I'm very much interested in your definition of left wing extremism. What positions do you think are so extreme that they deserve that title?
OK, as I get into this, I find that I'm engaging the discussion from a rather different place than I originally set out to. I apologize in advance for any contradictions from my own previous statements that this creates, but I guess that's the nature of political discourse....
As I said in my previous response to Rhinox, I was attempting to pull together a set of policies that would qualify as "extremeism," but after starting on that enterprise, I find that I think I'm asking the wrong question. Not only do candidates within the same party tend to have fewer
policy differences than one might hope for, but as NovaSaber rightly pointed out, the right wing will often accuse those who oppose them (not always even "leftists," properly speaking) of being "extreme" as a matter of course.
So, while I do still hold my fear that the "message" taken away from the NYC mayoral primary could be that attitude (not the best term, but as we've already established, "extremism" may be a rabbit trail from what we actually intend, anyway) matters more than known records of bad behavior, it was always less out of anything wrong that Mamdani has done or said, and more the lack of proper attention paid in the media (IMHO, of course) to Cuomo's past crimes.
With that preamble, here's what I would propose: to define "extremism," I first need to define what I would actually
want out of any given politician.
We seek to elect representatives who advocate for policies that do as much good as possible, for as many people as possible.
Thus, when the "wrong" party wins an election, there's still a not-unreasonable expectation that they should seek to benefit
all of their constituents as much as possible,and not merely those who elected them. We can and will disagree on policies and specifics, but regardless of party, to the extent we see policies harming people, we should be calling it out, and
especially (certainly not exclusively) when we see the harm as disproportionate to the number of people who might benefit.
Thus, an "extremist" would be someone who seeks to benefit only a few (possibly only one's self), and who has apparent disregard for the well-being of others.
Now, on to actual policies... under my new framework, I do
not propose these as ways to define an "extremist," especially not taken in a vacuum. At best, they might help set a barometer. But as I suggested before, just because I see a particular policy as less viable to win elections, it doesn't necessarily mean that I myself oppose the policy (indeed, on at least some matters, I've determined that I may well be an extremist myself... and would certainly be accused of such by folks strongly opposed to me).
- “Defund the police” - As I've suggested in a previous post, the intention behind this movement has often been misunderstood, and it has certainly been misconstrued (often on purpose) by many. As I myself understand the movement, the intention seems to be “reduce funding, with those moneys to be routed elsewhere” rather than pulling funding entirely. Put another way, we should concentrate less on punishing wrongdoers (although this is still necessary), and more on helping people, with the hope that fewer people would commit crimes in the first place if given better resources. I'm very much in support of such actions. That said, in general, populations still see the police as a public good that deserves more support, rather than less, and taking a position that the police are "the enemy" (definitely held by at least some, one must acknowledge) is typically not an election-winning strategy.
- Support for gender-affirming medical procedures – While I'm generally in favor of this, myself, I'm forced to acknowledge that this one still scares even a lot Democrats, at present. It’s one thing to support a person’s right to choose one’s own gender identity, but it’s another to promote potentially permanent surgical alterations. Support for this plummets even further when the concept is applied to minors, and sadly, the best arguments (reductions in suicides, for example) are apprently not yet unambiguously supported by data (even when non-binary gender, itself, often is). At best, we on the left have done a poor job of supporting the case rather than simply making assertions.
- Overt condemnation of Israel/promotion of Palestinians. In large part due to America's history within Christendom, even many who do not hold the Christian faith sometimes find themselves conflating criticism of the nation of Israel with condemnation of Jews, in general. The sheer effort many of us on the left take to try to convince people that these things should not be conflated demonstrates this difficulty. Speaking only for myself (specifically, as a left-leaning Christian), I very much wish that those on the right would consider the harm Israel's policies are doing to Palestian Christians (of which there's a subtantial, if minority, number). Not that one should have to share one's faith in order for us to care about their well-being, but if we're not even doing that, it's pretty easy to see why so many are treated as something other than human.
- Promotion of violence - This one should, I would have hoped, be a no-brainer. Assassination is off the table, as far as I'm concerned. I know that not all agree. Even left-leaning Christians will often point to the fact that Dietrich Bonhoeffer ultimately supported the assassination of Hitler (those who aren't Christian are less likely to know who Bonhoeffer is). That said, I don't think I'm out of line suggesting that this is a strong potential marker of an "extremist." However, as I suggested in a previous post, this one seems to disproportionately hurt the left on BOTH sides. Being too much of a pacifist means that we're seen as not caring about innocents. Support for both the police and the military is all-but required in today's politics. But being a pacifist is too often conflated with "passivity." Pacifists actively work toward the well-being of all life. Pacifists are allowed to defend themselves and others, but actions that are intended to cause harm (especially death) to others is contrary to the principle of supporting life. Generally, folks like to suggest "gotcha" questions like "what if someone is about to shoot you, and the only way to stop him is to shoot him first?" Generally speaking, this is a red herring. The pacifist would argue that there is always an alternative, and this very much includes proactive actions to prevent the situation from arising in the first place. To repeat myself, I'm not quite sure I qualify as a pacifist under these definitions, but I do think that this is a position we as a society should be striving for.
I had a couple of other items that ultimately didn't make the list, as having even more potential holes and unanswered questions than the ones no doubt already posed by these, but hopefully these can yield productive discussion (and, specifically, no "gotcha" accusations and questions). I fully admit that I myself may not always be consistent. These are more ideals to strive for rather than hard and fast rules, most of the time.
