Diaspora Dialogs [.com]

I guess it would be really helpful for me to know if I am a Democrat or a Republican in order to answer this to the best of my abilities. Usually - I avoid politics and am fairly indifferent to it, (for better or worse).

So I took a quiz to see if I was a democrat or republican on basic ideals. Now I know that this may not be the best way to necessarily decide my political leanings - but I figured it wouldn't hurt. It was a 12 question quiz and in the end I answered 6 as a Democrat and 6 as a Republican.

...Well that helped...

I took another one and it told me leaned toward anarchist and communist beliefs. (Because being both makes sense...)

I can understand that the extremes in different political views can get very frustrating let alone confusing - especially when a decision needs to be made in order for progress to be made within a community. The miscommunication, the manipulation, the audacity to shuffle money are all facets of politics that keep me from following most current events. It is the radical extremes that make everything so exhausting.

But honestly - I think they are necessary. Just because I don't follow them doesn't mean I don't think the extreme ideals are not important. I think they serve as an unofficial checks and balances between the political parties. There are advantages and drawbacks of a society run by both extremes. A compromise or middle ground between the two is hard to find - but it does its best to serve everyone's needs.

I think that it's the (dirty) politicians and money involved themselves that cause the factions and divisions between towns and the country - not the ideals involved no matter how far apart they are on the political spectrum.

-Erin Allen

I agree with the fact that there should be a voice for the middle ground people. I also understand that the majority of America does not base their beliefs on either extreme of the spectrum. However, one reason why these arguments are represented to such extremes is because of the public and the media. Taking the middle road, like many Americans, means that at some point one must agree with each exteme. This seems to be unacceptible with regard to politicians. Once a politician even mentions agreeing with the "other side" the media and the public label him or her a "flip flopper" or indecisive. Therefore in effort to appear strong, level headed, and adequate for their position, politicians take a defined stance that the public can associate them with.

On a more personal level, this need to be decisive and defined has also affected our regularly opinionated voices. It is not only influenced by the desire for an opinion but also through questions (yes or no?), immediate decisions, society's decision based norm. But as Robert has said, who is to say that we must have a defined and stern opinion? Why can't these extremes just provide a basis for the construction of our own beliefs? Many Americans have followed this middle road of belief, but this comes into question when we are asked to decide between candidates split into two parties furthur dividing us yet again.

I believe most of us had made some radical comments and sometimes we don’t mean what we have said. Sadly, sometimes my perspective oscillates between two extreme views. However, oscillation can be completely normal especially when our comprehension regarding to the subject is partial. Being able to express freely and reach an agreement through communication is an essential skill especially in politics in democratic country. Through understanding two opposite views, we can develop further understanding of the subject before reaching final conclusion. I believe taking the middle ground is probably the safest approach when trying to reach a harmony. However, middle ground does not mean indecisive. If through a debate, nothing is concluded. I would have rather taken a side and stick with it, because insecurity cannot bring us anywhere except where we have started. One historical example of suffering from stalemate and irresolution is WWI trench warfare. Many soldiers lost their life in trenches when neither sides gain any advantage. At the end of the war, everybody suffered.

For the most part i agree with what others have said thus far. I believe a large part of why these extremes exist is because politicians have a need to appear strong, so they develop radical opinions in order to appear to be decisive. Furthermore, politicians continue to follow extremes not only to get their point across but also to attract those voters that do have radical opinions. As I mentioned above I believe that politicians take extreme stances in order to "seem" strong or decisive, but in reality I think most politicians see the other sides point even if they don't agree with it. In some cases politicians may agree with the other point of view, but they don't share that with the public because then as Jeff explained they would be labeled as indecisive, which could result in the loss of some constituents.

Although these extreme views may mask the true opinions of certain politicians, I think they play an important role it society. The radical opinions witnessed in politics help the constituents be more decisive for the most part. These radical opinions make it easier and faster to make decisions. Since many people have a tendency to be very indecisive radical opinions force people to look at two polar opposite opinions and affiliate with one extreme opinion, than choose from a few moderate opinions. This allows us to make quick decisions based on a majority that believes in one of the extremes rather than somewhere in middle ground.

-Barrie Brandt

Unfortunately, I don't have much of an understanding in this matter. I stopped watching TV a long time ago, in part because of what you have described, Robert. Sometimes I just don't understand humans. Have you ever heard the jokes that say something along the lines of, "The point of a debate is to talk as loud and as long as possible in order to prevent yourself from hearing the other side?" Basically, there are too many people these days for whom a debate is more of an argument than a discussion. The debaters aren't trying to solve problems or come to a common ground, because they don't listen to their opponents. Instead, they try to voice their opinions as strongly as possible to drown out any opposing views.

