Freedom in One Lesson

6.

The Genesis of Extremism

In the last few years, Americans have seen an explosion of attempts to assign to “right-wing extremism” almost every problem and every person who objects to the policies of those now in power, including people who demand serious reasons for wearing masks, far-from-right-wing groups who riot, and members of Congress with a siege mentality in the “post-insurrection” period. But one of the most cogent explanations for the popularity of “extremism” is from almost six decades ago.

Leonard Read demonstrates his foresight in “Genesis of Extremism” (Read 1962c), from the April 1962 issue of The Freeman, in which he already understands today’s name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and guilt-by-association innuendo and their connection to government overstepping any logically defensible role.

Suppose you have a property. . . . Fearing that it might be despoiled, you employ a guard for protective purposes. . . . You contract with him to serve on behalf of that defensive force which inheres in your moral right to life, livelihood, and liberty.

Should no trespassers or marauders appear, the guard remains alert but inactive. For defensive action is only a secondary action . . . brought into play only at the instance of someone else’s aggressive action.

Now assume that the guard becomes impatient with his inaction, that he despairs of his strictly negative role. Realizing that the self-same force he has been given to defend you can be used to take your life and livelihood, he turns on you, his employer. Contrary to your wishes and using your own weapons . . . your hired defender comes to dominate your life.

Being a normal, self-responsible, self-controlling individual, you rebel at this immoral and unwarranted authoritarianism. . . .

The guard, in the meantime, will have rationalized his actions to the point of self-righteousness with two lines of defense. The first will justify his own actions, “But I am doing this for the good of all.” The second will belittle his critics by name-calling, “You are extremists.”

But Read sees the need to make an important and overlooked distinction between, on the one hand, supposed right-wing extremists and, on the other hand, left-wing, socialist, and antimarket extremists.

Extremism, as currently publicized, is aimed almost exclusively at “the extreme right” . . . [not] folks who sponsor federal urban renewal, or TVA [Tennessee Valley Authority] and its extensions, or compulsory social security, or foreign aid to socialistic governments, or whatever. By their definitions, none of them is “extremist.” But they are, almost without exception, the ones who hurl the epithet “extremist” at those who do not agree with their authoritarian actions. . . .

What we are witnessing is an instance of action and reaction. The genesis of the reaction is the action, and the origin of the current “extremism” is socialistic action.

Why was there less talk of extremists in America’s past than today (excepting British accusations about rebellious colonists)?

Let your memory or imagination take you back . . . to pre– social security days. A person who then said he did not believe in compulsory social security evoked no reaction at all. No one thought to classify him as belonging to “the extreme right.”

Then came compulsory social security, as socialistic as anything that falls under the definition. The authors of this legislation took the action. Reaction, in the form of dissent, followed. The actionists now call the reactionists “extremists.” Had there been no socialistic action in the first place, there would be no anti-socialistic reaction now. Nor would the term, “extremist,” in its present context, have come into usage.

What about those who position themselves against all forms of extremism but never apply the term to whatever they favor? “There is, now and then, a person who remarks, ‘I deplore both the extreme left and the extreme right.’ To unmask this bit of nonsense requires only that it be translated: ‘I deplore both action and reaction.’ This makes no more sense than to deplore the thrust of a jet motor or the kick of a shotgun or the flight of a golf ball. Such remarks originate in thoughtlessness.”

How should we react to socialistic government “innovations” that attack our rights and liberties?

What ought to be considered, and carefully, are the varied types of anti-socialistic reaction evoked by socialistic action. The social actionists tend to disparage all reaction in one lump—“the extreme right.”

There are as many types of reaction as there are persons who react. There are those who do not react at all. . . . Others only mumble in their beards. These are allies of the socialists in the sense that they are inclined to “go along” with what is, regardless of its character.

But among us are numerous dynamic reactionists. Some are calm and rational while others are volatile and emotional. Some proceed peaceably, others belligerently. Some expose the fallacies of socialistic ideas while others never rise above name-calling. Some confine themselves to educational methods, others to political devices. Some try to gain a better understanding and exposition of freedom principles while others set out to reform “the ignorant masses.” Some see the fault in themselves and their own shortcomings; others think the socialistic debacle has its origin only in the Kremlin. Some do their work for freedom joyously while others work only in anger. Some . . . insist that “time is running out” and promptly hurry in the wrong direction.

Read sees a silver lining in the ominous threats to Americans from their government “servants”: they may rouse us from our inattention so that we recognize them as inroads into American liberty and react the way our “extremist” founders did to violations of their inalienable rights.

The current socialist action . . . may have some good in it. . . . Liberty . . . is never evoked without being provoked. The idea of liberty is always a response . . . a reaction. We rarely think we ought to be free, or think about it at all, until something shows us we are not free.

Rather than focus on opposition to “right-wing” extremism, we should recognize the extremism in those “left-wing” policies and politicians shrinking our liberty. Without that which the Left sees as “right-wing” extremism, what we seek to defend risks being completely steamrollered instead.

Socialist action is a preface to the reaction. Without such action most consciousness of and attention to liberty might well fade out of existence. Until recently the idea of liberty was close to extinguished in the minds of the American people. Something had to provoke a new, dynamic, libertarian sensitiveness. . . . Reaction to [socialist action] is the great and rewarding dividend. May the reaction be marked by intelligence, integrity, good manners, determination; in short, may it take the form of an extreme intellectual, moral, and spiritual renaissance!