SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
extremism
The Dangerous Art of 'Sane-Washing': Lessons From the Walz-Vance Debate
By couching controversial ideas in the language of moderation and common sense, politicians can make even the most radical departures from the status quo seem like natural, logical steps.
Oct 03, 2024
In the wake of the recent vice presidential debate between Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Ohio Sen. JD Vance, political commentators have been abuzz with praise for Vance's performance. Many have both lauded and critiqued his ability to "sane wash" the extremist positions of his running mate, former U.S. President Donald Trump, presenting them in a more palatable, even respectable light. This phenomenon, while concerning in its own right, reveals a deeper and more insidious problem within our political discourse—one that extends far beyond the bounds of the Republican ticket.
The Illusion of Moderation
JD Vance, the bestselling author turned venture capitalist turned politician, took to the debate stage with a clear mission: to repackage the Trump agenda in a way that would appeal to a broader audience. Gone were the inflammatory rhetoric and bombastic declarations that have become Trump's hallmark. In their place, Vance offered measured tones, appeals to compassion, and a veneer of reasonableness that seemed designed to make even the most controversial policies sound sensible.
On issues ranging from gun control to abortion rights, Vance demonstrated a remarkable ability to soften hard-line positions. When pressed
on gun violence, for instance, he spoke eloquently about the pain of victims' families while offering little in the way of substantive policy changes. His approach to abortion rights was similarly evasive, distancing himself from previous statements supporting a national ban while framing the issue in terms of supporting mothers.
Vance's measured tone and appeals to shared values made it all too easy to forget the often extreme positions he was defending.
This strategy of "sane-washing"—presenting extreme positions in a more moderate light—is not new. However, Vance's skillful execution of it has drawn particular attention. Many observers have praised his debate performance as a masterclass in political communication, noting how he managed to make the Trump-Vance ticket seem more reasonable and mainstream than it has in the past.
But while Vance's ability to reframe contentious issues may be impressive from a purely tactical standpoint, it raises serious concerns about the nature of political discourse and the ease with which potentially harmful policies can be dressed up as common sense solutions.
The Centrist Playbook
What many critics of Vance's performance have failed to recognize, however, is that his approach is not unique to the political right. In fact, the strategy of "sane-washing" has long been a staple of centrist politics, employed by both liberals and conservatives to make policies that support free-market capitalism and the military-industrial complex appear "reasonable," "evidence-driven," and "moderate."
This centrist playbook has been used time and again to justify interventionist foreign policies, austerity measures, and the gradual erosion of social safety nets. By framing these positions in terms of fiscal responsibility, national security, or economic necessity, centrist politicians have long managed to present policies that often disproportionately harm the most vulnerable members of society as necessary evils or even positive goods.
The danger of this approach lies in its effectiveness. By couching controversial ideas in the language of moderation and common sense, politicians can make even the most radical departures from the status quo seem like natural, logical steps. This has the effect of shifting the entire political spectrum, making previously unthinkable positions seem reasonable by comparison.
In the case of the Walz-Vance debate, we saw this dynamic play out in real-time. Vance's measured tone and appeals to shared values made it all too easy to forget the often extreme positions he was defending. His ability to present Trump's immigration policies, for instance, as simple common sense measures to protect American workers and communities obscured the often harsh and divisive realities of these approaches.
The Dangers of False Moderation
The art of political sane-washing, as demonstrated by JD Vance and countless centrist politicians before him, is a powerful tool. It can make the unpalatable seem reasonable, the extreme seem moderate. In the end, the greatest danger may not be the openly extreme positions that shock us into action, but the quietly radical ideas presented as common sense that lull us into complacency.
This is particularly concerning in an era of increasing political polarization and economic inequality. As the gap between the wealthiest and poorest members of society continues to widen, and as issues like climate change and systemic racism demand urgent and transformative action, the last thing we need is a political discourse that makes maintaining the status quo seem like the most reasonable option.
Collective action serves as the cornerstone for replacing the illusory sanity of the current political landscape with policies that are truly sane.
