Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Casual extremism and how language in the middle enables the extremes

Close-up of dictionary definition of extremism
Devonyu/Getty Images

McAleer is the author of "The Cure For Hate – A Former White Supremacist's Journey From Violent Extremism To Radical Compassion." He co-founded Life After Hate and is a founding partner of the Builders Movement.

When I was a white supremacist who had infiltrated the Canadian military reserves, an officer who had spent two tours of Northern Ireland embedded in a British unit told me that the Irish Republican Army had only 75 active personnel who pulled triggers and planted bombs. Behind those combatants were 3,500 people who offered them safe houses and storage for their ammunition. Bolstering them was a much broader community of people who endorsed their efforts.

Ultimately, decades of sectarian violence were perpetrated by a small group of people on each side; but it was the broader public's support that gave extremists permission to carry out their carnage.


Britain’s recent riots, instigated by anti-immigration protesters in cities across England following the stabbing deaths of three young girls, illustrate this point clearly. A violent eruption only spreads like wildfire when an environment of public support enables it to escalate.

In the days when I was driven by an extremist agenda, our movement recognized the need and opportunity to increase broad-based support among the North American middle. To normalize extremist ideas, we attempted to take a position previously considered radical and make it palatable enough for the public to get behind. If we could repackage a concept that only 1 percent of people supported in a way that 5 percent would accept, we could expand our outer edge of extremism while simultaneously moving where the center lies.

We paid close attention to public discourse in the middle, searching for signals of our efforts taking hold. Thankfully, we failed; but the lesson remains: Language of intolerance and dehumanization in the center ultimately enables radical extremism at the outer edges.

In the aftermath of the Oct, 7, 2023 attack on Israel, I participated in conversations with people on all sides of the conflict. Often, I was shocked by the extraordinary comments made by very reasonable people. When this happened, I would interrupt my company and ask them to repeat themselves while listening closely to their own words — to the gross generalizations, dehumanizing rhetoric and support for extreme acts of violence. Even having gone through the process of radicalization and deradicalization myself, I remain shocked by how quickly sentiment can turn; how extremist ideas rapidly become normalized; and how many people can quickly be swayed to justify hate.

In the current polarized political climate, I see this process occurring. Each side views the other through a binary lens and assumes moral superiority for their stances. To varying degrees, all of us have become influenced by a narrative of existential, all-or-nothing partisan crisis. Depending on which American friends and colleagues I speak to about the upcoming elections, the underlying assumption is that everyone will be doomed to either concentration camps or civil war.

Endorsements for extremism don't have to be outright calls to arms; they're usually far more casual. When celebrities and musicians display the severed heads of their political opponents and joke about how the shooter shouldn't miss his target next time, they give their support to radical elements. When we reduce entire swaths of the population to names like "criminal," "rapist," "weird" or "extremist," terms which stigmatize and dehumanize the "other," we tacitly condone ideas that lie outside of political norms. These notions inform an increased sense that "the ends justify the means" and widen our windows of acceptance for radical means. When we equate politicians with Hitler, for example, should we be surprised when an assassination attempt is made?

The most extremist members of society, those bent on exclusion, hatred and suffering, are ready and waiting to seize upon our words to accomplish their destructive agendas. Almost universally, violent conflicts worldwide begin with slurs to denounce another group, painting them in a derogatory light. Through the gradual process of dehumanization through rhetoric, exclusion and microaggressions, each group frames "the enemy" as an existential threat to their value system, religion, way of life, privilege, culture and so on. Lazy language that defaults to stereotypes, generalizations and name-calling creates just enough fuel to light a fire in the outer fringes. With enough tacit support from the center, a spark can give way to an inferno with enough power to sustain itself.

It is essential that the majority of people in the center maintain our values and humanity. As Friedrich Nietzsche said, "Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster."We cannot lend our voices to the cause of extremism, even if we are doing so unintentionally. How we choose to show up, particularly on divisive issues, recalibrates the norms. It sends a signal to those around us that we demand better from ourselves; that we will not stoop to carelessness, fear and judgment to comfort ourselves or win favor in challenging times. When we choose our words intentionally, we help guide others to do the same. With curiosity and courage, we can halt the slide.

