Drum is laughable:

"it's the 30-year stagnation of middle class wages, partly due to an unholy alliance between conservatives and neoliberals on trade and unions;"

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

Low wages are a result of importing tens of millions of dirt poor Mexicans and Central Americans into America to lower wages (cheap gardeners and nannies for the Liberal Leisure class like Drum). It is also the result of out-sourcing to China and Mexico (again a policy pursued by Liberal Leisure class folks like Drum). Bill Clinton and NAFTA anyone?

Drum is wrong on all particulars. We are not seeing "extremism" but rather the complete capture of the Democratic Party by the Liberal Elite Leisure class. Folks like Geffen, Soros, etc. Overt hostility to middle and working class Americans (particularly whites) and the symbols and institutions that segment of society holds dear: NASCAR, guns, religion, patriotism, etc.

Meanwhile the Republicans are drifting slowly into populism. That party is still riven with monied corporate interests (as the Dems are) but ask yourself this:

1. Which Party has Presidential nominee candidates advocating a border fence to keep illegal and cheap labor out? A: Reps with Tancredo and Hunter. ALL Dems oppose the fence and want open borders for cheap nannies and housekeepers.

2. Which Party holds middle and working class institutions dear and which denigrates them? Which celebrates NASCAR and which wants everyone but "special" people who buy carbon indulgences to live in mud huts?

3. Which Party unabashedly celebrates America, ordinary Americans, and the middle class dream, and which Party holds America to be the source of all evil in the world, cares most about what other rich people in other countries think, and holds the flag and patriotism not to mention the military in open contempt?

The Democratic Party aims internally at replacing the ordinary middle and working class whites they so desperately loathe (because they see them as threats to their hereditary sinecures) with a compliant and obedient foreign working class of Mexicans and Central Americans. The obvious gains that Dems have forgone (i.e. a "Civil Rights + Close the Border" proposal gaining White and Latino citizen coalitions on the prospect of higher wages) should tell anyone how important this is to Dems.

The other core domestic goals: gay marriage, banning Evangelical Christianity from public life (but not Islam or other religions), restrictions on suburbs, ordinary people owning cars, subsidies for NPR (exclusively the wealthy liberal airwaves), etc should tell you where that party is at.

Reps internally are having their debate about replacing the White working and middle class with "the inevitable" tidal wave of Mexican and Central American illegal immigrants, or stopping that course. Some Reps such as Bush are in delusion that the illegals once made legal will vote Republican. Others see the disaster for what it is: replicating the class structure of Mexico with a very rich class controlling all the wealth and the rest totally impoverished.

The "extremism" of Daily Kos where anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Military, anti-White screeds are posted daily are the result of this class divide. The Kossites are either part of the Liberal Leisure class or hope to join as pages, squires, etc.

I don't know about all that, Jim. I don't think the Republican party has the monopoly on virtue (being, as I mentioned, a Southern Democrat). However, I do think the Democratic Party has been rhetorically irresponsible for the last several years, which in part arises from having been entirely out of power. I think that control of Congress will begin to work some changes in the party, as their stated ideas begin to have real world consequences.

That can only be healthy. I'm hoping that the experience makes the Democratic Party into the kind of opposition party the country deserves (and, should it reclaim the Presidency in 2009, the kind of governing party the country deserves).

Marty Lipset wrote a pretty good text on extremism in the US called The Politics of Unreason that both Joe Klein and Kevin Drum ought to read. Neither is really in the ball park, at least in Lipset's terms. He also asserted that because the US has a somewhat greater commitment to individual sovereignty this not only guarantees a certain threshold level of extremism that'll always be around, but also that extremism will be unlikely to ever mount the sort of attack on civil order that we've seen in Europe, for instance.

He also felt that the next big domestic threat would come from the anarchistic left rather than the extreme nativist right. Again, however, their purchase will be limited.

I gotta admit that I don't think any of the things listed by Grim, even his own suggestions, are extreme. They sound like policy preference with unintended (or ignored) consequences.

Something I might consider extreme would be the backdoor plant to thwart the electoral college. Not because I think the electoral college is sacrosanct, but because a group of states unilaterally deciding federal election law smells.

I agree that would qualify, P.

Whats laughable is arguing that the middle class is no better off than it was 30 years ago. Look at rates of home ownership (never higher), stock ownership via 401k, not to mention all the toys nearly every American including those below the arbitrary 'poverty line' enjoy. I just dont see how you can see a society where the very poorest families have cable tv, cars, and playstations and still find something so horribly wrong with our society that we must risk hobbling our unprecidented success to fix it. It childish, ultimately, and its more an argument against the 'unfair' nature of the universe than against any particular policy per se.

The most exreme position the left takes is its championing of enforced mediocrity. Look at teacher's union, perhaps the absolute strongest bastion of Democratic power. That is the model for society guys like Drum are calling for. A society where not only are the outstanding not rewarded and the subpar dont fall behind (or get released), but where any even possible metric of such is disallowed. A bland unremarkable society where excellence has no place and mediocrity is simple common sense. I can't think of anything more overwhelming un-like America than that mentality. The fact that the left finds it unremarkable is telling in itself.

As I said, Mark, I'm not familiar with the model he's citing.

What I think is interesting, though, is the question of just what extremism is. Klein's been kind of hitting around it with his "benchmarks" approach -- an extremist believes most of X, Y, Z, Q.

I think what an extremist believes is that other Americans are the real problem. And that we should use the Federal government to make them better.

It goes without saying that I don't like that. Even when I agree that the particular group of "other Americans" being cited is ugly or undesirable, I don't like the idea. I don't want a government whose purpose is to use its power to force us to be what we don't want to be.

There is an exception to be made only in the case of serious crimes -- but it is still a problematic exception, and one that probably deserves a separate conversation.

The Drug War may be wise or unwise, but it is demonstrably related to the common peace given the depth of the addictions produced and lawbreaking that results when a fix is needed and money not at hand.

One can debate, for instance, whether the common peace is better served by legalizing drugs that are less of a threat to it than alcohol (marijuana, for instance), while retaining serious penalties for substances such as cocaine, meth, et. al. Or even ask whether the common peace may be better served by a wholly different policy. But those are public policy questions within the scope of a legitimate political debate per your framework.

I'll add that taxes on cigarettes also become justifiable if you also accept the premise of government paid health care. If you don't, then an insurance system does indeed make it none of the government's business. But if Medicaid et. al. are granted, then taxes to offset the costs smoking will later impose on the public at large has something to recommend it (within limits of good public policy - raise them too high, as Canada did, and all you get is a large criminal smuggling class and forced tax reductions).

