Encompassing extremism corrupts what it tries to save

Johnathan Rauch in the new Atlantic (paid subscription required) concludes his piece with the following paragraph:

On balance it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics. The same is true of the left. The clashes over civil rights and Vietnam turned into street warfare partly because activists were locked out of their own party establishments and had to fight, literally, to be heard. When Michael Moore receives a hero’s welcome at the Democratic National Convention, we moderates grumble; but if the parties engage fierce activists while marginalizing tame centrists, that is probably better for the social peace than the other way around.

It is interesting to contrast intended messages versus actual communication, because some of the implied messages in this paragraph when viewed alone include comparison of religious conservatives to extremists like Michael Moore specifically. While the comparison is not direct, it can be infered.

The problem with this comparison is it denys the fact that the vast majority of America IS Christian in one variety or another. While it's true there are some extremist nuts who DO throw molotov cocktails at abortion clinics, but those acts are universally denounced by every conservative Christian group of any significance, wheras the violent protests of Vietnam are almost universally embraced by the more liberal portion of the country.

If taken in it's most general form, the arguement that extremists should feel like they have a voice probably IS good for the social peace. I contend that peace in and of itself should not be an end, only a desired side effect of a harmonious society. "Peace" and "Harmony" are often used interchangably, but there should be a distinction between the two when used to describe society.

Peace, some would argue is nothing more than the abscence of armed conflict. If that is true, then embracing extremist political positions within the parties can further that goal by giving an orderly outlet to extreme voices. Most justification I have heard behind violent protest is "we have a right to be heard". Which, while that may or may not be true, is very rarely attained by the means of violence. Yes, their voices are heard, and then dismissed just as quickly on account of the contempt reasonable people have for destruction and disorder. When these actions and ideas are dismissed, those behind them usually come to the opposite conclusion: that they aren't being loud or violent enough, and the cycle escalates. If those with extremist or violent tendancies are allowed to feel like they have a real voice, they will naturally step away from their violent and disruptive tactics because those tactics become unnecessary.

This is a bad thing.

While violence and disruption are to be condemned, accepting the ideology that promotes them as a means of reducing disorderly behavior will inevitably lead to the corruption of the encompassing organization or philosophy. There is no further proof of this needed than to observe the moral confusion and total disarray that is the modern Democratic party after it embraced the liberal movement from the 60's and 70's.