateway drug to the far right.-Raoul Martinez 

This past year has been a tense one for the United States of America.  We have come to realize how divided our citizens are.  That divide seems to be between those fighting for equality, recognition, and an equal place in our society along with their allies, against those who feel threatened by sharing power and are trying to maintain their dominance.  There has been much ugliness, meanness, and outright hate.  Dissatisfaction and the need for both sides to to feel heard has brought about violence and destruction.  

Since Trump took office I hear too many statements from those who claim they are above the fray.  They are the ones who call themselves, "moderates", "independents", or sometimes "apolitical".  They pretend to take some kind of moral high ground by paternally finger wagging and declaring, "We are all Americans.  Act like Americans.  Let's all come together and have unity.  If we are divided, it's your fault." They think they are better than everyone else by saying everyone is equally wrong.  By judging others, they are blameless.  I don't need to say most of these people are white, and have the privilege of staying out of politics because they don't have as much at stake as minorities, the poor, or the LBBTQIA community.

Well, I am here to say anyone who claims the problem is on "both sides" is dead wrong.

There is a fallacy out there stating that both sides of any issue are equally valid.  If we reject the other side’s argument, it is a sign of intolerance.  If one side commits an inexcusable act, the other side must have done something equally horrible.  If one side is extreme, then anyone who opposes that side must be equally extreme.

I hear the same argument all the time from so-called moderates.  Even though they say both sides are “wrong” or “crazy” or “extreme”, they are relentless on their attacks on the left.  I don't know how many times I hear someone claiming to be a "moderate" saying, "Yes, white supremacy is bad, but those liberals have to stop being so extreme.  They are ruining their cause.  Why can't they just behave properly?"  What's worse is when they turn that criticism onto the BIPOC communities, claiming if blacks behaved properly and followed the rules, they wouldn't be victims of hate and violence against them.

As Americans and as humans, each of us does have a right to our own voice.  We can freely express ourselves as we see fit.  That doesn't mean everything we say needs to be heard or accepted by others.  Words and actions have consequences.  You can't cry "intolerance" and "cancel culture" because a large group takes issues with your words.  Maybe it's time you examine your words and the effects they have on others around you.

What are the main criticisms of the left?  I can think of three of them.  The first is that liberals and their "cancel culture" (hot new buzzword of the day) are drowning out opposing viewpoints.  The second is that liberal actions and rhetoric are as dangerous as right wing actions and rhetoric.  The third is that liberals have become more extreme and socialistic in their views and need to be reined in.  

I want to address these points and why I think they need to stop dominating the discussion.

Let's talk about tolerance first.  Liberals are supposedly preaching tolerance while refusing to hear the other side.  The prevailing media view is liberal intolerance of right wing viewpoints is as bad, or even worse, than right wing hatred of liberal views.

It's time to revisit the meaning of the world "tolerance". It means to put up with.  It doesn't mean to accept or condone.  It's also time to realize there should be limits to what is tolerable in our society.  I won't tolerate white supremacy.  I won't tolerate religious bigotry or religious dominionism.  That doesn't make me crazy.  It makes me a decent, rational human being.  Should German citizens in the 1930s have tolerated and given credence to Hitler's rantings because it's important to show both sides?  Look what happened when they did.

Besides, why are liberals always expected to tolerate other views, but not the other way around?  Christian bakeshops don't have to bake gay wedding cakes.  Members of the Faith and Freedom Coalition aren't attending gay pride parades (unless it's to protest, which is their right).  The head of Planned Parenthood isn't giving special lectures at Liberty University. How many liberal pundits are on OAN or Newsmax?  It seems those on the right, particularly if they are Christian, have the privilege of shutting out other voices.  That's a privilege denied liberals. 

Three weeks ago a group of nominally peaceful protestors marched to the Capitol building and began storming the gates.  The climbed walls, broke windows, forced their way past the police officers they claim to revere, and made a mess in the halls of our democracy.   They rooted through the Senate chambers and raided Congressional offices.  They urinated on the walls and defecated on the floors.  Many carried guns.  One infamous rioter carried cable locks as if in preparation for a kidnapping.  This was no peaceful protest.  This was an insurrection attempting to overthrow a democratically elected government. 