I'll grant that extremism may be found within the Drug War and Sin Tax movements, and agree with Grim on the litmus test. But the concepts themselves can exist within the legitimate framework of debate.

--
Rockford's point re: people like Drum pushing an agenda that would replicate the class structure of Mexico in America, while claiming to stand for the poor, is spot-on. It's the PRI strategy of creating poverty and then positioning yourself to exploit it once it appears, while enjoying cheap servants at home.

"Contemptble" pretty much sums it up for me.

I notice that most of Klein's examples relate to a person's beliefs and attitudes rather than to his policy positions. Leaving aside what I think of his lists, I'm used to seeing the word used in the latter way. Even Grim's list mixes the two.

I mean, suppose a person does support the complete abolition of public education (quite an extreme position in the USA right now), but doesn't hate public educators or believe the NEA is engaged in a conspiracy to corrupt and control the nation's children. Would he be an extremist? (The way I normally see the word used, yes.)

Or the opposite case, Senator Joseph McCarthy. He is known for his efforts on behalf of one political proposition - that Communists (the kind who were loyal to the Soviet government) should not serve in the US government. Under the circumstances of his day, that was not an "extreme" position by any means, and nothing I've read about him suggests that he was a free-market fanatic or other ideological extremist. Yet his methods and his rhetoric went well beyond what other senators found acceptable. Was he an extremist? (The way I normally see the word used, no.)

I simply raise this to encourage clarity in what we mean. Drum's point about Klein (leaving aside the substance of it) had to do with ideological extremism - about whether a given "issue" was alive or dead and where the public stood on it. That is something that changes a lot with time (much to the dismay of libertarians, and many others). An extreme attitude, though, that's a matter of manners and mores, and doesn't change as quickly.

Well, I'll say again that what I'm talking about applies only at the Federal level. A lot of drug laws are at the state or local level; I don't really have a problem with those. If California wants to legalize marijuana, for example, and accept whatever costs go with that -- I don't mind if Georgia (my own state) wants to keep it criminal. (I have no dog in the fight anyway, except philosophically; I'm one of the few remaining Americans who has actually never tried marijuana or any other illegal drug).

The same applies to sin taxes etc. A locality or even a state doing this kind of thing is fine; it means you can move the next state over if you really care about it. That approach maxmizes freedom: both the freedom of a community to have laws about things that bother them, and the freedom of people who want to do those things to continue, if only those things aren't so awful that no community accepts it (e.g., pedophilia).

Grim says, "I think what an extremist believes is that other Americans are the real problem. And that we should use the Federal government to make them better."

I can't accept that as a general proposition - a libertarian extremist, for example, might think that other Americans are the real problem (since they don't vote for extreme libertarian positions), but most certainly would not think that government is just the thing to make them better. Mind you, I don't really accept "extremist" as a term of abuse, the way it is so often used - if the right position is "extreme" with respect to the current public, by all means, think it and proclaim it! But you know the Barry Goldwater quote (at least he used it, even if he didn't invent it - http://libertus.net/liberty/#aboutquote ). Whether a person listens and thinks and uses good manners, that's not a matter of "extremism," but of listening and thinking and using good manners.

#s 9 and 11:

Insofar as an attitude isn't coupled with a political, policy-making attempt to enforce it on everyone else, it's not a problem. I don't care what anyone believes, or even what he says; it only becomes a troubling sort of "political extremism" when it tries to enforce its will on everyone else.

An attitude can be extreme without being a problem; a pure libertarian, who really wouldn't think of imposing on anyone else through government action, isn't a problem either. Nor, really, is he that political -- he may think and talk about politics all the time, but he disdains to employ any political force. (Which, I might add, is just fine with me.)

It's only American political extremism I'm looking at here -- not non-American political extremism; not American extremism that's nonpolitical.

But I mean, an extremist libertarian would want to use his votes to cut off all funding to your neighborhood schools -- a political action. He may even run as a candidate on a purist libertarian platform -- a political action. Because his position is ideologically extreme, of course, he doesn't have a chance in Hades of succeeding, but that is an "extreme" thing he wants to do by political means.

Mind you, he would draw an important moral distinction between what he wants the State to do to you, as opposed to what he wants to use it to stop doing for you, and he would have a point. But your definition of "extremism" will stray very far from most other people's, which will make it hard to communicate, if you define an extreme anti-statist as "not extremist," simply because his extreme positions are not of the "government should do more" kind.

(Maybe he is an extremist that you don't have a problem with, even if you disagree with him. In that case, you'd simply agree with me, that "extremism" per se is not a bad thing, or a proper term of abuse.)

Well, again, my "neighborhood" schools are a perfectly fit venue for our libertarian to do what he wants. I don't have a problem with that either; if worst comes to worst, I can move to another neighborhood.

Indeed, given the number of pure libertarians, about one neighborhood is what they could manage. But they could then live as they pleased, there (as opposed to nowhere, as they do now).

Silly old-fashioned me, who still harbors the quaint notion that the measure of the extremism of any given political position is simply an inverse function of what percentage of the public concurs with that position. The smaller the percentage, the more extreme the position; the larger, the closer to the mainstream.

This model is critically flawed, and the flaw is exactly here:

1) The abortion battle. This began when the SCOTUS overturned the laws in 50 states; it has continued at the Federal level ever since. There are parties guilty of extremism on both sides here: the one side in wanting to use the Federal government to force people to accept essentially unlimited abortions, and even to pay for them through the use of taxpayer money; some among the other side for wishing to outlaw the practice outright, not only in their own state or community but nationwide.

If it is extremism to ban something, and extremism to "force acceptance of something," (i.e., not to ban it) than all positions regarding that issue are extremist, and the word means nothing at all.

I expect a response something along lines which call out the difference in power between the Federal government and the goverment of the Several States, and in theory that difference is defensible. In practice it is much less so, as motion throughout the states is not unlimited; it is limited by finance and other circumstance, and expecting a poverty-stricken young person to accept philosophically that he or she is not the victim of extremism because extremism cannot exist, governmentally, below the level of the Federal government.

Moreover, your formulae do not seem to rest firmly on the notion of individual rights. A quick text scan reveals that rights, as a concept, are invoked only once, but in the sense of State rights rather than citizen rights. (And of course, right as opposed to left, and right as oppoed to wrong, and a few cases of right now as opposed to some other time....)

I submit as a counter-argument that it is not extremism to assert your individual rights as a free citizen of the United States. And that's another reason that your model is exceptionally flawed right here-- the issue has not been settled because two groups are in vehement and deeply held disagreement over how to prioritize the rights of the born vs the unborn, to such a degree that these groups don't even agree with each other on who/what the concept of "rights" applies to.

