The Harm of Political Extremism

In an era of polarized discourse, political extremism—whether from the left or the right—poses a profound threat to stable governance and societal progress. Extremists on both ends of the spectrum often advocate for radical policies that prioritize ideological purity over pragmatic solutions, leading to division, inefficiency, and frequent policy failures.

This article argues that extremists are almost always wrong in their opinions and policies due to their inherent extremism, which distorts reality and ignores nuance. In contrast, good governance thrives on moderation, which authentically reflects the preferences of the majority in any democratic body politic. Political extremism manifests as an uncompromising adherence to ideology, often rejecting compromise, evidence, or opposing viewpoints.

On the right, this can appear in calls for unchecked deregulation, absolute border closures, or the dismantling of social safety nets in favor of pure market fundamentalism. On the left, it emerges in demands for sweeping wealth redistribution, the abolition of private enterprise, or the imposition of rigid identity-based quotas that override merit.

Both sides share a common flaw: they view the world in binary terms—us versus them, revolution versus reaction—leaving no room for the gray areas where most human experiences reside. This black-and-white thinking is not just intellectually lazy; it is empirically disastrous.History is replete with examples of extremist policies failing spectacularly.

Far-left experiments, from the Soviet Union's forced collectivization to Mao's Great Leap Forward, aimed to eradicate inequality through radical state control. The result? Tens of millions dead from famine and purges, with economies stagnating for decades.

These are not anomalies; they are the predictable outcomes of extremism, where ideology trumps data, and dissent is silenced.Even in modern democracies, extremist influences yield poor results. In the United States, far-right pushes for total abortion bans post-Roe v. Wade (overturned in 2022) have led to public backlash, with referendums in states like Kansas and Ohio rejecting such extremes in favor of moderate protections.

Also, on the left, defund-the-police movements following 2020 protests in cities like Minneapolis and Portland resulted in spikes in crime and voter repudiation; moderate reforms, like community policing investments, have proven more effective in reducing violence without dismantling law enforcement. Extremists' all-or-nothing approaches fail because they overestimate public appetite for upheaval and underestimate the complexity of social issues.

Why are extremists almost always wrong? Their extremism breeds cognitive biases. Confirmation bias leads them to cherry-pick evidence supporting their views while dismissing contradictions.

Left-wing extremists decry all capitalism as exploitative, overlooking how regulated markets have lifted billions out of poverty globally, per World Bank data. Moreover, extremism incentivizes performative outrage over substantive debate, amplified by social media echo chambers. This creates a feedback loop where policies are designed for viral appeal, not viability—think hyperbolic climate demands for immediate fossil fuel bans without transition plans, which ignore energy realities and job losses in affected sectors.

In contrast, moderate governance succeeds by embracing compromise and evidence-based policymaking. Moderates recognize that most citizens are not ideologues; surveys like those from Pew Research Center reveal that majorities in the U.S. and Europe cluster around the center, favoring incremental changes such as expanded healthcare access without nationalization, or tax reforms that balance equity and growth.

The post-World War II economic boom in Western democracies owed much to centrist policies: Keynesian economics tempered with free markets, welfare states without socialism. Leaders like Germany's Angela Merkel or Canada's Justin Trudeau (in his more pragmatic phases) navigated crises through consensus, not confrontation.

Moderation honestly represents the majority because it mirrors the bell curve of public opinion. In any body politic, extremists occupy the tails—perhaps 10-20% on each side—while the bulk seeks practical solutions to everyday problems: affordable housing, quality education, secure jobs. Extreme policies alienate this center, leading to electoral defeats (e.g., the U.K.'s Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn) or policy reversals (e.g., France's yellow vest protests against fuel tax hikes framed as eco-extremism).

A moderate or centrist government, by definition, builds broad coalitions, ensuring longevity and adaptability. It avoids the hubris of believing one ideology holds all answers, instead iterating through trial, error, and bipartisan input.

The harm of extremism extends beyond policy failures to societal fabric. It fosters tribalism, eroding trust in institutions; Gallup polls show record-low confidence in government amid rising polarization. Violence often follows: January 6, 2021, in the U.S. stemmed from right-wing election denialism, while left-wing riots in 2020 caused billions in damage.

Extremists poison discourse, making compromise seem like betrayal.In conclusion, political extremism on the left or right is a recipe for error because it prioritizes dogma over deliberation, leading to policies that are unworkable, unpopular, and ultimately reversed.

Good governance is inherently moderate, drawing from diverse inputs to serve the majority's nuanced needs. Societies flourish when centrists lead, marginalizing extremists not through suppression but by demonstrating superior results. To build a functional polity, we must reject the siren call of extremes and embrace the steady path of moderation.