The responses I heard were the same arguments, "But look at Black Lives Matter.  What those protests did to Portland is just as bad."  I will not make light of the damages done to private property in these protests, although I believe the media, particularly the right wing outlets, exaggerated the riotous elements of what were mostly peaceful protests.   I don't condone the more extreme actions.  Most liberal Americans will not condone it.  

Nonetheless I refuse to give these two protests equal weight.  BLM protests were a reaction to long-standing racial injustice.  Throughout American history black Americans have not enjoyed the same freedoms as white Americans, and have been treated unfairly by the justice system.  No matter what they do to make their voices heard, they are criticized. The right and the moderates scold them and say the BIPOC communities and their allies are going about their protests then wrong way.  They assure black Americans they empathize with their plight, but they want the "nice" black people tone it down a bit.  Unfortunately, toning down the rhetoric never seems to have much effect.  Sometimes a riot can feel like the only way to make one's voice heard.  Throughout history riots were often turning points that preceded social change (for better or for worse).

Let's also not forget during the 2020 BLM protests, there was a strong police and National Guard presence and those protestors were not armed (and they wore their COVID masks).  That was the opposite of what I saw in the Capitol riots on January 6th.  The Washington DC BLM protest was peaceful, but that didn't stop the National Guard from turning on the crowd with tear gas and rubber bullets so Donald Trump could walk across the street and stand in front of a church for a photo opp.

The American Right constantly comes up with derogatory terms and paranoid fantasies about radical organizations ready to destroy our way of life.  There is no such organization as "antifa" but they are a feared group nonetheless.  Considering antifa is supposed to stand for Anti-Fascist, I have to wonder why they are so evil.  Would you prefer a group that is Pro-Fascist?  Well, the Proud Boys are "very fine people," so maybe you can hang out with them.  Then there is epithet of Social Justice Warrior or SJW.  This is aimed at anyone whose beliefs make the right and moderates a bit uncomfortable.  If the rhetoric hits a bit close to home, then you are a radical SJW.  You are definitely silly and ineffective, but you are a warrior, so you might be dangerous and must be stopped. 

Can somebody explain to me what my side is doing that is as crazy as the other side?

It wasn't Black Lives Matter storming the Capitol.  It wasn't "antifa" running into the Michigan statehouse with guns protesting public health measures that could save their lives.  It wasn't radical liberals doing any recent mass shootings in the past decade.  Atheists aren't the ones attacking synagogues and mosques.  Liberals didn't mow down counter-protestors with their cars. There is no liberal equivalent of Marjorie Taylor Greene in Congress.   The Secular Progressives didn't orchestrate the Oklahoma City bombing.  Democrats didn't hatch a plot to kidnap and kill the Michigan governor.  Socialists weren't the ones holding lynching picnics.* BLM protestors didn't wear t-shirts saying, "Civil War" and "2MWE”. The participants in the Women's March wore pink hats.  They didn't carry traitor flags.

Do you know, Dear Reader, what the FBI considers to be the biggest terrorist threat to the US?  It's not Muslims or Black Lives Matter.  It's fanatical right-wing groups like The Proud Boys, the Boogaloos, The 3 Percenters,  the KKK, and other white nationalist organizations.  

The final argument I hear from right wing and moderates alike is that the Democratic Party is becoming too extreme and socialist.  We all know socialism is bad (/sarcasm).

I am not seeing this extreme shift.  Ever since the days when Bill Clinton won the White House, the Democratic Party has shifted to the right.  The party embraced right-wing rhetoric of "big government" and "handouts".  The only difference is he removed some of the Reagan-era dog whistles associated with those policies and added a few more liberal social policies to the platform.  

Democratic politicians are urged to look moderate to win elections.  They can never be too radical, too "leftist", too "socialist".  Up until recently, most politicians avoided even using the word liberal because the Republicans created such a stigma against it.  This tactic was successful in helping older white voters stay in the Democratic party, but it turned off a chunk of the liberal base who either voted third party, or stayed home on Election Day.

In the 21st Century more liberal politicians are coming out of the closet and they are gaining traction.  Bernie Sanders made two credible runs for President.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez successfully primaried and unseated a long-time Congressman.  These politicians garner so much media attention that it makes it seem like the Democratic Party is taking a radical shift left.  

