Eric Herr: Choosing among extremists

Today’s label-heavy political rhetoric, like name-calling on the school playground, serves as dog whistle propaganda. There’s an overabundance of labels. Uniquely today both the left and right apply the same label to their opponents: "Extremists” from the top of the parties, through New Hampshire state races, down to post-Gunstock races, and even “No extremist” lawn signs.

I admit that for me the term “extremist” generates an adverse visceral reaction. But with both sides of the aisle applying “extremist,” it deserved more thoughtful consideration. In the process, it took on a more complex and ultimately important meaning.

I won’t pretend to understand the meaning of “extremist” as used by the right and left. I understand “extremist” to mean any individual whose beliefs, rhetoric, and actions are outside the mainstream— the commonly shared views of a group, whether that group is a society, an institution, or even an intellectual discipline. The founding fathers, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Susan B. Anthony and Charles Darwin fit that definition of “extremists.” But so too do Timothy McVeigh, Adolf Hitler and Osama Bin Laden. Extremists often play an essential role in catalyzing and shaping change. Today, I, like many others, believe that our politics and our policies are badly broken, that change is required. Extremists will likely play an important role in shaping that change. But not all change is good, and not all extremists promote constructive change. So, I wonder what distinguishes constructive “extremists” from destructive “extremists”?

A constructive model of the first steps of extremism, it seems to me, is the Declaration of Independence. It begins with a statement of principles: that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. Its argument for change is built on the failure of the British crown to meet its obligations to those rights of the colonies. It builds a factual case, reviewing a bill of particular British governing failures and the colonies' efforts to seek redress. It clearly states the objective: independence. And it closes with the signers pledging their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to each other and the cause of independence.

I wonder what might a constructive Declaration for Change be today. For me, it would start by reaffirming our natural equality and our shared rights, emphasizing what cannot change so that everything else might. It would articulate a bill of particulars as a case for change. It would sketch the outlines of the desired changes. (Note: For the founders, independence was the objective. But fulfilling that objective took the Revolution, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, it is still in progress.) Finally, it would acknowledge our obligations to each other and the future.

For me, the outlines of constructive change and constructive extremism would include the following:

Loyalty to the People, the Constitution, Core Principles, and the Truth more than to self, party, or any single person; Elections driven directly by the people that promote participation, ensure legitimacy, that every vote has an equal probability of affecting the outcome and that voters more than institutions and money determine results; Opportunities and obligations balanced across generations by constraining public sector deficits and debt while effectively addressing long-term issues, e.g., climate change; Address the increasingly unequal distribution of income, wealth, opportunity, and well-being; Address immigration in a way that protects our borders, retains our commitment to asylum, and anticipates demographic challenges, in particular, the aging of our population and fertility rates below the replacement rate; Secure the rule of and equality before the law; Provide defense from foreign interests and actions and for domestic tranquility and security; Seek and speak the truth and respect others’ points of view; Promote long-term, equitable economic well-being; and simplify the complexity of government and government programs to promote transparency, accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness.

No doubt the list should be longer. No doubt, the devil is in the details. But any such list needs to be understood in the context of our continuing commitment to building a more perfect union. Extremists will play an important role in that effort. We must choose our brand of extremists with care.

•••

Eric Herr is a resident of Hill.