abovetopsecret.com (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/95/pg1/srtpages) The Name Game - "Far-Right" v. "Far-Left" I've been thinking about the increase in the use of these two terms, in recent years. I suspect, most of those who use the terms, particularly as insults, really don't know why they use them, other than to describe someone who does not agree with them on a single specific political standpoint.
So, in order to determine the applicability of the labels "Far Right" and "Far Left", lets look at a couple of _documents_ (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread620512/pg1#) . The Department of Homeland Security issued a _report_ (http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf) in which was included this definition Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. A DHS _report_ (http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/leftwing.pdf) includes these groups in their explanation of leftwing extremists Animal rights and environmental extremists seek to end the perceived abuse and suffering of animals and the degradation of the natural environment perpetrated by humans.... Anarchist extremists generally embrace a number of radical philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist, socialist, and other movements... Specifically, it names such groups as the Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front, Earth First, Crimethinc, the Ruckus Society and Recreate 68. (Bold emphasis by me) So, how many Americans actually fall into any of these groups and fit the published DHS profiles of Far Right and Far Left? That is impossible to quantify, because of their underground nature, but there are estimates. KKK - 5,000 or 0.00162 of the total population (includes 40 factions and over 100 chapters) _ADL_ (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/default.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=kkk) Christian Identity - 37,500 (ADL says 25K to 50K) or 0.01215 of the population _ADL_ (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Christian_Identity.asp) These numbers, of course, include those members who are simply loud mouths and are unlikely to engage in acts of violence, however do contribute to the rhetoric that inflames and incites others to act.. If we combine those and multiply by a factor of 10, the total is still just over one-tenth of 1% (0.13) of the U.S. population. The factoring should more than account for those who are radically anti-abortion and radically anti-illegal immigration, if you make an estimation based on actual incidents of violence, from the following sources. According to the_National Abortion Federation_ (http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/violence_statistics.pdf) during the 30 year period of 1977 to 2007, there were 7 related murders and 17 attempted murders. That is an average of about 1 per year. If you include all incidents the NAF considers violence, the result is 5,622 over the 30 year period or 188 per year. Even if you assume each event, over the entire 30 year period, was committed by a different person, that is only 0.00182 % of the population. The FBI _Uniform Crime Report_ (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/offenders.html) says this about hate crime offenders Law enforcement agencies reporting hate crime data to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) _Program_ (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread620512/pg1#) in 2008 identified 6,927 known offenders in 7,783 bias-motivated incidents. That amounts to 0.00224 % of the U.S. population. That should provide a pretty clear view of who are really the "Far Right". Now, on to those identified as "Far Left", in the previously cited DHS report. The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 43 million dollars. _The Threat of Ecoterrorism 2002_ (http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm) So, here we have an average of 100 criminal acts per year, officially attributed to ALF and ELF. Using the same methods as above, allowing each of those to be at the hands of different individuals, the number of radical "eco-terrorists" equates to 0.00003 % of the U.S. population. Now, how to measure membership in such anarchist groups as Crimethinc, Ruckus and Recreate 68? One of Crimethinc's webpages indicates 300 attended its annual "_Convergence_ (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread620512/pg1#) " meeting. I think it would be safe to say, those are the hardcore members. I won't even attempt to enumerate the membership of Ruckus, but its _Facebook_ (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread620512/pg1#) page has over 3,000 followers. Similarly, Recreate 68's numbers are difficult to estimate. Though many may not be familiar with these organizations, past leftwing groups included the Weather Underground (of Bill Ayers fame) and the Symbianese Liberation Army. Again, those who can truly be considered "Far Left" are small in number. Now considering who is truly "Far Left" or "Far Right" and their true numbers, where do the rest of us lie, on the imaginary left/right scale? Personally, I consider myself to be mostly liberal on personal freedoms. Of course, for those who have read any of my posts regarding the decriminalization of drugs, I have exceptions, though they are very limited. (But, honestly, my good friend and ATS giant, Jean Paul Zodeaux, has recently presented arguments which have me a little off balance in that stance.) However, I consider myself very conservative on fiscal matters. So, on a single scale of 10 in either direction and zero in the center, I would have to say I believe I would fall somewhere between the 1 and 2 on the conservative side. I've been thinking about the increase in the use of these two terms, in recent years. I suspect, most of those who use the terms, particularly as insults, really don't know why they use them, other than to describe someone who does not agree with them on a single specific political standpoint. So, in order to determine the applicability of the labels "Far Right" and "Far Left", lets look at a couple of _documents_ (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread620512/pg1#) . The Department of Homeland Security issued a _report_ (http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf) in which was included this definition Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. A DHS _report_ (http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/leftwing.pdf) includes these groups in their explanation of leftwing extremists Animal rights and environmental extremists seek to end the perceived abuse and suffering of animals and the degradation of the natural environment perpetrated by humans.... Anarchist extremists generally embrace a number of radical philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist, socialist, and other movements... Specifically, it names such groups as the Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front, Earth First, Crimethinc, the Ruckus Society and Recreate 68. (Bold emphasis by me) So, how many Americans actually fall into any of these groups and fit the published DHS profiles of Far Right and Far Left? That is impossible to quantify, because of their underground nature, but there are estimates. KKK - 5,000 or 0.00162 of the total population (includes 40 factions and over 100 chapters) _ADL_ (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/default.