I didn't actually say it was wrong either to ban or to force acceptance; I condemned both the movement to use the Federal government to force people who believe abortion is murder to pay for it, and the movement to use the Federal government to ban it in all circumstances (which is, I should note in fairness, a minority movement even among the ardent pro-life groups).

That leaves a very wide range of positions that are not extremist, including banning it in all circumstances by persuasion of the whole body politic, so that all fifty states again did so; or convincing the populace so that all fifty states came to support and fund it willingly.

What is extreme is to try to force everyone across the country, red state and blue, liberal and conservative, to obey your will at this moment -- and to do so using the force of a government that is, or ought to be, equally beholden to them.

As for the notion of individual rights, I am a firm believer. I am not one of those, to use Klein's formula, who believes in the Second but has some problems with the First; I believe strongly in both. If I didn't discuss it here at length, that shouldn't be read to imply that I don't think it matters. It is part of the social contract that I mentioned as underlying my definition.

I think Joe Klein's lists are good. And I agree with Grim, I don't see any notable merit in Kevin Drum's list.

Checking myself out according to Joe Klein's lists, I see I get no lefty extremist checks, and three right wing extremist checks.

--believes global warming is a left-wing myth.

More precisely: I believe it is a myth that we have already established scientifically that human activity, rather than some other factor such as solar activity, is the dominant factor in global warming.

--believes that there are inferior races.

Physical stature is an advantage, and some people get to have more of it. That's an uninteresting fact, but I think it is a fact, and if that means South Sea Islanders are a master race and the rest of us not, so be it.

--believes that there are inferior religions.

Guilty as charged: I believe that. Jim Jones' Peoples' Temple, Heaven's Gate, and Aum Supreme Truth (Aum Shinrikyo) would seem to indicate this. And, I don't believe only small temples and losers can be evil. Unlike many people, I believe that if your blood crazy religion demonstrates great staying power and attains a large membership, an honest evaluation of it should not be affected. If Shoko Asahara's followers were as numerous as the Chinese, they would still be following a murderous lunatic. If your religion attains state power and intimidating force, the moral evaluation of its worth should remain what it was. Were the Romans right to think that their religion was better than that of Carthage, with its child sacrifices? In my opinion the Romans were right, and Punic religion was inferior to Roman religion.

Grim: "I don't think strong, morals/aesthics-based rules or laws are wrong on their face; I only think its wrong to try and enforce conformity with them at the Federal level."

But surely you would be all right with them if they were lawfully and properly passed as amendments to the Federal Constitution, like the 13th Amendment?

(Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.)

Yes, David, as to the 13th or subsequent amendments, for this reason: the amendment process requires the consent of a supermajority of state legislatures. As a result, it is almost the same as getting accord from all of the states -- not quite all, but more than most.

I should expand on that. The process also requires getting a supermajority of both houses of Congress, which means that the People are consulted, and assent in a vast majority, both in terms of individual congressional districts, and then twice at the state level (Senate and state legislatures).

Thus, there is little chance of passing a measure through amendment that doesn't enjoy broad popular support. There is little to worry about "extremism" in that process.

I'm still trying to puzzle out why it's extremism for people in some states to try to force people in other states to live under gun control, but it's not extremism for people in some cities/towns to force people in other cities/towns to live under gun control. Especially given that most of the states have guarantees comparable to the 2nd amendment in their state constitutions, making the parallel almost exact. And that doesn't even take into account that the 14th amendment was explicitly adopted to render the states subject to the entire Bill of Rights, 2nd included.

THE TRUTH? THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
The duplicity of the leftists runs silent, runs deep. All ideologies are driven by two concepts: the Vision and the Grievance. The Vision is a future ideal scenario (e.g., for socialists, the worker-controlled, levelled society; for Islamists, society as it was with Mohammed). The Grievance is a present-time, frustrating impediment to the Vision (e.g., for socialists, Big Oil profits, for Islamists, the infuriatingly beautiful, diaphanous dresses of the Dubai Film Festival). This Vision-Grievance template works for every movement from neo-nazis to boy scouts. The catastrophe for the left is the death of their Vision, the SOCIALIST PARADISE. Socialism failed, wherever it was implemented. The left retains Grievances (Big Business, economic disparities, welfare, etc), but with no Vision, the MSM, John Kerry, Cindy Sheehan, etc. are defensive, hostile, and lost. They ally with Islamists because they will sacrifice anything to thwart Bush. The moral turpitude, the wobbly high-grounding, the aimless reasoning, the constant whining, betray the permanent lack of direction, the frustrated malaise of a dying political philosophy.

#22:

Good point. I'm with you in believing that the 2nd A and its state-level guarantees ought to be enforced. I'm just not planning on trying to work a Federal lawsuit to force Chicago to accept that.

Straightening out that business is for the folks in Chicago to do, if they love their rights.

I would like to clarify the way in which this position differs from libertarianism (aside, obviously, from foreign policy). I don't think strong, morals/aesthics-based rules or laws are wrong on their face; I only think its wrong to try and enforce conformity with them at the Federal level. I don't mind a community or a state (or even a non-government entity, such as a commune) having firm, restrictive laws. I just want to be able to move outside the city limits, or across state lines, and find a community more in keeping with my own ideas about the Good Life. I'm not against strong rules for communities that want them; I am against the idea that the same set of strong rules is right for everyone, and should be enforced with the might of the Federal government.

"Straightening out that business is for the folks in Chicago to do, if they love their rights."

LOL! Kind of like straightening out that segregation business was up to the folks in Alabama?

Grim -- I would certainly not argue that the Republican party is more virtous, simply that it is on balance marginally more populist. That the Republican Party generally reflects more middle class and working class guys.

Dem theorists spend a lot of time on "What's the Matter with Kansas" i.e. why do working-class Wal-Mart shoppers vote marginally Republican? Buried among their arguments for this case is the assumption that the cultural preferences of working and middle class Americans who are mostly white are "stupid" and the voters themselves are too stupid to vote their economic interests.

Take Affirmative Action. What does that do?

It creates winners: Favored minorities mostly Hispanic and Black who get preferential hiring in government, corporate spots, preferences for top education schools (admission to Michigan vs. Michigan State which DOES affect earnings in professional schools) and so on.

Affirmative Action creates losers, mostly whites and asians who are excluded from the above.

Why do Dems almost unanimously back AA and Reps oppose it?

Because upper class and wealthy Dems fear upward mobility and competition from middle class and working class whites and asians, but don't fear it from African Americans and Hispanics. Favored minorities are used as blocking pieces to stop upward mobility and maintain the position of Dem Liberals.

