In response to responses received following our “The Rise of the Alt-Right in Canada” article
It’s no secret. We are living in a very politically charged climate with more divisiveness than many of us have ever experienced in our lives. It seems almost every day now that pundits point out the degree to which dialogue and debate have broken down only to be replaced with partisan intransigence. Each side of the political spectrum, seemingly in their own echo chamber, is unable or unwilling to consider the “other side’s” point of view.
But what does listening to the “other side” entail? If being close-minded to the political views of others makes for a polarized and intellectually malnourished society, does that mean putting all views on equal footing is the answer?
We do not believe so. To treat every single view as equal not only does a disservice to society, but is downright dangerous, potentially allowing regressive and extremist ideas to proliferate.
This then begs the question, if we are not to elevate extreme views, then where do we draw the line? In fact, history has shown us time and time again that we must not treat all views as equally valid. We must take a stand and denounce ideologies and beliefs that seek to unravel our societal values of inclusion and justice.
Arthur Miller once said: “A good newspaper, I suppose, is a nation talking to itself.” This alludes to the fact that a newspaper is not simply a collection of stories about current events, but rather a snapshot of an ongoing conversation between members of society. But what do you do when there are those who are not interested in conversation, demanding instead that society bows to their politics? And what if there are people in this category who claim to join in this great dialogue, but do so disingenuously to advance an uncompromising and homogenous view of society? Furthermore, what if vast numbers of these people freely identify with authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and xenophobia? Do we include them in our conversation as ideological equals or do we take a stand?
These may sound like rhetorical questions, but in the operation of a newspaper they surface daily and are a source of constant concern.
A tool called the political horseshoe can help guide our thinking in trying to answer such difficult questions. Normally when we consider political ideology we imagine a linear spectrum, with those on the political left at one end, those on the political right on the other, and centrists in the middle. This commonly accepted model is so ingrained in our society that our language is shaped by it. Terms like ‘polarizing politics’ or ‘left-leaning’ and ‘right-leaning’ are borne out of this spectrum. This model is useful, but only to a certain point.
The political horseshoe functions much like its linear counterpart, but with a key difference. Where the linear spectrum remains straight, leaving all views no matter how far left or right on equal footing, the political horseshoe curves in on itself. This curve allows us to plot left versus right thinking alongside levels of extremism, the point one becomes so entrenched in their views that their loyalty to their ideology surpasses their loyalty to the rule of law and commitment to the egalitarian values of a liberal democracy. Though not a perfect model, the political horseshoe helps us to see that at a certain point the far-left and far-right become the extreme left or extreme right and begin to share more in common with each other than they do with their moderate counterparts.
Extremism can be readily found on the far-left and far-right, and though those on the two ends may have different goals, beliefs, and motivations, they share one thing in common which defines them as a single group: their methods. The extreme left and extreme right both use or support the use of violence, intimidation, and deceptive rhetoric to attempt to subvert the democratic process.
Make no mistake: those on the extreme left that would don ski masks and try to take down capitalism one Starbuck’s window at a time, have far more in common with the Swastika-adorned masses of the alt-right than they do with members of the political left. The same goes for the alt-right, who bear so little in common with the political right that they can not be said to be on the “same side.”
It is the conversation taking place at the bottom of the horseshoe that we wish to engage. The views from the right and left, even the radical ones, will get space on our pages so long as they are part of a conversation that acknowledges and makes space for people’s beliefs and identities, to the extent that they do not impinge on the rights of others.
Whether it’s erasing people’s identities by advocating against acceptance of gender fluidity or knocking Make America Great Again hats off of someone’s head, The Ontarion will report on these occurrences, but will not elevate the ideology behind them to a level of legitimacy and will continue to speak against extremism, whether it originates from the left or the right.
Graphic by Alora Griffiths & Tiffany Agliani/The Ontarion