Which is Worse? The Extreme Right or Extreme Left?

The swedish Moderate party are adapting their rhetoric and policies to the Sweden Democratic party now, which is a neo-nazi party. Just goes to show how moderate they really are. Several prominent members of their young league back in the 40s openly supported the regime of Adolf Hitler, though. So one could argue that they're just sticking to their traditions.

The relative lack of big conflict lines among the established political parties in Europe over the last three decades is what has fueled the growth of neo-nazi populist parties. In other words: the left isn't left-wing enough and the right isn't right-wing enough, so it is perceived by many people like all the politicians have more in common with each other than with anybody in the "general population".

Therefore, claiming that the big problem is extreme left- or right-wing politics is a completely false notion unless one wants neo-nazism.

Agreed. One turd doesn't smell better than the other.

Left-wing politics is the polar opposite of reactionary politics. Don't try to twist things into what they're not.

Or it goes to show they are moving away from moderation.

They'll do anything do defend their own business interests. Because at the end of the day moderate politics is all about that. Always was and always will be.

Actually Moderates are merely in the middle and not on either extreme. All people have their own interests in mind. Which is coded in DNA for survival. That doesn't make moderates out to be bad people.

As for your own country I think world events are going to push more people to extremes and politics will change. It's especially a problem in Europe right now where the liberalism in the past is causing problems now. How your countries deal will be interesting to watch.

I haven't said that they're bad people - that's not really relevant as far as I'm concerned. But when they come together as a political force they will do it for the sake of defending their interests, and if fascism/neo-nazism is there, then they will tend to align themselves with that movement, because it defends business interests above all, which isn't really the goal of left-wing politics.

U.S. foreign policy has had a profound impact on the migrant waves in Europe, which the populist neo-nazi parties have used to their advantage in their propaganda against immigration and for closing borders, leaving the EU, raising national flags and cultivating a homogenous culture. They claim immigration is going to destroy the country, and they talk about the welfare system like a bunch of welfare-chauvinists while at the same time defending privatization of the welfare system in practical politics. They truly are a bunch of pathetic charlatans who feed on people's fear and insecurity, who struggle to even define what swedish culture is - eventhough they claim that a swedish identity is at the core of their politics.

The EU is responsible for the immigration policy. No one twisted their arms.

Obviously. But the U.S.A. is the largest culprit responsible for the wars and the resulting migrant waves.

You're nuts.

What an appropriate comment, because Donald Trump is twisting yours while you wish that you could lick a bit on his.

See, I can also play that game.

Right and none of it has to do with the conditions in the ME. Seriously dude.......

Of course it has everything to do with the wars that the U.S.A. have perpetrated in the middle east: the Afghan war, the war in Iraq, in Pakistan and in Libya. You cannot spread "democracy" from above through invading other countries; it has to be initiated by a social movement that emerges from below in those countries if it's going to have a lasting effect and isn't going to cause widespread dissent.

Half a million children died of starvation as a result of the invasion of Iraq. If you were some backwards, conservative person in that country and you heard that it was god's will for the U.S.A. to cause such suffering, wouldn't you be susceptible to turn to islamic fundamentalism, you think? Saddam was shit, no question about that. But the war in Iraq caused many more deaths than Saddam's Hussein's rule ever did.

You.....are hilarious

I'm glad you think so. *blush*

Centrism can also a pretty damn bad position, just like Far Left and Far Right.

For starters the argument to moderation fallacy can be a pretty bad thing, and from what I have seen has been pretty common amongst several self proclaimed centrists and moderates. Disregarding both sides as bad and then trying to find a middle ground can be especially problematic.

Especially when some issues are rather black and white, like creationism vs evolution.

Hell, it is not all that uncommon that centrists take the worst of both and the best of neither, just look at Hillary Clinton. Who supported nearly every single bad trade deal and voted for the worst right wing positions all while using the worst left wing rhetoric.

While I don't necessarily agree on using Clinton as an example, I think this post is quite accurate. "Moderation" can definitely become just another inflexible ideology unsuited for tackling real world problems. Some people also use it as a way of covering up for the fact that all their ideas are vague generalities.

That being said, I do think moderate liberalism is the most viable ideology at this point.

Being a moderate means weighing in BOTH sides and trying to find a common ground which works for the majority....not being stubborn about an extreme.

But moderation becomes another form of being stubborn if it is ALWAYS trying to find a midway point between the left and right positions. Sometimes that approach works but not always. That's why Maroxad brought up creationism .vs. evolution. Trying to find a midway point between those positions can be harmful whereas finding a midway point on the gun issue is probably a good thing depending on how it's carried out.

It's not about trying to find a midway point though. It's just not jumping from one extreme or the other. Sometimes the right answer is skewed more to one side but not everything should be. As for creationism......I don't believe we should legislate religion nor should it be politicized.

But finding common ground results in a midway point by necessity.

I agree that not everything should be skewed to one side. That's why I preferred Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Clinton's record is clearly progressive and she lays out a progressive vision, but her thinking is not consumed by progressivism.

Religion should not be politicized but it will be if certain people keep trying to push religion into science classes. It seems to me that the issue has a simple solution: teach evolution in the science classes, teach creationism in religion classes. But this solution means that one side doesn't get what they want. And I think that's fine.

The thing is the common ground is generally something that works best.

For instance social programs.....you can't write blank checks and you can't cut from those in need.

Well, like I said, I think it really depends on the issue.

I will concede that finding common ground usually works best in terms of getting things done since you have to satisfy enough people to get legislation passed. The far left/far right might think they have the answers, but their unwillingness to find common ground relegates them to the sidelines. I'm just not sure that the watered down down legislation that results from finding common ground is always the best policy outcome. But yes, often times it's the only way to get the ball rolling. I'm thinking about Obamacare. It was a common ground bill, mixing conservative ideas with liberal ones, and hardcore liberals hated it, but something in the vein of Obamacare was the only thing that was going to get through Congress. Single payer was simply not gonna happen.

True, Hillary would probably be seen as a progressive in an american context. I just used Clinton because she is commonly seen as centrist over here in sweden.

But when typing the post... I was thinking of the swedish moderate party. Who in an attempt to be moderate, has taken some questionable right wing and left wing positions. As another person pointed out, they may have adapted some rethoric from the sweden democrats.

Not at all.

The best policies are usually not those that attempt to appease everyone, but what has empirically proven to work the best. And at least from what I have seen over here. That is almost never a mix between the alliance and opposition. Usually it is one side getting a good idea, then the opposite bloc getting the opposite idea. If we were to just comprimise everything, we would have a lot more half assed policies watered down due to comprimising. I would rather have actual policies than watered down policies.

Medicare/Obamacare is a pretty center/center-left policy. That was formed as a comprimise from the single payer model other countries were adopting. Now, we have PLENTY of data to prove that Obamacare and medicare is grossly inefficient compared to the single payer system.

But the left isnt right on everything. The right wing for instance, has a point when it comes to Nuclear Power and GMOs.

The best method is the one that is backed to for the best by empirical evidence and data. Regardless of whether or not that policy lies on the left or right side of the spectrum, or even in a few rare cases, in the center. If someone is objectively wrong on something, why should they be considered when making decisions?

Edit: Of course, you could argue that in the US climate. You have to comprimise to go through congress. But that doesnt change the fact that those policies would have been a lot more effective if they didnt comprimise.

Religion has no place in any other classes than religion classes and creationism in no other classes than in literature classes.

Both

get rid of both

This country has yet to experience the 'far left'. The democratic presidents throughout history were just left of center at best. The far left would equate to total government dependence, etc.

In the tame token, this country has yet to live with a 'far right' controlled government, though members of the Republican party would sure see it through if they could. Fascism, etc., would be the far right.

As it stands right now, the release of the current Republican party platform is something to worry about.

I want to clarify that by "the extreme right-wing" in my posts I've been referring to neoliberalism. Fascism is extreme center ideologically in a sense - the core problem being the problem of choosing between the left and the right - but tends to end up showing itself to be an extreme right-wing force in practical politics.

Greens struggle with the same dilemma, but tend to end up as a left-wing force in practice.

It's due to the differences in how they view "human nature", I think. Greens have a generally positive view of the ability of human beings to improve themselves, while the fascists hold a negative view.

What's worse than both of those? The KMT.

Is their any other political system outside of Ireland's that doesn't operate on the left vs right ( I know that isn't the correct way to phrase it, but you know I'm talking about traditional politics).

Every political test I've taken these days has me split right down the middle. Who the hell do I vote for?

Taiwan's operates on batshit crazy vs. psycho crazy.

The extreme Left mostly ended with the fall of the Soviet Union... But the extreme Right is still around and kicking, so they're a much bigger threat.

How is "the middle" defined in those tests? Where do the candidates fall on that scale? Are the factors considered in the test all that matter to you? Of the factors that matter to you, which do you place a priority on?

Exactly. The extreme left annoys me to no end due to the PC b.s. I've been banned on a particular site for asking someone about leash laws. Next thing I know, I'm banned for not being nice. It's getting out of hand. People are way to sensitive now and fish for, "gotcha" moments.

You are smarter than this, why are you repeating the easily (and often) debunked claim that Clinton is actually a Republican in hiding or even a "centrist"? Common sense would tell you if she was as right wing as her opponents make her seem, the Republicans wouldn't have spent 25+ years attacking her. Clinton's voting record is pretty much as liberal as it gets. Also, trade deals are nowhere near as bad as people like Bernie Sanders make them seem.

http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate

This isn't to say that Clinton is or is not right leaning/centrist/left leaning, but this specific argument is without any merit in an era in which Republicans fought their own healthcare proposal tooth and nail because a Democrat proposed it later.

The Republicans would have attacked her for 25+ years merely for having a D next to her name.

In this era, yeah, but what about the 90's or W.'s presidency? Obviously we are just guessing here but I'd be inclined to believe they wouldn't go after her as hard as they did in this timeline. Stark contrasts are easy to attack, but similarities? Not so much.

Eh, given the events of Bill's presidency, I'm inclined to believe that the attitude extends back AT LEAST that far. Plus, that was the era of Newt's Congressional leadership. He was a right nasty individual, and his caucus followed suit. Not to mention that the attacks on the Clinton's in this era occurred at a time when Bill's campaign was built on moving to the right to pull in a faction of the Republicans through a strategy he called Triangulation.

As I write this and contemplate on the matter further, I'm sure this holds true back to that era as well.

I was using my own country's frame for determining her position, and in my country, she would definately fall under centrism ;)

But yes, I shouldnt have done that. As I admitted in my post to Greyseal.

Edit: And TPP was a pretty bad thing for the country, as was NAFTA. Though she eventually admitted NAFTA was a mistake and opposed TPP in 2015.