"Kansas" voters marginally tip towards Reps because Reps marginally opposed AA and illegal immigration.

Somewhat OT, I've often wondered why more Reps don't try and pick up African American votes, by explaining the current ethnic cleansing being done by Latino Gangs in places like LA. It would seem to me to be the obvious move: peel off African Americans from the Dem coalition by offering an "unleashed police force" that would absent PC Civil Rights concerns destroy the gangs foot soldiers and ability to wreak violence. A net plus for African Americans because they're constrained in the number of their thugs but Latinos through illegal immigration are not.

#26:

"LOL! Kind of like straightening out that segregation business was up to the folks in Alabama?"

The regular reference to slavery/Jim Crow is one of the failings of the American system. It is not a standard by which we should judge anything else.

Slavery was a unique evil, on which a great deal of the nation's early laws -- and foundational wealth -- were based. Because the particular form of slavery our ancestors used happened to fall on black/white lines, it created a lasting echo in discrimination and exploitation that continued for many years.

Recall, please, that I say this as a Southerner, and a proud one. It is nevertheless true.

There is no similar subject in American political life. The tools forged to break that rock are unsuitable for any other.

That is part of the problem we face. Over and over, courts -- trained to look for precedent -- return to the precedents directed at slavery and Jim Crow to address far lesser evils. The effect has not been healthy for the Republic. It has been a constant strain upon our institutions, and our society.

I would agree with the above commentors that Grim’s view of what is extreme is colored sharply by his view of state’s rights. But the U.S. has had two Constitutional revolutions, the first of which shifted significant power over commerce and war to the federal government and the second shifted significant power over the rights of citizenship to the federal government.

The ability of the federal government to trump state proclivities seems clear, but the wisdom of doing so is clearly debatable.

Well, you were fairly warned in the first paragraph that I was a Southern Democrat. :) The idea that states have some rights that ought to be respected is not wholly a matter of prejudice -- it does say so right in the Constitution -- but I'll conceed that it is more popular here than elsewhere.

I'd like you to note, however, that my intentions here are not pernicious. I don't advocate for states to be the center of power out of some desire to oppress anyone, but out of a desire to liberate us all from some of the more hostile parts of domestic politics. It is cleanly the desire to let people live as they wish, with the rules they wish, that is at work here. It is, as I said, the hope and the faith that America should be for all of us.

A tension between the Federal and the several state governments is useful, because it creates a space between opposing powers in which liberty might flourish. I view that liberty as being essentially good for all Americans -- even if its expression is markedly different between California and Carolina.

I gotta agree with Joshua. Extremism is quite simply going to the extremes. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the nanny state or corporate independence from oversight, or anything else. It's more of a normalizing judgment. In the U.S., about 1% of people are extreme enough to be lifestyle criminals, burglars, gangsters, drug dealers, car thieves, armed bandits, arsonists, rapists, murderers, and the like. One percenters are on one extreme of the law and order scale. Clergymen, honest policemen, good judges and others who lead in keeping the faith are on the other end. The vast majority of people, whether they speed on the freeway or stay under the speed limit, whether they have a bookie or play the lottery or don't gamble at all, are in the middle. Both ends are extreme. But one of those groups of extremists is good and one is not.

More dangerous to my way of thinking is polarization that increases the number of extremists by making the middle position untenable. The result is an all out war of the extreme positions against each other, and once you have enough of the spectrum involved in the war... well that's how civil wars happen.

That analysis means that, in the event of a polarization, you'd have no extremes at all: just two equally popular, unresolvably contradictory positions.

In a pure democracy, as ancient Athens at some periods, extremism might simply be deviation from the norm. In the American system, where we have a Constitution that acts as a sort of "stored will" for the Republic, there is a standard to hold. Extremism as I have defined it seems to me contradictory to that form, not merely "unusual."

Excellent post.

Of course, your definition of "extremism" seems to have won back in the 1930s. Nothing since then has really moved us away from big government. The best we could do was slow the growth a little.

If you put it to us in its starkest form, "Do you favor a return to smaller federal government, even if it meant the end of all entitlement programs?" I don't think you'd get agreement from more than a third of Republicans, if that many.

Socialism has won, and I think that we are too far down the vortex to pull back out. The next big step is the nationalization of the health care industry. It's already been socialized. Just as Social Security posed as a savings plan, national health care will pose as an insurance program.

The kernal of the leftist ideology is still Marxism, but few of its adherents would admit to it.

Grim, states have some powers which they are certainly entitled, as a matter of Constitutional law, to have respected. In fact, all of the powers that weren't delegated to the federal government, and which weren't forbidden to the states. Thanks to the 2nd, by way of the 14th amendment, the power to disarm their citizenry falls into that latter catagory.

It is not, I think, extremism, in a constitutional republic, to ask that that consitution be followed, and to resort to the courts when it genuinely is not. Certainly, it's not at all analogous to going to the courts to enforce 'rights' that aren't explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights, and which an amendment wasn't explicitly adopted to make binding on the states.

BTW, gun control is not anything else relative to Jim Crow. It was part of Jim Crow.

"Somewhat OT, I've often wondered why more Reps don't try and pick up African American votes, by explaining"

Well, there's your problem: The Democratic party has so successfully demonized the GOP in the eyes of the average black, that they're not even listening. It's really hard to explain things when you're not being listened to.

"That analysis means that, in the event of a polarization, you'd have no extremes at all: just two equally popular, unresolvably contradictory positions."

Sure you would. Remember, it never happens that you have a large bloc of people, every one of whom believes exactly the same things. If for simplicity's sake you accept a left-right axis, and the population is polarized, picture a bell curve (moderates in the middle, extremists at the tails). If the country is "polarized," picture two bell curves, with their central humps widely separated. But the curve on the left and the curve on the right will still have "extreme" tails on the outside, of people who are even more polarized, and those would be the "extremists." (The "moderates" would be in short supply, but unless the central tails of the curves didn't overlap at all, there would be some.) In terms of policy positions, you can understand it well - a "mainstream" polarized leftist might oppose all US intervention in the Middle East; an "extreme" polarized leftist might favor total disarmament; but both would be far removed from the polarized rightists. A "mainstream" polarized rightist might want to maintain the alliance with Israel and the current war effort in Iraq, while an "extreme" polarized right might include the sort of people who want to nuke Mecca.

(I am not saying this to start or engage in any argument about what the left and right in our country actually believe, or how many of them believe it, or what they ought to believe; I am just illustrating that you can and will have extremists even in a "polarized" situation.)