I don't know why they have adopted this strategy. It does not appeal to me very much, but perhaps a common audience member can be swayed by the conviction of these speakers. Or perhaps the speakers have simply lost all sense of purpose, and they are treating these debates as games. They are no longer aware of why they are doing what they do, and it never occurs to them to stop and examine their behavior. It has become a habit to them; it is the way they live their lives.

Again, this is all just speculation. I really don't understand what is happening. However, I do know that there are people like me to whom these radical opinions do not appeal. Perhaps now would be a good time to plug groups like unity08. There are hundreds of such groups whose purpose is to end bipartisan politics, but I don't think they are very well-organized yet. In fact, I don't think we will be able to eliminate this kind of polarization for a long time. Like religion, traditions, and personal values, political beliefs have a way of propagating and self-enforcing themselves through the generations. In this case, it can be quite sad. Sometimes people don't even understand what they're saying. They say, "Damn liberals!" or "Stupid conservatives!" (these are the censored versions), but they don't even know what a liberal or conservative is, and they have no reason to back their insult other than their friends and family like to do the same. It's just like how racism propagates. There's no valid reason behind it; it's just what people have picked up during their lives from others.

So, I don't really know what to do. The current political system is very much integrated into American life, and I don't think it can be restructured very easily. There have been people who have accused our generation of being politically inactive, but in a system like this, I'm not sure if it's worth it to become active. I don't want to be pitting my voice against people who aren't even going to listen. No matter how foolish they may be behaving, telling them so won't solve much. It's difficult to fight ignorance once it has developed to this level. Education needs to start at an early age, and I hope that in the future we can teach our descendants to be more cooperative and understanding instead of overly competitive and closed-minded.

Noah Van Horne

I think that it may be a mistake to consider any points of view as truly “radical,” because this implies that they are being viewed from a “non-radical” vantage point. Because we are questioning opinions here, it is exceedingly difficult to place labels such as “radical” and still maintain the open-minded view that all opinions have merit. It seems that generally, the term “radical” is applied to people holding opinions that do not fall within a “standard deviation” of the “mean” opinion of any given population. This implies that if the “mean” opinion differs, so will the definition of “radical”. To illustrate this, consider a tribe of Cannibals who are accustomed to consuming their captives. To that tribe, the act of eating other humans is probably not overly repulsive, and so would not constitute “radical” behavior. Similarly, (and here I speak from ignorance, so please forgive me), the practice of suicide bombing may not be considered as “radical” in other countries as it is in our own, because the very cultures of those countries may have what most people in the U.S. would consider to be “radical” perspectives. Remember that for those cultures, “radical” constitutes an entirely different set of characteristics.

Now that I have established what I believe to be an acceptable definition of “radical”, (“anything not within one standard deviation”), I think that it is not possible to make the argument that “everyone seems to make radical arguments”, because in fact the majority of people must not be radical for radical views to even exist. However, in spite of this I can concede the point that people often accentuate the main points of their arguments with certain embellishments in order to more clearly distinguish the key ways in which their own opinions differ from other known opinions. This particular tactic is all about applying what most of us are taught in our high school writing classes, which is: “Take a clear strong standpoint and defend it. Don't be wishy washy.”

So now to conclude a long answer to a short question, I suggest that the majority of people argue “radical” view-points for the sake of argument, but that there is always the small percentage outside of the standard deviation which truly is radical. As far as reaching a middle ground, I think that what actually exists usually reflects the true common opinion shared by the majority of a population's people, and this is the commonly approved “middle ground”. And this “middle ground” tends to drift near the middle point equidistant between all “radical” viewpoints. This proposition implies that in fact the “moderate gap” between the radical extremes does not exist at all, but it simply appears to exist because as Robert said, separate radical groups “realize that they are being so radical and continue to act that way in order to get their points across”.

For the record, I surmise that what causes drastic reform or revolution is when one particular “radical” point attains a disproportional amount of influence, (disproportional to the support it has), which causes the opposite extreme to act violently to reestablish a balance. Sometimes this violent reaction results simply in reform, other times it results in the complete removal of a previously overly powerful radical group.

I don’t think the majority of our country has radical opinions about these issues. Sure there are some radicals, but I don’t think its to the extent where its dividing our towns and country into different factions. People may disagree about some issues but that doesn’t mean its dividing our country. I think when you have very controversial issues like the ones you mentioned there may be some extremists on both sides but the majority of people will fall somewhere in the middle of both sides. I’m not saying most people don’t have opinions on these issues, I’m just saying most people’s opinions aren’t the extremes of the spectrum.

In a way I think these two radical points of view allow us to reach a common middle ground. That’s probably one of the reasons some people take the issues to the extreme, so they can get more people to agree with their side of the issue. I think people with radical views still see the other side of the issue, unless the other side of the issue is totally against their beliefs such as issues like gay marriage.