The truth is these two are the exception and not the rule.  Both of them come from states and districts that are generally more liberal or more diverse.  Look at some of the other Democratic politicians who have been front and center in the past election cycle.  Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttegeig, and Kamala Harris are not as far to the left as their political opponents want to paint them.  Our new president, Joe Biden is so moderate that Ocasio-Cortez herself once said the two of them would not be members of the same party if they were in another country.  

Is the radical fringe of the Democratic Party even all that radical?  We call Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders socialists, but their views are only socialist to people in the US.  Their views line up with the views of every other advanced democracy on this planet.  I have heard Europeans say that Bernie Sanders isn't a real socialist.  Remember how Obama was painted as a radical leftist?  I was chatting online with people in England who laughed at how Americans viewed him as ultra-liberal.  If he were British, he would have been running on the Conservative Party ticket.  

Americans have been taught to fear the words "liberal" and "leftist" for so long, they no longer understand what they mean, or how they relate to how we see the world.  Poll after poll shows Americans are not as conservative or moderate as they think they are.  If you remove the word, "Democrat" and "liberal" from polls and only ask Americans about issues, the results speak for themselves.  Most Americans support universal healthcare.  Most Americans believe we need to invest in clean energy and fight climate change.  Most Americans believe the top tax rate needs to be increased to remove the burden from the middle class. Most Americans believe in a social safety net.  Most Americans believe in reasonable gun control laws.  When it comes to divisive social issues, most Americans support same-sex marriage and legalized abortion.   This so-called radical agenda of the Democratic party lines up pretty well with the views of the majority of the population. (I am not saying there aren't many Americans who don't hold these views.  I am only saying there are many more who do.)

I want to know why the Democratic Party and liberals are under constant scrutiny for being more extreme, but the Republican Party gets a pass.  The Republican Party becomes more extreme by the decade.  The party of Trump is not the Party of Eisenhower and it's certainly not the Party of Lincoln.  There is no variation on social issues. The Overton Window is moving to the right at a rapid pace. War is the solution to every diplomatic problem.  Guns need no regulation, but abortion needs every regulation possible. Total economic libertarianism is the only way for the economy to succeed.  Anyone who doesn't believe in total economic libertarianism is a communist.  Poor people are always poor because they don't want to work hard.  The government is useless and incapable of running anything.  Christianity is superior to all religions and the country will be better off if we stick to Christian morals (preferably morals defined by evangelical Protestants).  Why aren't more self-proclaimed moderates threatened by this?  

Why do so many Americans claim they want to stay out of the fight?  Why do they want to avoid identifying with either side?  Why do they prefer to criticize those Americans who want to stand for something instead of taking a side?

Staying out the the fight is a sign of privilege.  If you are white and middle class, you want to feel safe.  You don't want your world shaken up too much.  Change is scary.  If your world is fine the way it is you don't want some radicals making your world look different. If you're white, you don't know what your place will be in a world where BIPOC people have more power.  If you're middle class or wealthier, you don't know if you will continue to get a good piece of the pie when more people have more access to the same pie.  Change is scary.  Many moderates claim they want things to change, but fear too much change.  

What is radical change?  How much change is acceptable? How much discomfort are Americans willing to experience in the name of justice and equality?

Most Americans tend to forget many of the rights and privileges we enjoy came from radical ideas and extreme events.  This country exists because of we went to war with Great Britain.  Slavery was abolished after a devastating war.  Many powerless groups in this country protested and even rioted to make their voices heard and their votes count.  If you want a better world, sometimes you have to put up with some discomfort.  

I am going to start with our best modern example:  Martin Luther King Jr.  Americans now see him as a gentle, milquetoast figure who preached only love.  History judges him as one of the finest citizens this country ever produced.  He is a hero to many.

King was not viewed this way during his lifetime.  He was a fiery radical.  Many Americans considered his views extreme and rejected many of them.  He was the Most Hated Man in America. They hated him so much they killed him.  I am sure when he was alive many white, middle-class, moderate Americans sat in their safe homes in front of their television sets thinking, "Yes, he has a point.  Racism in this country is bad, but can't he tone down the rhetoric and stop shutting down the country with his protests?  He's making himself look bad."  

What was King's response to those who didn't have the courage to embrace revolution:

“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”

Maybe I am an extremist after all, but like King, I will say, "The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Yes, I know they were likely Democrats, but I wouldn't equate the Democratic Party with liberalism throughout American history any more than I would equate the Republican Party with regressivism throughout American history.