All of us do this: Extremist Rhetoric

Why are so many people drawn to white hot rhetoric like white moths to a flame? In looking at this phenomenon in what I call “extremist rhetoric” in public discourse, I want to consider three politically relevant questions. I’m looking at extremist rhetoric in public discourse in the context of a (shall we say) burgeoning democracy. What makes it alluring at all? How can it imperil democratic discourse in spite of the constitutional protection of free speech to which it is entitled? And finally, and this is most difficult, is there any potentially effective way of responding to the rhetoric in our culture other than trying to beat one extremism with another?

Why are so many people drawn to white hot rhetoric like when we Egyptians like to gather around any accident and stand there looking at the horrible accident without adding much to the situation? I don’t think this question is very difficult to attempt an answer. We’re drawn to extremist rhetoric because its just easier to believe passionately in a value or cause without regard to subtlety, reasoned argument, or effort. It’s just easier to believe if you shut off probably. Any expression of a single minded thinking in our culture will be focused on simply: “how do we change this society of ours?” And secondly, most of us find comfort in being surrounded by like-minded people. Having commons in rhetoric even if not in arms is great, and people are drawn to it just like downtown loving Cairenes are drawn to ice-cream shops in the summer.

However, this form of extremist rhetoric is not reason to be repelled away from it like a flock of Egyptians are repelled by the word “women’s rights” or “secularism.” Extremist rhetoric has a constitutional right to be said and heard. You might be questioning why this extremist rhetoric deserves constitutional protection. It would be easy, in fact, if it didn’t. Why worry about it? For Aristotle, political rhetoric was above all about political persuasion concerning questions of justice. Extremist rhetoric implicitly denies reasonable argument. From a democratic perspective, two dangers lie therein. One danger is in the way extremist rhetoric mobilize their base and let’s get this straight: there’s nothing wrong with mobilizing the base but a public discourse that abounds in extremist rhetoric insidiously undermines the democratic promise in mobilizing citizens in gaining a reasonable understanding of their interest or the public interest. To use a term now rendered technical, it’s a form of bullshit. And as bullshit, it blatantly disregards truthful understandings upon which the citizens of this democracy may make informed judgment.

Yet another danger is the extremist rhetoric denies and demonizes accepting other perspectives, rather than encouraging people to form coalitions, it aims to isolate the political base into one type of opinion.

So many of us who are not ideological zealots, use extremist rhetoric for our own political ends—whether its over dinner in an attempt to “win” a conversation, or at a meeting to show others we know more than them for the sake of impressing the rest at the expense of one person, or even in front of people who are markedly different than us, like our housekeepers. At the same time, true zealots have insidiously subverted constitutional democratic values through the use of extremist rhetoric.

If we think that the line of thought here is irrelevant to your daily life, then consider that that this tactic is what the government can rely on for disciplining an entire population into silence and apathy. When MP Gamal Zahran from Parliament last week says, in response to amending some of the personal status laws of Egypt “"We can now expect women to go out to work and men stay at home waiting for their wives to return. People can also expect to see mustachioed wives with downtrodden men at their side pushing baby buggies," he conveys a deep seated first and lack of understanding of the amendments of the personal status law and conveys the extremist attitude that anyone who isn’t with him, is in fact, our moral enemy.

We have no desire to respect of deliberate with them. But, because of their positions, we must. Such an example of the context of (again lets say) a burgeoning democracy comes from a single minded certainty which excludes other people without any regret for ones political adversaries. But unlike extremist behavior, most extremist rhetoric does not pose any direct danger. The increasing use of rhetoric that bullshits the public and divides it into hostile camps have two missing arteries. The first is the morally defensible position of compromise across difference and the second is respect for political adversaries. The kind that work together and respect one another’s competing values. Yet extremist rhetoric can readily pay off in elections. That’s why, I find, this is a puzzle worth puzzling about.

Despite the fact that the majority of Egyptians are extremists, extremist rhetoric is the most effective public appeal.

Now what I’ve talked of so far is in attempt to paint a picture of what extremist rhetoric is and why it poses serious dangers to our democracy. But this isn’t to say that all extremist rhetoric is extremely dangerous. Quite the contrary, some may call for extremist rhetoric and that’s why this is a far more complex picture than one might at first think. When confronting slavery, for example, we might applaud those who defend liberty. After all, a far strong case could be made for maximizing some liberal values such as liberty. So we should admire extremist rhetoric when it carries with it a public good. Yet, we must also remember that passionate extremism in the service of a supremely just cause is not effective in politics. So I use the example of extremist rhetoric which is passionately against slavery as an example for why we must not paint extremist rhetoric out of the box all the time and simultaneously knowing that is effectiveness will not last forever and can only be used sparsely.

Extremist rhetoric tends to exclude those who otherwise might embrace a less extremist but mild political coalition. There is a rhyme in politics that says being right is just not enough. The rhyme says:

Here lies the body of William Jay

Who died defending his right of way

He was right, dead right as he sped along

But he is just as dead as if he were wrong.

Trading one kind of extremism into another does not fare well for an informed public policy or for a mutually respectable citizenry. It would be more responsible with a mutually respectable argument. But how? Consider the following: don’t fall into the opposite of extremist rhetoric which is wishy-washy relativism but staunchly defend “evolution against creationism” while also practicing an economy of moral disagreement. Recognize that science does not have answer to all questions. When we economic on our moral agreement we realize rejection of the position we oppose. When we defend our point of views vigorously by maximizing the agreement while minimizing the disagreement, we also make room to promise. We need to practice morally engaged pluralism—one that recognizes competing moral goods.

Morally engage pluralists speak in a way that seeks common ground but stands up for what they believe. They minimize rejection of what they believe in but they stand up for what they believe. The reasonable hope manages to recognize the most people are morally pluralistic. However, morally engaged pluralists must not check their emotions at the door. Rationality is a bone between persons but it’s not a very powerful one. And it’s apt to fail when there’s strong sides on both sides. Morally engaged pluralists can be passionate about their values as they are rational. They need to be as passionate about the values we defend as extremists are. We need to set priorities on our values. We must look beyond extremist rhetoric to other rhetorical strategies but we also have to look beyond rhetorical strategies to institutionalize practice to help make room for morally pluralistic discourse.

But how? My suggestions can probe where some political institutions put too much premium on mobilizing a minority race to the detriment of majority rule. It is important to look at the way political electoral systems give incentives to different kinds of rhetorical strategies. And its important to look at that from the point of a constitutional democracy for the good of majority rule. It would allow majorities to form to rule within those limits. There’s been a lot more focus on the rights than on the way in which we can structure democracy to make majoirtarian rule more robust. Communications strategists can hold sessions on how media can be more accountable. Civil leaders can focus on bringing forums to bring citizens together across party lines and institute forums that didn’t exist. Presidential debates could feature capable moderators that prove candidates and could be set up in a way that’s really probing.
Moving from the micro to the macro, colleges and universities should do a better job on cultivating engaged pluralists. Educated people open to reasonable different and sharp disagreement. That means that we must have more courses and forums in which we ask people to be passionate and more argumentative but we teach and we hold people up to the standard of reason. If we do nothing we might find ourselves threatened in our culture. The most suffer lack of conviction but the worst suffer from lack of intention.

In conclusion, I would simply say that a simple reason for why this is a worthwhile task, that the person you disagree with, far from being an ignorant sloth, typically has something that’s worth saying.