brainchild
Banned
This whole discussion is spiraling out of focus, and it's probably my fault due to me continuing to reference the horseshoe theory. It's a little frustrating because I don't disagree with the points being made here, they just have nothing to do with my argument.
So let me reiterate things a little more coherently.
I started this conversation because of an observation of Jill Stein's incessant display of stupidity. That observation then caused me to think about how much worse the far left is than even Jill Stein on the 'batshit crazy' scale. I then compared the far left to the far right and concluded that the far left is almost as scary as the far right. B-Dubs then noted that the horseshoe theory has SOME merit in this context. I then agreed with him (emphasis on the SOME). Later, I noted that I saw potential for segregationist tendencies from the far left based on the notion that the far left's chase for ideological purity would leave minorities hanging high and dry, not because of the ideology, but because of the necessary means to realize it. That is where things started to fall apart.
My reference of the far left and far right was only ever intended as a reference to the current mainstream depiction of the far left/right on the political spectrum. They are considered to be extremes, but such a categorization needn't be definitive. The reference was used merely for convenience.
The point has more to do with two political groups with very different ideologies (and many people viewing them as polar opposites) resorting to authoritarian methodologies when rising to power. Now that does not mean that in any given spectrum, polar extremists will always end up with similar methodologies, but that might be the case with these two groups.
I don't dispute that the current 2-dimensional models of the political spectrum are flawed. I do not argue for INHERENT pragmatism of any group. I'm saying that the political groups that are considered to be closer to the center (that doesn't mean an absolute center) have not been as ineffective in garnering widespread support for their policies as the political groups that are considered to be far right/left (that doesn't mean absolute far right/left) due to there being some compromises (or at least some tolerance of the other side) on either side of what is considered to be close to the center. Subsequently, that makes authoritarian methodologies much less necessary for the groups that are considered to be close to center than the groups that are considered to be far left/right if the goal is to actually make their ideologies a reality since they'll have a better chance at pushing their ideas through a democratic process. Given that the groups considered to be far left/right are not as effective in garnering mainstream support, pushing their ideas through a democratic process would be a much greater challenge for them, so if they were to rise to power with such unpopular ideologies, their likely avenue for realizing their ideologies would be authoritarianism.
I think the confusion here is a lack of established distinction between political groups with ideologies as a position and political groups with ideologies that have been successfully realized (in theory).