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=kkk) Christian Identity - 37,500 (ADL says 25K to 50K) or 0.01215 of the population _ADL_ (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Christian_Identity.asp) These numbers, of course, include those members who are simply loud mouths and are unlikely to engage in acts of violence, however do contribute to the rhetoric that inflames and incites others to act.. If we combine those and multiply by a factor of 10, the total is still just over one-tenth of 1% (0.13) of the U.S. population. The factoring should more than account for those who are radically anti-abortion and radically anti-illegal immigration, if you make an estimation based on actual incidents of violence, from the following sources. According to the_National Abortion Federation_ (http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/violence_statistics.pdf) during the 30 year period of 1977 to 2007, there were 7 related murders and 17 attempted murders. That is an average of about 1 per year. If you include all incidents the NAF considers violence, the result is 5,622 over the 30 year period or 188 per year. Even if you assume each event, over the entire 30 year period, was committed by a different person, that is only 0.00182 % of the population. The FBI _Uniform Crime Report_ (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/offenders.html) says this about hate crime offenders Law enforcement agencies reporting hate crime data to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) _Program_ (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread620512/pg1#) in 2008 identified 6,927 known offenders in 7,783 bias-motivated incidents. That amounts to 0.00224 % of the U.S. population. That should provide a pretty clear view of who are really the "Far Right". Now, on to those identified as "Far Left", in the previously cited DHS report. The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 43 million dollars. _The Threat of Ecoterrorism 2002_ (http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm) So, here we have an average of 100 criminal acts per year, officially attributed to ALF and ELF. Using the same methods as above, allowing each of those to be at the hands of different individuals, the number of radical "eco-terrorists" equates to 0.00003 % of the U.S. population. Now, how to measure membership in such anarchist groups as Crimethinc, Ruckus and Recreate 68? One of Crimethinc's webpages indicates 300 attended its annual "_Convergence_ (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread620512/pg1#) " meeting. I think it would be safe to say, those are the hardcore members. I won't even attempt to enumerate the membership of Ruckus, but its _Facebook_ (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread620512/pg1#) page has over 3,000 followers. Similarly, Recreate 68's numbers are difficult to estimate. Though many may not be familiar with these organizations, past leftwing groups included the Weather Underground (of Bill Ayers fame) and the Symbianese Liberation Army. Again, those who can truly be considered "Far Left" are small in number. Now considering who is truly "Far Left" or "Far Right" and their true numbers, where do the rest of us lie, on the imaginary left/right scale? Personally, I consider myself to be mostly liberal on personal freedoms. Of course, for those who have read any of my posts regarding the decriminalization of drugs, I have exceptions, though they are very limited. (But, honestly, my good friend and ATS giant, Jean Paul Zodeaux, has recently presented arguments which have me a little off balance in that stance.) However, I consider myself very conservative on fiscal matters. So, on a single scale of 10 in either direction and zero in the center, I would have to say I believe I would fall somewhere between the 1 and 2 on the conservative side. But, what if we imagined two scales, rather than one? Where do you think fellow "liberals" would place you on a zero to 10 liberalism scale, with ten being completely anarchistic and radical? Would others see you as a "right wing extremist" simply because you do not advocate burning down every bastion and symbol of capitalism? Or, would a person who fully supports the welfare system, but is fundamentally opposed to abortion, consider you a "left wing radical", because you are a pro-choice advocate? How about you "conservatives"? If you think abortion is a personal choice, but staunchly oppose using taxpayer money to pay for elective abortions, would you be labeled "left wing loon"? What if you stolidly oppose the criminalization of drugs, as an assault on your natural and inalienable rights? Far-left? But, wait. You are also, adamantly a freemarket capitalist? "Right wing nut-job"? Things are seldom almost never black and white. So, why are the terms used so recklessly, on a daily basis? Why does the media attempt to portray so many as extremists, while only offering seconds long soundbites and simple utterances as justification for their claims? Is it appropriate to label someone as "Far Left" simply because they carry a sign that says "No WTO", "WTO Scum, Your Time Has Come" or "Bush=Hitler"? Is it acceptable to refer to someone as "Far Right" simply because they carry a sign that says "Taxed Enough Already", "When They Jumped the Fence, They Broke the Law" or "Obama=Hitler"? No, it is not and it really is ridiculous. But, why does it continue and why is it becoming more pervasive? In my opinion, and apparently that of several other ATS members, the only reasonable answer is, to further divide the populace. The greater the divide, the less likely it becomes that We will figure out that We have more in common about the problems facing our country, than what we think. If you can be convinced that every person with a single conservative position is against everything that you stand for, "they" have won. If you can be convinced that every person with a single liberal position is determined to destroy everything in which you believe, "they" have won. But, as is seen on the pages of ATS, every day, our energy is focused on the small things upon which we disagree. You see, if we actually "got along" long enough to identify commonalities, it