Not long ago, when I was in MLW Chat, another MLW Chatter/poster stated that he thought that I should write more diaries.  Haven't written a diary in awhile, so here goes. 

This is about how I believe extremism has been allowed to gain a stronghold, and to get and keep the upper hand,  in many communities throughout the United States and worldwide.  Having said this, I believe that the extremists in any given area, community, or nation are small in number, but, due to the fact that the extremists are the ones that're constantly up and out front and  therefore the most vocal, that they receive all the publicity.  Therefore,  two very commonly-heard expressions  "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" and "The minority rules" are very fitting expressions. 

Here's why:I  believe that, although the extremists in a given community, neighborhood, or nation are are small number and therefore in the minority, as opposed to being in the majority, it's also true that they do not have to be in the majority to present a problem(s).  I also believe that, in many, if not most cases, politicians and other top officials, be they in city, state or nationwide government, in school departments and/or on school committees, have often created the kind of atmosphere and fostered the kind of climate that has provided a haven for extremists, thus enabling them to do their dirty work, call all the shots and effectively hold sway by successfully intimidating the non-extremist majority into silence, or even into agreeing with them outright, when many of them would ordinarily take a more  moderate, accepting attitude and outlook towards something.

It's true that George W. Bush got in, not because the majority of Americans (necessarily) backed him and his policies, but because a  relatively small minority of extremist evangelist Christians, courtesy of G. W. Bush and his cronies in this present administration, manipulated the election process, through intimidation and other tactics, effectively handing George Bush an unearned Presidency--twice, although the first time, back in 2000, it was a matter of maliciously stopping the recounts in Florida, also giving Bush the Presidency.  It's also true that most Americans, whoever they may be, are not radical or crazy in their thinking, but, again, the radical rightwing minority, again, affectively took center stage.

George W. Bush has created the kind of atmosphere and climate that has enabled the extremists to affectively call all the shots and effectively hold sway, hereby intimidating the majority masses into silence and/or just plain going along with the Right-wing agenda.

Another good example of how extremists can and do receive enough clout to take center stage, even if they're not in the majority is what happened in Boston before and during the mid to late 1970's, when court-mandated school busing, with the resulting turmoil and upheaval in its wake, took Boston by storm.

  The busing debacle here in Boston was seen and heard on the evening news throughout the United States and even throughout the world, hereby evoking many denounciations of the people in Boston's white workingclass ethnic communities as "a bunch of bigots" and/or extremists.  Without any question, a fair percentage of the people in Boston's white workingclass communities were bigoted and/or extremists.  Although there were/are a good percentage of them, I myself, tend to question whether or not the bigots and/or extremists in those particular communities really are in the majority.  Perhaps not.  However, again, it does stand to reason that thall-white Boston school committee back then, for so many years definitely created the kind of atmosphere and fostered the kind of climate that allowed the bigots and extremists in their midst to call all the shots and hold sway, and, in general to do their dirty work.  Such an atmosphere that was created by the then all-white Boston school committee as to affectively squelch all debate, to effectively pit groups against each other through  various intimidation  tactics and furthur pitting two vulnerable groups in Boston--i. e. the white workingclass and the blacks--against each other. 

This kind of atmosphere also made for the election of many very right-wing city councils and other schoolcommittee members, and created the atmosphere for such mean-spirited attacks, such as the horrendous attack on Ted Landsmark, an African-American lawyer, which resulted in serious injuries,  on his way to a meeting in Boston City Hall, by white workingclass toughs, the death of an African-American maintenance man who had panicked and jumped into the trackbed of an MBTA subway station after being chased by several white toughs in the vicinity and having his escape routes cut off.  Unfortunately, the African-American maintenance man, 24 years old, was ultimately hit by an oncoming MBTA subway train and  killed--instantly.  Somebody had found his body within the MBTA trackbed, and, it took awhile to restructure what happened, collect evidence and bring the perpetrators to justice.  At least justice prevailed--the kids who were found guilty  served time in prison, which is what was needed.  There were many, many other nasty incidents here at that time, but, then, again, politicians of that time had set things in motion through years of playing to people's worst fears and basest instincts. 

The same could be said for conflicts such as the Israeli-Arab conflict, which has gone on for several decades, for instance.  I believe that, here, too, the extremists on both sides are small in numbr and in the minority, as opposed to the majority.  However, due to their extreme vocal and active behaviour, and the help of politicians who manipulate the electorate and the elective process(s) for their own ends, the extremists on both sides end up with the most clout.

All of the above having been said, I believe that, although extremists in any given place in the world are small in number and in the minority, they are often assisted and encouraged by politicians and other officials who use their charisma and ability for appeal and persuasion as a means for calling all the shots. 

Assuming all of the above to be true, I firmly believe that, with different leadership that appeal to peoples' better instincts, things could be very different, and the course of history changed--radically and for the better, because the more moderate majority of the people would have the real power and courage to keep the extremists in their midst under control and to prevent them from doing their dirty  work.  Let us say that the Boston School Committee back in the 60's and 70's had taken different tack, and appealed to the better instincts of people, as opposed to their worst instincts.  For example, if prominent politicians had said  "Times are changing, and the schools are going to be integrated.  This is going to be difficult and great sacrifices will have to be made on your part, but we can and will do it.  We have many more things in common with our non-white brothers and sisters than we have differences. We share a history of oppression, and therefore, there'sno reason not to share neighborhoods and schools as well.  I believe that by putting aside our differences we have, recognizing what we have in common, and working towards this goal, we can make successful integration of our public schools happen."  Had this kind of more optomistic appeal by the school committee had taken place, I believe that integration of boston's schools and neighborhoods would've gone more smoothly, with far less conflict and disruption, and the Boston School System would be in far better shape today, in every respect.

Unfortunately, part of the reason for the rise of politicians that have created the kind of atmosphere that makes it possible for extremists to call all the shots by effectively manipulating and intimidating the majority into complacency of their appeal to their baser insticts is due to the fact that prominent and strong people, such as Martin Luther King and the Kennedys were gunned down before they had the chance to really make a positive difference.  Had the Kennedys and Martin Luther King lived, I believe that the United States and the world at large would be more at peace.  While it's true that the United States and the world at large could very well have gone conservative at some point, I believe that we wouldn't have Ronald Reagan and the Bushes in the White House, and that there would've been a better chance for moderation, the widening of the scope of debate, and the ability to keep demagogues and extremists under control.  There would also be much more tolerance, acceptance, far fewer wars, and more peace here in this country and throughout the world, and our basic rights and whatever would not be under such attack as right now.