Hegemony Facilitates Extremism, Ill Serving The People

Webster’s Dictionary defines an extremist as, “a supporter of extreme views or practice.”

A lay person has defined an environmental extremist as “one who has views that are out of the norm.” Both definitions appear to be acceptable.

Extremists are then, by definition, those who are supporters of extreme views or practices. As the term “environmental extremist” is used so frequently in some circles, it’s difficult to give specific examples of what acts are deemed environmental extremism or whether simply being an environmentalist is tantamount to being an extremist in their eyes.

If there are environmental extremists, there also must be anti-environmental extremists who, by definition, must be supporters of extreme views or practices. Who might be listed under this category and what views or practices would constitute anti-environmental extremism?

A polling firm, Ridder-Braden, in early 2000 conducted a scientific poll of Idaho citizens on how they felt about President Clinton’s proposal to protect some 8 million acres of roadless areas in Idaho from further road building. Some 64 percent of respondents backed the Clinton plan. Not one of Idaho’s four national legislators announced an ounce of support for the plan, despite the citizens’ nearly two-thirds backing. All of Idaho’s legislators either attacked the Clinton plan vociferously or remained silent.

Does this negative response by Idaho’s four legislators constitute anti-environmental extremism, despite almost two-thirds support by the populace? This would be a difficult call as without additional evidence that strongly showed the legislators supported “extreme views or practices” on a larger or more consistent scale, it probably would be questionable to label them as antienvironmental extremists. Let’s examine this further.

The national League of Conservation Voters scores votes of legislators on the most important issues pertaining to environmental health and safety protections, resource conservation and spending for environmental programs on a national scale. Each state delegation’s votes as well as regional and national vote averages are tallied each year.

Here is the scorecard for Idaho’s members of the House and Senate in the 106th Congress for 1999 and, for comparison, the regional and national averages with combined votes from both parties.

Lowest score among the House of Representatives delegations: Idaho, 3 percent.

Lowest score among the Senate delegations: Idaho, 0 percent.

Regional score in the House (seven western states): 50 percent.

Regional score in the Senate (seven western states): 52 percent.

National average for the House: 46 percent.

National average for the Senate: 41 percent.

These vote averages on environmental issues show the Idaho delegation to have views that are far out of the norm from most of the nation’s Senate and House delegations. So, by definition, this would constitute antienvironmental extremism.

A tantalizing question: What if Idaho was not essentially a one-party state? Would the four national legislators be so extreme in their anti-environmental views? With little, if any, opposition from Idaho’s dominant one-party legislators, wouldn’t the normal attitude be similar to any monopoly as defined by the dictionary as having “the sole right or power of selling something, or full command over the sale of it?”

It has been my experience in involvement with a number of one-party states around the world (Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam, Laos, Granada, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Singapore, etc.) that a monopoly of one political party, whether it be liberal, conservative or just plain radical, does not represent the population as a whole and politically, things don’t work as they should.

We may be approaching that point in Idaho. Without an opposing viewpoint with some clout to counter the extremism that is overtaking the state, Idaho’s politics will suffer, as will the people.