wouldn't take long for us to determine a corrective course of action, through compromise and logic. Instead, we have page after page arguing back and forth about whether or not Obama is a U.S. citizen. How much time is spent in atheism vs. religion or creationism vs. evolution threads, when neither side has any intention whatsoever of changing their minds? Why? Because we have been programmed to believe that those who do not share our beliefs are the enemy, must be defeated and have absolutely nothing to contribute, in any way, whatsoever. Though I am not a student of psychology, it appears that the more vitriolic a debate becomes, the debaters begin to only recognize key words they want to attack, often ignoring or completely missing items on which they can easily agree. Take the Health Care Reform debate, for instance. While everyone I know agreed our health care and health insurance systems were in dire need of improvement, we all bought into the divisive politics of the elite. The Republicans told us the Democrats wanted to deny us any and all control of our own health care, by having complete government management. The Democrats told us the Republicans only wanted to help enrichen their friends in the insurance and pharmaceutical _industries_ (http:/ /www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread620512/pg1#) . The Republicans said the Democrats wanted to kill the elderly. The Democrats said the Republicans wanted the poor to die, by denying them any health care. And what did we end up with? The same health care system we had before the 18 month long debate. And do you know why? Because that is exactly what the lot of them wanted us to have. And how did they achieve that? By causing further chasms in the populace and convincing us that we will never come together to solve a problem. How do you get problems resolved in your personal relationships? Do you just stand on opposite sides of the room and call each other names? Or, do you compromise? Or, sometimes do you just give in to end an impasse? What about on the job? If you and a co-worker disagree on how a project should be accomplished, do you just send nasty _emails_ (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread620512/pg1#) back and forth calling each other names and regurgitating the same points of contention over and over? If you do, I would keep a jobs listing close at hand, because you're going to need it. So, what do we do about it? How can we begin to reverse the trend of division? How can we get others to recognize that most of the chasms and schisms are merely illusions. Well, how about our time on ATS? What if I had retitled one of my threads, "This is America, Not Europe", and more carefully censored my defensive posture? Maybe my thread would not have contributed to the division, which it obviously did. We need to recognize this is a place for debate and not intended, I don't believe, as a _forum_ (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread620512/pg1#) for editorialism. I understand it is unlikely we will rarely convert other members to our different ideologies, but by expressing our views more tactfully and respectfully, constructive debate will permit us to recognize our similarities, and focus less o the antithesis. But, maybe not. I've been wrong before and will be again. Even then, we all breath the same air, drink the same water, ail from the same diseases and suffer the same heartaches. We are all, elementally, human, with no illusory scales, until we label ourselves or allow others to label us. ============================================ Selected Comments : ... part of the problem is single issue voters. Rather than educate ourselves on the whole of the candidate's platform and/or voting record, decisions are made on hot button issues we allow the media and political marketers, or more appropriately, merchandisers convince us are important. ------------------------------------------ ...the reason the terms are used so recklessly, is do to 2 primary factors: 1.) The MSM believes it NEEDS controversy to generate readers and viewers. It's a variation of the old adage "When dog bits man, it's not newsworthy, but when man bites dog, it is." 2.)Politicians need to generate this mythical difference between the parties to generate heightened fervor, in order to attract voters. When you look at the two parties, there really is no difference in what they DO, but there is a great difference in what they SAY they stand for. I would challenge anyone that thinks that Obama's actions on, say foreign policy was substantially different, from G.W. Bush's policy. Yes, there are cosmetic differences, which both the MSM and the parties, play up, such as Obama's apologies to foreign powers. However, when you really think about it, is there a real difference, even there, when G.W. Bush BOWS to a Saudi King, while Obama apologizes to a leader? Obama started or agreed to as many wars as Bush did, but the rhetoric of the MSM would make you think otherwise. As many on ATS have wisely concluded, there really is very little difference in substance between the two parties, because the alliance between the corporate world and government will not allow it, As the wizard said, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain". Pay no attention to what they say, but observe carefully, and you will easily be able to see that their actions show that they are cut from the same piece of cloth. --------------------------------------- I think the problem that you cite has two primary contributors: 1.) Some people just like to be contrarians. If you say white, they say black. What percentage contributes to the above? I haven't the slightest idea, but we know they exist, and I'm leaning to this being the minor factor. 2.) The second contributor is, I believe the larger factor, although I cannot prove it. Many people have "bought into" the left-right PERCEIVED difference of the two parties. I say perceived, because, when you examine the issue, you see that they both use the exact same tactics: a.) Tailor your stance to the audience. b.) Raise issues and stances that you know, via studies, will energize your base. c.) Raise issues that will exude strong reactions in favor of your stance, and against that of your opponent. d.) Use the MSM to push your views. e.) Pay an "independent research group" ( a complete oxymoron!) to find results that favor your position. f.) Find ways to "back out" of a position you previously held, if that position becomes unfavorable. g.) Deflect the argument at hand, if you cannot support your position using reason and common sense. This would include changing the subject, going into a long winded discussion that obfuscates your position, or starts confusing people, take an "emergency" call, or other such tactics. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