As this debate fades into memory and the election season progresses, the imperative becomes clear: Progress necessitates more than merely exposing the facade of "common sense" extremism. It requires the cultivation of radical movements capable of articulating and advocating for genuinely transformative change. These movements must emerge from grassroots organizing, uniting diverse communities, labor unions, environmental activists, and social justice advocates. Together, they can forge a vision of society that transcends the narrow boundaries of current political discourse.
The mission of these movements extends beyond challenging the status quo. They must present bold, innovative solutions to pressing societal issues. Their role is to imagine and demand a world where economic justice, racial equity, environmental sustainability, and authentic democracy are not abstract ideals but tangible realities. By building power from the ground up and amplifying marginalized voices, these movements can begin to redefine the limits of political possibility.
Collective action serves as the cornerstone for replacing the illusory sanity of the current political landscape with policies that are truly sane. This means prioritizing human needs and planetary health over profit and power. It involves creating systems that promote equality, ensure sustainability, and enhance overall societal well-being. These are not utopian dreams, but necessary steps towards a more just and liveable world.
In the face of political rhetoric that makes extreme positions appear reasonable, the answer lies in building movements that make truly reasonable positions into reality. This is the challenge and the opportunity that lies ahead—to transform the political landscape not through clever repackaging of harmful ideas, but through the hard work of creating and implementing policies that actually address the root causes of societal problems. Only then can the promise of a more equitable, sustainable, and prosperous society for all be realized.
Keep ReadingShow Less
New UK Definition of 'Extremism' Called Attack on Right to Dissent
"The government should recognize that real British values involve defending the rights of all political opponents to speak freely and openly," said one advocate.
Mar 14, 2024
Coming weeks after British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak claimed the United Kingdom is in danger of "mob rule... replacing democratic rule," a new definition of "extremism" published by the government on Thursday was viewed by one rights advocate as a "smash and grab" on the right to protest, among other freedoms.
The Conservative government updated the definition of the word under its anti-extremism agenda, known as Prevent. The government will now treat as extremism "vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs."
"The government will undertake a robust process to assess groups for extremism against the definition, which will then inform decisions around government engagement and funding," said a public notice from Michael Gove, Sunak's secretary of state for leveling up, housing, and communities.
The government is expected to release a list in the coming weeks of groups it deems as in violation of the new definition of extremism.
The U.K.-based human rights group Reprieve warned that "placing the power to define who is and who is not 'extreme' in the hands of a single cabinet minister is a nakedly political gesture which purports to defend liberal democracy but is fundamentally illiberal and undemocratic."
The notice was published amid widespread outcry over the U.K.'s support for Israel's relentless bombardment of Gaza, where the Israel Defense Forces have killed at least 31,341 Palestinians since last October.
Tens of thousands of Britons marched through London over the weekend, demanding that Sunak push Israel to declare an immediate and permanent cease-fire and to condemn the prime minister's recent comments, in which advocates said "support of the Palestinian cause" had been conflated "with extremism."
"I am here to support Palestine, to call for an end to the genocide, and to call out the double standards of our government," one protester, Sundari Anitha, told The Guardian on Saturday. "They are widening the concept of extremism to attack the right of people to protest. I'm here both to defend the rights of Palestinian people and also my freedom to criticize my government."
Sacha Deshmukh, chief executive officer of Amnesty International U.K., noted on Thursday that the government's Prevent program has also been marked by the 2023 Public Order Act, which expanded the definition of a "serious disruption" by protesters and imposed penalties of up to 12 months in prison.
"From the prime minister's disturbing Downing Street speech earlier this month, the introduction of further anti-protest measures, and now the expansion of the extremism definition, it looks as if the government is set on shrinking the space for dissenting views and the right to protest," said Deshmukh. "An overwhelmingly peaceful protest movement seeking an end to Israel's mass killing of civilians in Gaza is being used by ministers to clamp down on our civil liberties—the irony is crushing and frightening."
He continued:
This attempt to stigmatize legitimate, peaceful political activity is taking us further down the road toward authoritarianism.
In any democracy worth the name, nonviolent political activity should be protected and even celebrated as a sign that a country respects human rights and differing opinions.
[...]
The government should recognize that real British values involve defending the rights of all political opponents to speak freely and openly.
