[indubitable]

I think there is a bigger danger in this sort of isolationism (quite the euphemism!) than just vicious values being allowed to coalesce. The isolationism results in individuals' values not being challenged, which can push them further and further away from reality. Let's create an imaginary example. We're trying to solve a math problem. The correct answer to this problem is 0. However, one side believes the answer is absolutely at least 50. And the other side believes the answer must be no more than -50. When these two groups remain within contact, they counter balance each other. But now let's isolate these groups. In the past when the -50 side chose to go -60 there would be some push back against that and it would help create a more of a central equilibrium. But in isolation without opposition, -60 sounds awesome. Why not -70, or even lower? And on the other side an equal but opposite push for 60, 70 and more is simultaneously happening.

Taking this into real life, I think this is arguably what is happening with politics today. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being right leaning or left leaning. But as we have begun to segregate ourselves into 'only right leaning' or 'only left leaning' the individuals within these groups have started becoming increasingly radicalized. News that is supportive of the chosen belief is accepted unquestioningly. Negative news of 'the other side' is similarly accepted without question. And, perhaps more than ever before, we are creating a country where people are not only becoming radicalized in their beliefs, but mutually intolerant of anything except those beliefs.

And now a thought experiment. Imagine we broke the country into two by political view. And, for the sake of fairness, we'll pretend that both magically have all the resources/wealth/etc of the original nation. Would this resolve the issues with everybody living happily ever after? I imagine we'd see the exact same cycle begin to be carried out without these new nations as people divided and radicalized once again to no real end. The founding fathers were, in terms of identity and broad political view, relatively homogenous. Yet it took no time for them to break into Federalist vs Antifederalist (in spite of their astute prognostications on the dangers of parties). And as one side or the other gained dominant support it never resulted in stability. Instead there would be a fracturing and new split to no end. But as they remained with arm's reach of each side, radicalism never took that much of a hold. Granted, we did have a sitting vice president kill the first secretary of the treasury in a duel. But in a paradoxical way that illustrates how generally respectful the parties remained. Sufficiently impugning somebody's honor, part and parcel of modern politics, was sufficient cause for a duel which did on occasion result in death.

[pjc50]

> But as they remained with arm's reach of each side, radicalism never took that much of a hold. Granted, we did have a sitting vice president kill the first secretary of the treasury in a duel.

I think this is a rather rose-tinted view on the amount of corruption and discord that has prevailed in the US, such as the Harding administration.

It also rather depends on your definition of "radicalism". Is white supremacy radical or mainstream? Does that change over time? Does that make it right?

[indubitable]

You're definitely correct about there being some ambiguity in the definition of radicalism.

I think there are two main indicators of radicalism. The first is the assumption that one is correct to the point that there is a complete unwillingness to even consider contrary possibilities. The second, which is often linked to the first, is a tendency to resort to violence against those do not feel the same as they do.

So for instance Jehova's Witnesses are certainly not mainstream and their views are quite extreme. But even the most devout and determined door knocker is not somebody I would call a radical. They're happy to, and indeed seem to take immense pleasure, in discussing and defending their religion even to those who would challenge and reject its very core - even if the questioner does so in less than tactful ways. While Jehova's may not necessarily change their view, they would certainly indulge alternative views. And violence is never even considered.

By contrast take those who adhere to radical Islam. In that case anything short of complete deference is seen as a grievous offense. Acts such as drawing their religious figure is seen as sufficient cause to literally murder individuals, in mass. That behavior is absurdly radicalized. In the US we're still far away from that level. But increasingly we're seeing individuals incapable of discussing things with one another, and violence is an increasingly common outcome. And as individuals become further and further ideologically isolated, this radicalism and mutual intolerance is only like to increase.