First case should be "and the country is not polarized..."

#33:

The kernel of socialism is Marxism, but maybe not the way you envision it. The idea of "social democracy," what we call socialism, was a response to Marxist calls for revolution. The notion, in a Europe that was rocked by riots and dangerous movements, was that Marx might be wrong in saying that revolution was the only hope of change -- some of the reforms that motivated these groups might be enacted democratically.

Marx actually proved to be wrong about everything, but the social democratic movements flourished. You're right to say the idea came into fashion over here in the Great Depression, when the criticisms of the Marxists seemed (but really weren't) accurate.

So yes, socialism descends from Marxism, in the sense that it was intended as a defense against it. A sort of innoculation, if you like.

#34:

Are you going to ask me to defend gun control? Good Lord.

Very well: it is true that the gun control movement has its roots in racism and Jim Crow. It is also true, however, that this form of gun control was not behind the Federal gun laws which really only began to pop up during the 1930s period, and largely in response not to ethnic tension but to Prohibition-era gangsters.

You're also aware, I imagine, that the SCOTUS has said that the 14th Amendment did not incorporate the 2nd A to the states, as it did every other amendment. Why they could possibly believe that is beyond me; it seems fairly clear they simply did not wish to incorporate it. But, until a different ruling is enacted, that's the constitutional law we have.

So: I, like yourself, would like to see all Federal gun control laws withdrawn (or ruled unconstitutional, since they are); I would like to see the states follow suit. I would like to see the day when our natural right to keep and bear arms was respected from coast to coast -- as it increasingly is: the "shall issue" movement and the reciprocity movement mean that you can now travel widely and have governments respect your rights. I hope that trend continues, until only the last holdouts remain in a few tiny enclaves, which we can then avoid and deny our dollars as tourists or businessmen.

However, I don't think it's fair to say that Federal gun laws, nor most of the laws which followed in their wake, are based in Jim Crow; the laws that were have mostly been swept away, and the South is now among the premier places in respect for the lawful carrying of arms. (We do lag behind Alaska and Vermont in that regard.)

#35-6

Yes, yes, I conceed the point re: bell curves. That doesn't really change the point I was trying to make. Let me illustrate:

/~\___/~\

If you get a polarization result where you bell curves look like that, what you've got is two broad "social contracts" instead of one. If the definition of extremism is based purely in popularity, the compromise positions in the middle are the extremist ones, being as unpopular as the very most fringe positions.

The American system, however, imposes a permanent will -- well, not permanent exactly, as we can amend the Constitution, but a lasting will. It is somewhat like Chesterton's idea of tradition as 'the democracy of the dead,' except that it is formalized.

This tends to pull us back to the center. Even if you ended up with a polarized graph like the one I tried to approximate above, you still have a central position on what is right and lawful and appropriate for America. If you're an extremist it is not for being unpopular, but for deviating from that lasting center point. That is the standard for measurement, not the shifting wills of those who -- as Chesterton said -- happen to be walking about right now.

Alberich: True and false. It is my experience that not everyone 'holds' opinions but reflects them instead. In this case, it is easy (as with lynch mobs, cults and so forth) for extremism to create pure polarizations that result in effective '100% opinion belief' -- which is more of just opinion or belief reflection than actual holding.

If you asked me what I felt rules regarding restricting wattage on Lighthouse lamps, I would have to either reply that I don't have an opinion, or I may 'reflect' an opinion offered me based on either an actual offered opinion, "Bob worked on the sea, he said that oftentimes lighthouses were too bright" or analogizing another opinion "In general it is good to err on the side of caution-- seeing a lighthouse is more important than not being blinded by its lamp-- and who stares into it anyway?"

Not having any real knowledge of the laws, or experience myself my opinions are bound to be mere reflections.

In this case polarization is readily possible.

And thus why, in some senses, poor education, one that offers credits and certificates but small real knowledge or experience is favorable to those who wish to manipulate a populace.

> an extremist libertarian would want to use his votes to cut off all funding to your neighborhood schools

I've never run into a libertarian who thought that govt should tell me how to spend, or not, my money.

We're not confusing "funding" with govt spending are we?

Which is to say, false education is a sort of (-k) which is either knowing far less than you believe you do (making your opinions weak at best and often mere reflections -- such that may be swayed, being weakly held, by personality or emotion) or knowing falsehood instead of truth.

People who possess a lot of (-k) which is weak, will be drawn by emotions to polar positions even if they do not make any real sense. We expect people to act on their rational self interest as libertarians, but they can only do so in accordance to the ratio of (-k) to (k) that they possess. (k) being 'colonized' ideas, ones that one actually holds in truth.

Thus a good education, or conditions for one to occur are wholly necessary for a society that approximates libertarian ideals. Otherwise people will readily 'sell out' their rights for fantasies and memories.

Grim, I like this a lot:

"There is no similar subject in American political life. The tools forged to break that rock are unsuitable for any other."

Also, I think that 'sin' taxes are wholly inappropriate for a government to have. A government being a state is not responsible for public morality. Public morality is the business of communities, churches, families and individuals each with their own 'spheres'. None of these four groupings have the ability to enact laws enforceable by a state. Which is to say, by the police or military.

Thus I find a libertarian perspective regarding government not just defensible, but the only truly moral choice.

Rather, ethical choice. Big difference, I think.

I think also that there is a clear difference between grants and funding, and programs/spending. But that difference is blurred by, for instance, conditions placed on the grants and funding. For instance, 'funding' in my mind may no longer be funding but a disguised form of spending of the gov't attaches the requirement that the recipient teaches the same curriculum as public schools to receive the funding.

In this sense, I am against public schools in the sense of government controlled schools, but am for them in the sense of public funding offered for education. In that arena, the devil is in the details.

River - That goes way beyond the modest point I was making. You're talking about where the opinions come from (and how deep they are) rather than simply what they are with respect to each other, and how they are distributed.

Grim - Well, at the very least, that clarifies what you're talking about to the point I can understand you. You're treating the political "center" as fixed (or semi-fixed) rather than relative. For describing what the political order ought to be, that is perfectly fine. My problem is a semantic one. I don't think anyone else is using the terms "moderate" and "extreme" in the way that you are, and that when you do use them that way, you're liable to cause confusion.

Furthermore, a lot of the policy positions that define "moderate" and "extreme" don't really relate to the questions of federalism and the constitutional order that you are talking about. In foreign policy, for example, nearly everyone agrees that the federal government has the right to conduct foreign policy, enter into treaties, and make war. But they can disagree hugely as to what treaties are good ones, which wars are right ones, and what foreign policy ought to be followed. I don't know how you could define "moderate" and "extreme" in that area except in terms of how popular a given idea is. (If this country had a longstanding, consistent tradition in the area, to create a fixed norm, I can see how, but I am not convinced we do.)

Andy F. - No. I was simply answering Grim's point about "political action." Voting to change the way the government spends its money is "political action," even if the substance of what he wants the government to do is less coercive rather than more.

I'm being horribly repetitive this morning. Oh well. I also think Drum is being a moron, mostly (perhaps) on purpose. Some worship at the altar of 'fairness' - a super-duper-centrist might. It sounds that way to me; in order to justify his centrism he must find examples of extremism on both of his identified 'sides', to make him appear justified (as if I would care that he really is? But being a public intellectual/pundit will create such pretenses, I imagine...) Anyhow, he does what my brother does, so I speak from some manner of experience; in dealing with one side that is a dire offender and another that is a minor offender he will tend to play down the offenses of one party and amplify or invent offenses of the other to 'equalize' them.

It is not a position held in love, mostly because love requires truth, sincerity, or the drive for either. Drum is jockeying.

Alberich: I think that concern or interest in extremism must always be viewed in light of its consequences. You are correct in the notion of the distribution of what are on the surface extreme positions, whether for good or ill.

I think Grim is trying to make a slightly deeper point that involves both the source of opinions, polarization (faction that Paine so disliked) and the results of different forms of extremism.

In this sense, the percentages aren't of so much consequence; if 1% of people are pro infanticide, and 99% of the people don't care enough to stand against those psychotics, it might as well have been 10% or .1% -- so we end up with a bunch of 'reflectors' either by decision or inaction.

Anyway, if we maintain a mere surface concern regarding opinions they will seem to change and fluctuate in unusual and incomprehensible ways. (Thus why polls are worthless for the most part.) We cannot judge what is truly extreme based only on percentages, but based on a fairly good standard of objective truth. This is informed by both our experience and knowledge; our ethics and morals, etc. You are arguing that what makes something extreme is statistical, Grim may be arguing that it there is an invisible line between extreme and moderate. That invisible line is provided by society, culture and especially for us, our Constitution (s -- if you include states and localities.)

River, of course concern or interest in extremism depends on objective factors like that, to be determined on a case by case basis (some extremists are worrisome and some are not). My only point in this thread had to do with defining the term, and using words so that other people will understand them. I don't propose that our interest in the underlying questions should stop with that.

When opinion on the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election is listed as a metric for "extremism"--as it regularly is--I hie back to Jim Miller's nearly-contemporaneous analysis.

Indignant leftists frame the question as, "Didn't the Democrats have reason to believe that the election was wrongfully decided?" The answer, in my opinion, is "yes."

A more insightful phrasing of the issue would be, "given that somebody was going to win, in which case would the loser have been more rightfully aggrieved?" Looked at that way, Bush partisans would probably have had more to complain about in the counterfactual case. See Miller's post for details.

Too often, extremists spend their brain power on phrasing questions in such a way that the "correct" answers fit their preconceived notions.

I would pass (or fail?) a couple of Joel Klein's leftwing-extremist litmus tests, and a couple of his extreme-rightwinger ones too--though not as he put them; only as responses to the imagined phrasings that a moderate would have posed. David Blue got at this point in comment #18, above.

I guess I'll be the one to point out the obvious here.

"Extremism" (the political kind) cannot be defined relative to a single person's point of view...as "Grim" and Klein seem to be doing here.

Any view that falls a certain distance away from the most-commonly held views by the majority of Americans, is, by definition, "extreme'. Let's say anything that falls roughly 2 standard deviations outside the public's view would qualify.

This then reduces to a much simpler (and more enlightening) comparison between 1) A politician's (or party's) position on Issue X, and 2) the public's opinion on Issue X.

Clearly there will be extreme ideas at each end of the curve/political spectrum.

If you just want to talk about where your particular reference point lies, then fine, but that's just another way of extolling your views, not considering the concept of "political extremisms". For example, in a room full of NRA folks, you're likely to find the idea of gun control to be "extremist", although a majority of the American Public supports such measures. By the larger standard of public opinion, therefore, the NRA's position is more "extremist".

If you want to call it something other than "extremism" and continue along these lines, go ahead, although what is as important as your choice of terms is in being clearer about not only how to define it, but how to measure it.

#49:

""Extremism" (the political kind) cannot be defined relative to a single person's point of view...as "Grim" and Klein seem to be doing here."

Look at response #37 and see if it clarifies my position for you. I think I'm doing exactly the opposite of what you think I'm doing -- defining it not by one person's opinion or even by the opinions of many people, but by reference to the lasting will expressed in our Constitutional tradition. That is, I think, the standard of measurement.

#22/34: I think it's quite an overstatement to say that "the 14th amendment was explicitly adopted to render the states subject to the entire Bill of Rights, 2nd included." The 14th applies Due Process to the states to be sure, but I'm interested in what you mean by "explicit adoption." The Bill of Rights was only gradually incorporated by judicial fiat, mostly in the 20th Century, well after the 14th Amendment was added.

While there are certainly arguments for states' rights as a matter of politics, I find far more compelling the argument based on rule of law. States rights should be left to the states unless and until the Federal Constitution is amended, and such amendments are clear that a power has been transferred to federal jurisdiction. Grim attempts to isolate slavery as a unique reason to trample states' rights, but the rule of precedent makes mincemeat of that argument, as our own Constitutional history shows, not least by judicial incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Nor is our history unique. German legal theorists at the time predicted that the "flight into [constitutional] generalities" employed by German courts in the Weimar era (similar to those used by our courts to force Federal Law (including the Bill of Rights) on the states under language like "due process") to help poor people suffering from the effects of hyperinflation could be manipulated to other ends, which of course came to pass only a few years later as the Nazis used the precedents as aids in establishing their rule in the name of and for the good of the people. It's dangerous to play fast and loose with constitutions.

A more insightful phrasing of the issue would be, "given that somebody was going to win, in which case would the loser have been more rightfully aggrieved?"

An argument for Bush v. Gore being extreme lies in the issue of whether the SCOTUS should have decided the issue or let Congress decide who wins. A number of conservative thinkers have criticized the majority opinion, including, implicitly, the justices who said that the decision was not to be given any future precedent (violating principles of the common law).

OTOH, Justice Posner(2001).pdf argued that the decision was a triumph of pragmatism in which the Court seized the power, drew on its capitol, and diverted a crisis. But since the Congress could have ultimately decided the issue, its not really a crisis in which the Republic will rise or fall, but a crisis because it would have taken more time to determine the winner and if Congress made the decision, it would appear more political, thus serving to delegitimize the President.