Deshmukh said Amnesty has found in its research that "legitimate political activity" is already being referred to the government under the Prevent program.
"If criminality among certain groups or organizations is suspected, we already have a host of laws to deal with this," he said. "Today's announcement is a dangerous gimmick and this whole enterprise should be abandoned."
Other critics of the government's new focus on so-called "extremism" include Peter Hain, a member of the Labour Party and the House of Lords, and Member of Parliament Diane Abbott.
"I think it's an appalling direction to go down and [the definition] could probably have been applied to the suffragettes in their day, who were equally vilified, spat at, hated, and treated very badly by the police and the authorities," Hain told The Guardian on Sunday.
LGBTQ+ rights campaigner Peter Tatchell noted that "British values" in the past have included "slavery, colonialism, homophobic discrimination, and the denial of votes to women and working-class people."
"Broadening the definition of extremism risks criminalizing peaceful protests by legitimate groups," he told The Guardian.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Outrage over Bigotry, Islamophobia in Wall Street Journal & New York Times
'These outlets should apologize publicly & diversify their staff & perspectives to meet their ethical and moral obligations as journalists.'
Feb 04, 2024
The nation's leading newspapers were under fire this weekend after publishing opinion pieces seen as "Bigoted," "Islamophobic," "Racist," and "Reckless."
A Wall Street Journal opinion piece published on Friday afternoon read 'Welcome to Dearborn, America's Jihad Capital.'
And on Saturday, The New York Times published a piece by long-time columnist Thomas Friedman titled "Understanding the Middle East Through the Animal Kingdom."
Dearborn, Michigan, a city with the largest Muslim population in the US, has increased its police presence, fearing hate attacks after the Wall Street Journal branded it America's 'jihad capital.'
The Islamaphobic article was written by Steven Stalinsky, who is a commentator on' terrorism' and has served as executive director of the pro-Israel Middle East Media Research Institute based in Washington, DC.
The mayor of Dearborn, Abdullah H. Hammoud, said Saturday that the city's police officers were ramping up their presence across places of worship and major infrastructure points following the publication of Stalinsky's piece that he called "bigoted" and "Islamophobic." The Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee condemned the piece as anti-Arab and racist for suggesting the city's residents, including religious leaders and politicians, supported Palestinian Islamist group Hamas and extremism.
In response to the Wall Street Journal piece, President Joe Biden tweeted Sunday afternoon:
"Americans know that blaming a group of people based on the words of a small few is wrong. That’s exactly what can lead to Islamophobia and anti-Arab hate, and it shouldn’t happen to the residents of Dearborn – or any American town. We must continue to condemn hate in all forms."
Shortly after Biden's tweet went out, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer tweeted:
"Dearborn is a vibrant community full of Michiganders who contribute day in and day out to our state. Islamophobia and all forms of hate have no place in Michigan, or anywhere. Period."
Friedman's piece in the New York Times entitled, "Understanding the Middle East Through the Animal Kingdom," posited Iran as a metaphorical "parasitoid wasp" with proxies in Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria as caterpillars. Friedman claimed, "We have no counterstrategy that safely and efficiently kills the wasp without setting fire to the whole jungle," suggesting that the US militarily destroys the entire Middle East to annihilate Iran and its allies. He concluded that he could "contemplate" the Middle East by watching Animal Planet.
Abed A. Ayoub, Executive Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, tweeted:
"Go ahead and say this about any other people and see the reaction - @tomfriedman would be fired before the ink dries. This election season kickoff is a reminder that anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia are mainstream. That’s why this trash is acceptable to so many, and there will be no accountability."
Erin Overby, former Archive Editor at The New Yorker, tweeted:
"This @nytimes column by Thomas Friedman comparing countries in the Middle East to animals, pests & insects is so virulently racist it could have run in Der Sturmer or on Radio Rwanda pre-‘94 genocide. It’s appallingly offensive & Friedman should be fired."
2 reasons why antisemitism is on the rise:\n\n1. Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people.\n2. Zionists like Thomas Friedman & Steven Stalinsky who opine Jews as ethnically superior to Arabs.\n\nThis is why we say Not In Our Name. We must end the genocide now.— (@)
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular