By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite claims of an “extreme” far-left agenda, policies such as abolishing ICE, Medicare for All, and a $15 minimum wage, while debated, are widely popular and openly discussed by politicians. In contrast, the article argues that actions taken by an unelected billionaire with presidential authority to fire federal workers and enrich himself are far more radical, and that the right has effectively normalized radical ideas into U.S. policy through interpretations of existing amendments and initiatives like Project 2025. While some on the left propose truly radical ideas like abolishing prisons, the implementation of right-wing policies on gun ownership, campaign finance, and civil rights interpretations are presented as equally, if not more, extreme in their impact.
Read the original article here
The persistent refrain that “both sides” have “extremes” needs to be retired from the vocabulary of democratic centrists. While it might feel like a balanced and reasonable stance, in the current political climate, it often serves to muddy the waters and obscure the stark differences in the nature and impact of these so-called extremes. It’s time for centrists to acknowledge that not all political differences are created equal, and equating the fringes of the left with those of the right is a disservice to reality.
When we hear this “both sides” argument, it’s worth asking what the “extremes” on each side actually entail. On one hand, you might hear about calls for universal healthcare, affordable housing, or cheaper groceries – policies aimed at improving the lives of everyday people. These are often framed as radical, but when examined, they represent aspirations for a more equitable and supportive society.
Contrast this with the “extremes” often attributed to the right. These can include calls for mass deportations, the erosion of fundamental rights, or even the suggestion that basic democratic principles are up for debate. The chasm between these two sets of “extremes” is not a minor one; it’s a fundamental difference in worldview, where one side champions compassion and collective well-being, and the other often embraces division and exclusion.
The perception that the left is as extreme as the right simply doesn’t hold water when considering the tangible outcomes of political power. If the left were truly operating at the same level of extremity as some on the right, the public reaction would likely be far more pronounced and immediate. The notion that certain political figures might engage in provocative actions to destabilize the current order and usher in more authoritarian rule is a serious concern that the “both sides” narrative conveniently sidesteps.
It’s important to recognize that while political discourse can become heated, and diverse viewpoints exist within any large party, not all dissent carries the same weight or threat. The assertion that there are no “extremes” of the left in the United States, or that they are fundamentally different from the right, is often rooted in the observation that the actual radical elements of the left are not the ones holding significant power. Their policy desires, while perhaps ambitious, are centered around collective betterment, not the dismantling of established rights or the promotion of animosity.
The media’s tendency to amplify disagreements within a party, while downplaying the broader consensus on fundamental issues, can contribute to this misperception. When the focus shifts to the loudest voices on the fringes, it can create an illusion of parity between movements that are, in reality, worlds apart in their goals and their potential impact. A constructive approach requires clarity, not the obfuscation that the “both sides” argument often provides.
The “both sides” argument can also be misleading when it’s not clearly defined who is making the argument. Sometimes, those who identify as “centrists” or even those who are not staunch Democrats themselves may employ this rhetoric. It’s a way to distance oneself from any perceived extremism, but it can inadvertently legitimize extreme viewpoints on the right by presenting them as equivalent to more progressive aspirations on the left.
Furthermore, framing the debate as “both sides” having “extremes” can obscure the fact that one side of the political spectrum is actively in positions of power, enacting policies that have tangible, often negative, consequences on people’s lives. While there might be fringe elements on the left with unconventional ideas, the dominant forces on the right are the ones currently wielding significant influence, and their actions often represent a direct threat to established rights and democratic norms.
It’s crucial to differentiate between advocating for social safety nets, ensuring rights for marginalized communities, and protecting established democratic institutions, versus actively seeking to dismantle them or promote division. The language of “extremism” should be reserved for actions and ideologies that genuinely threaten the fabric of society, not for those who advocate for a more inclusive and just world. The “both sides” argument, in its current form, often fails to make this critical distinction, leading to a skewed understanding of the political landscape.
Ultimately, the goal for democratic centrists should be to articulate a vision that resonates with a broad spectrum of voters by focusing on tangible solutions and positive outcomes. This requires acknowledging the differences in the nature and severity of political extremes, rather than falling back on a simplistic “both sides” narrative that inaccurately equates disparate political forces. The conversation needs to be grounded in a clear understanding of what truly constitutes a threat to democratic values and societal progress, and that understanding often points to a stark imbalance in the current political landscape.