I suspect that the notion that the election should have been decided by the Republican Congress is not Kevin's point. But I think on the basis of judicial activism or changing the rules, an argument could be made.

Grim:

I think I'm doing exactly the opposite of what you think I'm doing -- defining it not by one person's opinion or even by the opinions of many people, but by reference to the lasting will expressed in our Constitutional tradition. That is, I think, the standard of measurement.

I think this fits into Lipset/Raab's axis of fixed vs flexible standards, and adopting a position on either end isn't necessarily extremist, depending on where the line is drawn. It's certainly true that the orthodox view in the US is anti-statist, so statism is anti-orthodox in the US. But one could probably adopt a statist view of the "general welfare" without really being too shocking. The state does have some valid functions.

It also seems like anyone who advocates scrapping the Constitution in favor of some ad-hoc standard is definitely an extremist, since the Constitution is our defining document and treating it with such open disrespect goes right to the heart not only of what is, but of what should be, unacceptable. I think we agree about that.

However, there's a lot of latitude for interpretation within the Constitution, even though such interpretation might substantially redefine the document. To my mind Second Amendment advocates are living within a number of very statist environments, like NJ, that fundamentally upend their interpretation. Moreover, there are those anti-gun advocates living in Second-Amendment-friendly states like Virginia that do so without feeling the need to upend the democratic process that overrules them. Neither side is, therefore, extremist as far as I'm concerned.

#51:

"Grim attempts to isolate slavery as a unique reason to trample states' rights, but the rule of precedent makes mincemeat of that argument, as our own Constitutional history shows, not least by judicial incorporation of the Bill of Rights."

Please don't misunderstand me to be saying that the SCOTUS has agreed with me in that interpretation. Rather, I am advancing an argument on the point from the vantage of the very late 20th/early 21st centuries. We have seen that the tools developed for correcting the problem of slavery and its direct descendants (Jim Crow, segregation, etc) have been applied to several other questions in just the way you say that 'the rule of precedent' allows.

The result has been dramatically increased social tension within the United States. Issues that were noncontroversial (such as abortion, gay marriage, etc) become extremely controversial when they might be decided in a one-size-fits-all manner by the SCOTUS.

The 'rule of precedent' is not absolute; that's why we had all that talk about stare decisis during the last SCOTUS confirmation hearings. I think we've reached a point at which there is more harm than good being caused by this mode of Federal action -- the point at which acts of this sort are straining rather than healing the body public.

As a result, I would like to suggest that we stop making reference to this particular set of precedents for anything that isn't really part of that particular problem. That's an idea that will probably take a long time to percolate, but I think that sooner or later we need to adopt a more restrained Federal role. The diversity of the nation makes "one size fits all" solutions far more drastic and divisive than a Federalist, state-and-regional approach to resolving these contentious issues.

Sorry, Grim, but I just have to reject your entire definition of what constitutes extremism. It is interesting, and it is a useful starting point for a discussion, but I don't believe it is a useful tool for any kind of a serious analysis.

WIth #16 as my post, I assume #17 is your reply to it:

As for the notion of individual rights, I am a firm believer. I am not one of those, to use Klein's formula, who believes in the Second but has some problems with the First; I believe strongly in both. If I didn't discuss it here at length, that shouldn't be read to imply that I don't think it matters. It is part of the social contract that I mentioned as underlying my definition.

I'm sorry, but with respect, I'm having a hard time seeing that when as I see it THE fundamental political problem of abortion is the definition of who/what has rights, and whose or whats supercede others. Logically, there can only be four cases:

1) Neither pregnant mothers nor unborn children have rights in this discussion
2) Pregnant mothers only have rights in this discussion
3) Unborn children only have rights in this discussion
4) Both pregnant mothers and unborn children have rights in this discussion

(From there, there are sub-cases of case 4, based on which rights supersede, and when. Obviously, the rights under discussion are a right to have an abortion performed vs a right to life. I choose not to state my opinion on the matter because it is not germane to the real discussion at hand.)

Moreover, most people who are involved in the debate believe that these are fundamental human rights, and under the right premises it is very easy to see why they are so considered-- they just happen to be in opposition to each other. For people with strong opinions on the matter, these are rights just as fundamental as freedom of speech. (And I hasten to point out that the Bill of Rights does not grant that right, it merely recognizes it.)

It follows very closely from that, that if the right is fundamental, it must be recognized everywhere, and cannot be abrogated in Texas or Massachusetts. That's why the issue of federal government vs state or local governments is a bad metric of extremism here-- not if the defense of your fundamental rights, as I say, cannot be extremism.

And it's not limited to the case of abortion. Many people hold the the right to have consensual sex with members of the same sex is a fundamental human right, or the right to marry a member of the same sex, or-- as you dismissed in #28-- the right to actually be full and equal members of society, not shut away in separate facilities and neighborhoods.

If these are fundamental rights-- and enough people believe that they are-- then it is very properly the domain of the federal government at some point. That's not extremism, Grim, that's a breakdown in the understanding and the application of human rights.

#55 from Marcus Vitruvius: "Logically, there can only be four cases:

1) Neither pregnant mothers nor unborn children have rights in this discussion
2) Pregnant mothers only have rights in this discussion
3) Unborn children only have rights in this discussion
4) Both pregnant mothers and unborn children have rights in this discussion"

This is a quibble that does not affect the main thrust of your argument.

Other parties, such as the father, might have rights, and I have seen arguments advanced to this effect.

The father might have the right to compel the mother to have an abortion, in order to restore an equality of rights between her and him as to whether there will be a child that might require maintenance payments or in other ways be a cost.

For those who regard "choice" as morally unproblematic and are eager to argue in terms of gender equality, apparently this argument can look good.

MV,

I'm not sure why abortion is the matter you want to discuss as opposed to any other; I wouldn't accept or reject a model for governance based on only the abortion question, which may be the hardest current question to resolve to everyone's satisfaction. But let's see what we can do with it.

Rights are traditionally balanced against powers -- you have rights, but the state (or possibly your doctor) has powers. We have three different sets of people who may have rights -- Mr. Blue's assertion isn't really just a quibble. These are people whose views toward the correct solution must be respected.

We also have two different sets of people who may have powers to grant or ban services, which include the state and possibly the medical profession.

Insofar as the first group has rights, the group with powers must abide by the first group's decisions. I assume we agree on that. This allows individuals to control the powerful groups who really could deny them the medical services (or require them to make use of the services) involved.