Over this past year, I have traveled extensively throughout the United States, screening the film “The Cure For Hate – Bearing Witness To Auschwitz,” and implementing an accompanying curriculum that helps high school students explore the process of othering, dehumanization and polarization (then and now). We have gone from the bluest town in the bluest county in the bluest state — Battleboro, Vt. — to the reddest town in the reddest county in the reddest state — Rigby, Idaho.

On the surface, these places seem to be worlds apart; but, when I talk with the parents of our student participants, they all express similar concerns for their children. They long for their kids to grow up safe and healthy; they want them to have access to a promising future. They have different ideas on how to reach these goals, but they start from a common place.

When we adopt a mindset of "us vs. them," we ignore this space where progress toward those shared goals can happen. When we break the pattern, that's when we all stand a chance.


Read More

Group of young adult students sit at desks in classroom listening to teacher

Why do Americans respond so differently to hard history lessons? A look at the three psychological mindsets driving the patriotism debate — and a path past it.

Lighthouse Films/Getty Images

“They Hate America”: Patriotism in the Face of Historical Updates

I happened upon a civil discussion blog and read a post by a man who said he was happy to report that when he attended a panel discussion about teaching patriotism in the schools, all went well. He said that’s because most of the people in the bridging organization that hosted the event are “pretty patriotic.” He clarified that by writing, “None of the type of bad actors (and there are many) who want to teach kids to hate America and Western Civilization were represented.”

Someone made a comment about why we can’t incorporate historical change into curriculum and objected to the notion that a segment of the population wants to teach kids to hate America. The man who posted cited what he believes is proof. A last commenter simply input the emoji for a sleeping person, as though the argument was boring or unimportant.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Utah Governor Spencer Cox

Utah Governor Spencer Cox

Getty Images

Spencer Cox’s Off Ramp and Utah’s Tradition of Bipartisan Leadership

Utah has long impressed me as a place where governors take bipartisan leadership seriously, and my own experience confirms it. I first saw this more than a decade ago when I met former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman through No Labels. In January 2013, Huntsman, then a Republican, joined Democrat Joe Manchin as national co‑chairs of the organization, a partnership built on the belief that durable solutions require leaders willing to cross the aisle. Working with both of them during that period left a lasting impression on me. Their partnership embodied a simple but powerful truth: when leaders choose cooperation over contempt, they expand what’s possible for the country. Huntsman and Manchin worked deliberately to model cross‑partisan problem‑solving—demonstrating that principled disagreement can coexist with shared purpose.

That experience left a lasting impression on me, and it’s one reason Governor Spencer Cox’s new book Off Ramp: How to Be a Peacemaker in an Age of Contempt resonates so strongly with me today.

Keep ReadingShow less
Windows of a house

Low-angle view of two dormer windows protruding from townhouse roof

Grace Cary, Getty Images

Go Home

The distance from Washington, D.C., to my hometown of York, Pennsylvania, is 100 miles. When I worked as a Congressional staffer in D.C., I could get out of town and be back where I grew up in about an hour and a half, at least so long as I avoided rush hour traffic. Those last miles as I crossed the Pennsylvania-Maryland border brought a sense of gratitude for the relationships I would be keeping up. At my nephew’s soccer game, at an English-style pub with my long-time best friends, with my mother at the breakfast table having a local newspaper in her hands, life was ordinary.

I would return to work in D.C. feeling grounded. I felt better connected to

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol with a flag waving in front of it.

As Washington stalls, young bipartisan lawmakers in Alaska, Mississippi, and beyond are proving that cross-partisan collaboration still wins.

Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

The Politicians Who Can Fix America's Polarization Problem Will Win

Political predictions are notoriously unreliable, but here is one I am willing to stand behind: the elected officials who figure out how to govern across difference will dominate the next decade of American politics. With dysfunction and paralysis having become the status quo in Washington, elected officials who work together to get things done will turn heads, offering desperate voters a much-needed alternative to a broken system.

Consider what happened in Alaska last year. The state’s lawmaking structure does not encourage political independence. Alaska has the nation's highest veto-override threshold: three-quarters. So when a popular education bill promising smaller class sizes, a cellphone ban, and vocational training funding cleared the legislature, only to be vetoed twice by the governor, it looked dead in the water.

Keep ReadingShow less