the Dems have been far more consistent - read, extreme - in
cleaving to their collectivist “ideological purity”. Socialism has had a loud
voice in the Democratic Party, but capitalism has yet to find its political
voice. The two ideological extremes are the primary combatants. The Left knows
it. The Right doesn’t. The result: The political "middle" keeps
moving Left.
In this regard, Ronald Bailey has a helpful
article at Reason How
Political Extremism Sways Elections and Public Policy. Contrary to the dogma that political extremism is harmful; it
not only works but shapes the political direction of a nation. Bailey writes:
One new study shows that extremist arguments can be effective in
shifting public policy debates. Another reports that voters do not penalize
more ideologically extreme presidential candidates.
"Exposing people to extreme conservative policies makes them
more likely to prefer moderate conservative policies relative to liberal ones,
and vice versa," reports the New York University political scientist Gary
Simonovits. Simonovits' study, which was published in the journal Political Behavior, is
basically an empirical confirmation of how the "Overton
Window of Political Possibilities"
works.
As Simonovits explains, Joseph Overton was a libertarian policy
analyst at the Mackinac Center who "argued that the range of policies or
opinions deemed acceptable by the public is in a constant flux and can be
shifted by introducing and defending ideas not yet 'on the table.'" Or as
Daily Kos blogger David Atkins once summarized it: "You win policy debates by crafting arguments for extreme
positions—and then shifting the entire window of debate."
A good analogy is going for a touchdown in
football. Which is the better strategy; throw a “bomb” to get to the end zone
in one play, or go for the goal line by making a series of first downs through
plays that gain 4 or 5 yards at a time? The “bomb” would be great, but
unlikely. The Left has been going for the socialist goal line one small gain at
a time, and they’ve made steady progress. How? By preaching the extreme basics
of socialism, altruism/collectivism, while settling for political “compromises”
that always moves the culture toward socialism. As I wrote:
The Left will certainly compromise legislatively, such as Obama
giving up on the “public option”, so long as the ball is moved toward its
ultimate totalitarian socialist goal, as with ObamaCare. The Left will gladly
forego the political first down on the first play, knowing that the GOP . . .
will compromise on a three or four-yard gain. But the first downs will keep
coming on four-yard gain after four-yard gain, as the drive toward the
collectivist goal line continues. The Democratic Left represents one extreme,
collectivism, and proudly and openly stands on those principles. It has never
been “moderate” in regard to its ideological essentials.
The GOP, with rare exceptions, has abandoned the other extreme,
individualism (if it ever really embraced it).
Bailey observes that extremism isn’t the only
factor in elections. I think it’s far more important in swaying public policy.
And I think history bears this out. Republicans have won their fair share of
elections over the past 100 years. But the country keeps moving to the Left.
Why?
The Right, led by the conservatives, almost
always starts from the moderate position, rejecting outright the ideal of
laissez-faire capitalism (Objectivists are the obvious exception). We
Objectivists have always said that the political direction of a culture may
wobble, but the general direction is determined by the extremes of political
ideals, with the most consistent extreme winning. Given the Leftist
intellectual’s greater (though perhaps not not always full) consistency, is it
any wonder that the American political center keeps moving Left, toward
socialism.
It’s time for the Right—the true Right, the
advocates of individualism and its political expression, laissez-faire
capitalism—to get extreme. That is, to state unapologetically its laissez-faire
ideal. This way, people can compare where specific policies ultimately
lead—which is, either to totalitarian socialism or fully free capitalism. Then
we can compromise in a way that moves the culture toward more liberty, without
contradicting our fundamental principles. A good concrete example of this
strategy is to observe the way Objectivists approach the field of education: We
proudly display our long term ideal, a free education market through the complete
separation of education and state,
even as we settle in the shorter term for universal
school choice through tax credits,
education savings accounts, or even charter schools. None of these policies
represent a fully free education market. But each adds more freedom to
education, and thus moves the ball towards our ultimate ideal. Then we will
have a chance to reverse the trend toward collectivism and its statist
political expression, socialism.
Extremism works. As I said above, “The Left knows
it. The Right doesn’t. The result: The political ‘middle’ keeps moving Left.”
To repeat David Atkins from Bailey’s article, "You win policy debates by
crafting arguments for extreme positions—and then shifting the entire window of
debate." Atkins said it in the context of Trump's shocking win over
Clinton. And as Bailey observes, “Simonovits' research suggests that Trump's
extreme anti-immigrant,
protectionist, anti–free speech, pro–surveillance state, and racially divisive
tirades may have the effect of shifting the Overton Window toward mainstreaming
radically anti-liberty politics.” Which would suit the Left just fine. A more
rights-violating government, albeit in the short term not much to the Dems’
liking, will in the long term work to their benefit.
But the overriding message is—Goldwater was
right: “Extremism in the defense
of liberty is no vice.”
Related Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment