[DHT]Osiris
Lifer
- Dec 15, 2015
- 17,250
- 16,475
- 146
We can only do what we can do, which is to denounce it. And it needs to be denounced in a non-partisan way in order to be credible, in spite of the fact that each side thinks the extremism problem is worse on the other side than on theirs. The extremists are "louder" precisely because those who aren't extremists don't seem as passionate possibly because rational politics involves using one's head more than one's emotions. Denouncing It probably won't work, but that is not a reason to be complacent about it. It's time that people who are not insane got involved in our national dialogue to a much greater degree.
What might actually work is to have extremists get their way for awhile until there's a catastrophe, which could be existential or just economic. That's what usually curbs extremism. Extremism led to WWII, for example, but after 80 million died in that war, Europe started getting a clue. It's returning now and I don't think we should just sit back and wait for the catastrophe even though that is probably going to be the outcome.
I'd hate for bloodshed on that level to be the only acceptable conclusion to our current course, it's just hard to not see it as a train barreling down the tracks right now.
I don't honestly think that a non-partisan approach will ever happen, our two 'teams' are too opposed to each other to look inward, in fact most people probably don't even acknowledge extremism in whatever direction they lean. Any political personality who points out extremism on their own side will probably be wholesale rejected by their constituents as 'not partisan enough', or whatever. You'd have to have every votable candidate do the same thing, at the same time, so there was nobody left to vote for, and drag the populace kicking and screaming into a more rational government.