What we are not likely to agree on -- here by "we" I mean not only you and I, who might come to an agreement, but you and I plus the other hundreds of millions of Americans -- is the resolution of who exactly has the rights.

You say it follows naturally that the fundamental rights must be respected everywhere; what, though, to do when you have cases where there is a deep-seated disagreement about who has which rights, and how properly to balance them with the powers that be?

One thing you can do is assert that your definition of the "proper balance" is the correct one, and everyone must abide by it. In a matter as deeply felt as abortion, what you get with this solution is an essential undermining of the social contract as a whole. Those who feel their rights are being deeply violated by the law come to view the state not as a partner in a contract, but as an enemy, a tyrant, an oppressor.

They come also to view you, and your fellow citizens who agree with you, as an enemy.

Insofar as this mode of thought and exercise leads to the direct undermining of the social contract, then, I call it "extremist." It rends American from American; it turns us into enemies instead of brothers in liberty.

Another solution is to compromise; but it may be that in some cases, as this one, that no real compromise is possible. If SCOTUS were to overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow, but permit only Federal regulations, you can imagine the "fun" we would have with the Administration passing executive orders, and the Congress passing laws, and so forth and so on.

A third solution is to permit sub-groups to adopt different resolutions of the question, and respect them.

Of the three, solutions one and two lead to strife; solution one leads to such strife as to undermine the whole project.

Solution three leads to what you say you don't want: a situation where your rights appear to differ from one place to another. But in fact, it is the more stable of the three. The victor may change in solution one, and overturn the whole project; the constant clash in solution two means that new regulations will be created and overturned constantly.

Instead of your rights differing from place to place, then, they would differ from day to day.

Solution three permits a stable resolution that can be respected by all. If your rights are not being respected the way you prefer, you can move to a place where they are. And there, you will find that they continue to be, not merely from day to day but year to year.

I think Grim is insulting Drum. I mean, he's using the wrong insult.
Drum isn't stupid enough to believe what he says, most times, and this is one of those times.
Drum is not delusional. He's deceitful.

This is an attempt to discredit certain positions he doesn't like by labelling them "extremist". After enough layers of such crap, it becomes embarrassing for the right sort of people to even talk about them, because they'd be "extremists". This is part of an attempt to police the public discussion of issues.

It's the same as trying to discredit even mentioning any issue that has anything to do with minorities as "racist".

The proper thing to do with a pronouncement such as Drum made is ignore it. Engaging it is a waste of time and makes Drum laugh.

I assure you, I didn't intend insult to anyone. :)

> I was simply answering Grim's point about "political action." Voting to change the way the government spends its money is "political action," even if the substance of what he wants the government to do is less coercive rather than more.

I'm not arguing that changing govt spending isn't action. I'm pointing out the switch from "govt spending" to funding" fundamentally misrepresents the argument, and threw in a dollop of "libertarians are the least likely to interfere with private spending decisions".

Switching from "govt spending" to "funding" isn't "answering", it's distorting.

But, Grim, by presuming that Drum believed what he said--which you did by discussing it as if were points made in good faith--you presumed he was dumb enough to believe the self-evidently false.

I like my insult better. Fits the facts.

Grim, #57:

I'm not sure why abortion is the matter you want to discuss as opposed to any other;

I may not have time to respond to this fully, because I am hugely busy today (and possibly tomorrow) but I did want to at least answer that specific point: I used abortion because I think it is precisely where your model is weakest, and least useful.

I did go out of my way to mention the gay rights, in two types; and segregation issues to show that I think the problem with your definitions exist in other cases as well.

#58 from Richard Aubrey: "This is an attempt to discredit certain positions he [Kevin Drum] doesn't like by labelling them "extremist". After enough layers of such crap, it becomes embarrassing for the right sort of people to even talk about them, because they'd be "extremists". This is part of an attempt to police the public discussion of issues.

It's the same as trying to discredit even mentioning any issue that has anything to do with minorities as "racist".

The proper thing to do with a pronouncement such as Drum made is ignore it."

I think that's right.

Apparently, extremism in Drum's eyes is what the right does that he does not approve of, even if it is done lawfully and with wide support from the voters. ("My political frame of reference is different. It's Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America..." (etc.))

That's not serious. It's an attempt to police the debate, by labeling one side as "extremist". And as with Dean Esmay's attempts to police the debate on Islam and the war by (among worse measures) smearing opponents as "Islamophobic", this is not a good starting point for a discussion on anything but the illegitimacy of such tactics.

MV,

I'll await your pleasure. When you have time, let me know and I'll gladly rejoin the issue with you.

Joe K. said,

The Drug War may be wise or unwise, but it is demonstrably related to the common peace given the depth of the addictions produced and lawbreaking that results when a fix is needed and money not at hand.

Joe - first off the NIDA says addiction is a genetic disease. The NIDA is a government body. The National Institute of Drug Abuse. They say there are environmental factors required to trigger that "addiction".

There is compelling evidence that the trigger is trauma. Prysical or mental. In actual studies and also anecdotal evidence something like >90% of female heroin users were sexually molested.

The craving for a 'fix' is really a craving for pain relief.

Fear memories, the amygdala, and the CB1 receptor

Drugs are expensive (and very profitable) due to prohibition.

I'd really like to know how having a war in our poor neighborhoods is going to fix the drug problem?

Worst Job in America has a video by one of the authors of Freakonomics. The death rate for innercity drug dealers is 7% a year. Soldiers in Iraq have a death rate of 1/2% a year.

Please explain again why turning our poor neighborhoods into a war zone to solve medical problems is a good idea?

The drug war creates violence. Run it by me again how it keeps the peace? BTW do they still teach about alcohol prohibition in the schools? Pity you slept through the lessons.

Joe, Joe, Joe,

Cigarettes are an anti-depressant.

It is depressing to see some one who is usually grounded in facts spouting such non-sense. i.e depressed people should pay higher taxes to compensate the government for imposing health care on them.

This is so depressing I'm going to light up.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

#34 Brett,

Not all rights are explicitly listed in the Constitution. You might wish to refresh yourself on Amendment IX

#40 from RiverCocytus,

Trouble is past age 25 it is hard for almost all people to unlearn what they have been taught.

Take my good friend Joe.

I have been teaching him the facts on drugs, addiction, and prohibition for the last 4 or 5 years. Yet he still spouts "conventional wisdom" on the subject.

Rule of thumb I read some where is that it take 5 years for those willing to change their minds based on new facts to actually change their minds.

Me? I'm an engineer and can't wait that long. Otherwise people die. Which is an unacceptable result. So at 62 my mind is still supple from decades of practice.

Normally you have to wait for people full of misinformation to die off.