And if violent extremism is ever warranted-is ever morally permissible and, therefore, not a vice-then the violent racial oppression of the mid-century American South arguably did warrant it. Malcolm X was right that it’s a very short step from extremism in defense of liberty to violence in defense of liberty. (Malcolm X certainly would not have endorsed, say, the nuclear annihilation of Manhattan in exchange for the end of systemic racial oppression in America.) Nevertheless, it’s true that the embrace of extremism is the embrace of extreme measures, and violence-the “means” that is normally off the table-is the extreme measure par excellence. That said, if extremism in defense of liberty is warranted, it doesn’t quite follow that it’s okay to use any means necessary to that defense. Throughout its history, America’s white supremacist institutions have been so violently opposed to the liberty of black people that it was not unreasonable to believe that something extreme might need to be done to finally win them a modicum of freedom. My reason for believing in extremism-intelligently directed extremism, extremism in defense of liberty, extremism in quest of justice-is because I firmly believe in my heart that the day the black man takes an uncompromising step and realizes he’s within his rights, when his own freedom is being jeopardized, to use any means necessary to bring about his own freedom or put a halt to that injustice, I don’t think he’ll be by himself. To embrace extremism in defense of something is to at least flirt with the idea that violence isn’t out of the question.Īs Karl Hess noted in his memoirs, shortly after Goldwater delivered his famous speech, Malcolm X very logically connected “extremism in defense of liberty” to the idea of black Americans defending their rights by “any means necessary.” Here’s Malcolm X: Extremists reject mainstream opinion, including mainstream opinion about acceptable political tactics. There is a whiff of violence, or at least danger, about extremism. The questionable character of extremism is anyway right there on the surface of our ordinary understanding of the term. Vice is too hot or too cold, a disposition to extremes.īut let’s put Aristotle aside for a moment. The porridge of virtue is always just right. That’s the simple philosophical objection: virtue is a form of well-calibrated moderation in temperament. It follows, almost by definition, that extremism is going to err on the side of excess, except in extraordinary circumstances that legitimately call for extreme measures. I happen to think Aristotle is basically right. According to Aristotle, virtue is a mean between excess and deficiency. The chief difficulty with “extremism in defense of liberty is no vice” is that it pretty straightforwardly violates history’s most popular and plausible theory of virtues and vices. In this post, I’ll take on “extremism in defense of liberty…” In a second installment-soon to follow-I’ll tackle “moderation in pursuit of justice…” Together, these two posts will amount to the beginning of a defense of moderation in politics, an introduction to the themes of this blog, as well as an explanation of its ironic name. Goldwater’s dictum consists of two propositions, both false. It’s a good first step toward an understanding of why, more than a half-century after Goldwater’s failed campaign, an attraction to extremes and a disdain for moderation has left libertarianism languishing at the margins of American political life.
Understanding why it’s wrong is useful and important.
But Goldwater’s apothegm is completely wrongheaded. This uncompromising spirit of immoderation praised by Goldwater has consistently characterized the “freedom movement” that rose from the rubble of his ill-fated campaign, and his stirring quip has served as a sort of unofficial libertarian motto.
“And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” It’s a rousing sentiment, however it’s phrased. “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!” Goldwater actually said, in a slightly less pithy formulation. Karl Hess, Goldwater’s lovable anarchist speechwriter, put them in the Arizona senator’s Republican convention acceptance speech. These deathless lines are generally credited to Barry Goldwater, but he didn’t write them. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
0 kommentar(er)
