An Australian reader named Michael Edmonds writes with an interesting question. He did worry a bit that he’d be considered anti-American for posing it, but hey — nothing good in life is without risk …
I live in Australia and I’m a regular reader of your site. I’m frequently surprised by the ideological battles that occur in the comments on your site (and others) on topics such as tax, healthcare, homosexuality, the financial bailout, European countries (socialists), religion, Palin, Obama, etc. On almost any topic, there are extreme opposing viewpoints. Why does the U.S. have so many ideological extremists?
My impression may be explained by one of the following:
1) The U.S. may be no different from other Western democracies, but I don’t notice it in Australia or other places.
2) It may be that the people who comment on websites are not representative of the population, so my view is wrong due to sampling error.
3) The centrist views are drowned out by the clamor of the extremists.
4) The ideological extremists may make a bigger impression on me and I forget about the centrists, leading me to think that there are more extremists than there actually are.
I tend to discount option one because we have many of the same debates in Australia, but I rarely witness the same fervor in debates. I suspect option two is also an inadequate explanation because it is easy to observe ideological extremism in other media. At this point, I can’t discount option three, and option four is a possible (although I think incorrect) explanation.
This leaves me with my impression that the U.S. produces far more ideological extremists than other Western democracies. Do you have any thoughts on why this may be the case or why I may be mistaken?
I think there’s validity to Nos. two and four, but if I had to give one answer, I’d say that it boils down to incentives.
If you are the kind of person who wants his or her voice to be heard (as most of us are), there’s little incentive to playing things down the middle, for then your voice won’t be heard. Voicing an ideological extreme, therefore — whether or not it’s truly how you feel — is an exercise of narcissism, for you’ll stand out in a crowd. And considering how costly other forms of narcissism can be, spouting a super-ideological viewpoint in fact comes pretty cheap.
I also think that Michael is witnessing a spike in ideological chatter due to a long and heated presidential election. In this country especially, elections often come to resemble a slightly elevated form of Color War, wherein everyone’s a partisan, and the thrusts and parries are so predetermined as to be nearly comical. It is especially irksome to hear “average voters” in media interviews who parrot, nearly word-for-word, the political parties’ talking points.
If I am even a little bit right on this last point, then Michael (and all the rest of us) can expect to see the ideological fever fade a bit in the coming days — unless, of course, the election result is contested, and drags on for a few more months …
and 
. You can also watch it on 
This “competitive extremism” is part of the America envisioned by the Founders. Madison’s Federalist Paper #10 (available here: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm).
The basic premise envisioned by Madison was not a specific duality, i.e. two extreme viewpoints duking it out, but he envisioned competing factions. These factions would have their own viewpoint (he envisioned many, not few) and would argue for it. Thus, the net result would be some moderate stance, a middle road, if you will, that is the nature of compromise.
It’s a fundamental concept of American DNA. I’m not surprised that it hasn’t taken root elsewhere, but it’s at the core of what American’s feel makes their democracy special. It’s sad to see the voices devolve to two extremes, instead of many, which would, statistically speaking, make a much better sampling of the ideas needing to be represented. This sort of factional war for resources and political clout is supposed to force every party towards moderation and compromise, all while respecting the needs and desires of individual factions, giving adequate weight to their needs and interests. It’s the same notion at the heart of Federalism, the truly “American” contribution the source code of Democracy.
~Adam
I think this is more a matter of medium. How many people engage in such heated discussions in person? I think more of this is the anonymity of the web mixed with the easy access to anyone.
I think 4 is more of a factor than he is allowing for. The extreme positions grab far more attention than the more nuanced ones.
Note that most cable news people also pick panels of such extreme ideologues because it makes for far more interesting watching/listening than the well crafted and reasoned thoughts of centrists.
It’s because we Americans are rather boring and only see in black and white. Life, however, is lived in constant shades of gray.
Well said, Adam. It is sometimes disheartening when “not giving in” becomes valued more highly than negotiation and compromise. I’m not sure when “compromise” became a bad word.
Occasionally I hear folks say they wish there was a political talk radio host who called it like it is and used common sense rather than the daytime talk we have in most cities. I have long made the point that to be successful on talk radio (or TV) you must say outlandish things. Just like Dubner said, no one wants to hear the middle-of-the-road guy because in many cases that is what we all are thinking and it’s not interesting. I think this is true for shock jocks 9by definition), conservative radio, and sports talk.
The long history of the US 2-party system also has played a role. Many in the US have lived in a Manichean Fantasyland, where the prevailing notion is if we just got rid of all those people on the other side of the political spectrum, all the problems would be solved.
It’s fitting that this is posted on election day because there are many people who will vote exclusively based upon party lines. Instead of taking the time and effort to become uneducated on complex social issues, it’s easier to just refer to what Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh have to say.
I think some of this was already covered, but I see it as a combination of a self-selected group (twice over) and the anonymity afforded by the internet.
For the first, people who read the site are obviously a self-selected group, and of those, few post. The ones who do probably feel more strongly about their viewpoint since they’re investing the time and effort required to compose and submit a post.
As to the second, it’s pretty well documented across all kinds of discussion boards and online gaming services, that people will engage in more anti-social behavior when they believe their identities are well hidden. Not that posting an opinion is anti-social, but it helps to bring out the more controversial and combative stances than a person might voice at a cocktail party in a face-to-face conversation.
I’m also not convinced that there’s anything narcissistic about posting an opinion. I love discussing social and ideological issues with people, not because I’m going to change their minds, but because it’s fun and there’s a good chance you’ll walk away with a better understanding of your own viewpoint, as well as your opponent’s.
Reasons two and three are the same, and your explanation is right there. People who post on these forums tend to be more ideologically charged than most.