It does not matter if you are part of the right wing in American politics, or its left wing, or somewhere in between, just about everyone can tell this: our political discourse is getting ugly, and is often riddled with allusions of violence. Some blame this on social media, where indignity and outrage rule the day. Some blame this on the disgraceful failure of an establishment politics that seems increasingly disconnected from, and apathetic towards the needs and desires of ordinary constituents.
Whether you are looking at the rise of Donald Trump on the right wing of American politics, the surprise run of Bernie Sanders on the left wing of American politics, or the disturbing success of the xenophobic and racist Brexit movement in the UK, the hostility of the people towards the ruling elites has conjured a sort of pre-revolutionary state of, not only national, but global politics.
Many in the establishment are looking for a moderate superman who can bridge the gulf between the left and right. But such a quest seems oblivious and deaf to the dissatisfaction of the people towards the difficult realities in which they find themselves. Indeed, the hostility people feel towards the establishment is a reaction to bipartisan consensuses of the last three decades.
It was neither right wing nor left wing extremism that gave us the USA Patriot Act. It was neither right wing nor left wing extremism that birthed the goliath and Orwellian government agency known as the Department of Homeland Security. The Iraq War was neither the product of leftism nor rightism. It was neither left wing activism, nor right wing reaction that lead to the creation of so-called "free trade" deals such as NAFTA that has left ordinary Americans feeling like they are being sold out, that American democratic sovereignty is being bargained away, and that leads many to feel that jobs for ordinary folks are being shipped away. It is neither right wing nor left wing activism that has lead to the militarization of local police forces. All of these things are products of establishment, bipartisan consensus.
I will not argue here that the extremism of the left or the right is correct. But, I do not feel that the only thing corrupting our political discourse is the extremism of ideas. Instead, I feel that what our discourse is most poisoned with is an extremism of certainty. Normally, commentators will note how both the left and the right see each other as mortal enemies. Such commentators will speak disapprovingly of those on the left and the right who see their views are inherently morally superior, more thoughtful, and more intellectual than that of their opponents. We could see this state of mind as an extremism of certainty that assumes an infallibility of one's own wisdom and insights into the world. But there exists a blindspot from such centrist commentators.
Today, this extremism of certainty infests even the minds of so-called centrists. They too believe that their views are more clearly thought out, and that those on the left and right who oppose them are intellectually inferior. Today, centrists believe that their views are morally superior. They believe there is greater virtue in their views solely because their views do not match to those on the left and right.
In other words, many centrists commentators assert that if both the left and the right oppose their views, then their views are, by way of attrition, correct. However, if both the left and right oppose bathing in water laden with flesh-eating bacteria, would a view that we should bathe in water laden with flesh-eating bacteria suddenly become the correct position to hold? Of course not, but centrists never seem to understand the fallacy in thinking that if extremists on "both sides" dislike something that that thing must be of value. And importantly here, centrists often lack the self-awareness to understand that they have a side as well. It's not "both sides," but "all three sides" under consideration. The failure to understand these things demonstrate centrists are just as poisoned by extremism of certainty as any reactionary or leftist.
This extremism of certainty, this assumption of infallibility of wisdom, is a problem with all three political operations: leftism, right wing reactionarism, and, if you will, central extremism. As such, all of us are guilty of no longer judging arguments by their contents, but by their labels: that's a liberal argument; that's a conservative argument; that's a centrist argument.
We don't approach argumentation with an aware sense of fallibility. That is to say: we always seem to assume that our own views are developed with rigorous intellectual inquiry that has lead us to an infallible political position. We are each our own little popes who have decided that our views are right, because they are ours, because we could not be mistaken, because those who differ lack intellectual clarity, because those who differ lack a sense of morality, and that we, we have a strong infallible sense of morality. We are unwilling to consider the fallibility of our beliefs, the fallibility of our reasoning, the fallibility of our moral systems, or the fallibility of the political side we are on.
Instead, we have dug trenches, and dug in. We have not moved, and will not move. We are stuck in a three-way intellectual battle of the bulge. What I say, what I write, no matter how well crafted will influence no one in a world where each of us assume the infallibility of our ideas. Almost all of us, right, left, and center, are incapable of approaching differing views, intellectual disagreements, diverse moral understandings as anything more than the views of heretics and mortal enemies to be extinguished. You can, we say to opponents, only retain your views if you haven't done your intellectual due diligence, if you haven't honestly explored the consequences of them, if you haven't upheld yourself to moral uprightness. Your views, we will tell an opponent, derives from idiocy, moral failings, and thoughtlessness.
What we need in this world is not for us all to agree on some common-ground, though such a thing, in some circumstances, could be useful and desirable. But diversity of viewpoints is a beautiful characteristic of democratic societies. But what we need is to acknowledge the fallibility of all our views.
This does not require we necessarily change our minds and come aboard with "the other side." It does not mean that we relinquish our deepest held values and convictions. This only means that we acknowledge that our views are our own, derived from the frail and fallible nature of our human minds, and that, even as we are committed to our own views, we accept that we could be wrong, and that, the vast majority of time, our opponents have put their thoughts through as deep and rigorous analysis as we have put ours, and finally, that our opponents were just as morally sincere in developing their views as we were in developing ours.