The pitfalls of extremism

One of the attractions of the small-government, free-market political philosophy is its simplicity and clarity. There's an obvious answer to every problem. There's none of this messy business of weighing the pros and cons, balancing ideals with practical realities, that most conservatives and liberals agonize over.

But the black-and-white nature of this viewpoint also makes it difficult for most people to follow completely. There always seems to be some critical deviation from the creed.

Far-right politicians and pundits are, of late, gaining a growing foothold in American politics. They are Republicans, independents and Tea Partiers espousing the various incarnations of this limited-government line.

In Nevada, the most prominent example is Sharron Angle, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate. Angle has seen her popularity surge since the Tea Party embraced her candidacy and GOP frontrunner Sue Lowden started talking about paying medical bills with chickens.

Angle is the most conservative candidate seeking to challenge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in November. On her website, she expresses her worldview clearly:

"My overall political philosophy is that government properly exists only by the consent of the governed and must be restrained from intruding into the freedoms of its citizens. In the Nevada State Legislature, I have consistently fought for smaller and more efficient government, traditional values, lower taxes and the right of the people to vote and petition."

So far, so good, right? Although I happen not to be a conservative, I can respect a candidate who believes in a clear set of principles. But it turns out Angle is wildly inconsistent on what constitutes freedom.

As Steve Sebelius, editor of Las Vegas CityLife, reported this week on Slashpolitics.com, Angle said in 2006 that alcohol, as a dangerous drug, should be illegal. Interviewed by Liberty Watch magazine, Angle expressed her opposition to medical marijuana, and added: "I feel the same about legalizing alcohol. The effect on society is so great that I'm just not a real proponent of legalizing any drug or encouraging any drug abuse. I'm elected by the people to protect, and I think that law should protect."

Naturally, in the heat of battle in 2010, Angle's campaign insists she doesn't want to bring back Prohibition. But she can't be let off the hook so easily: She was an adult in 2006, and on the basis of the quotes in a conservative publication, she was passionate about the alcohol issue.

This is what I'm talking about when I say there always seems to be some critical deviation from the script.

The most prominent far-right figure of the moment is Rand Paul, Republican senatorial candidate in Kentucky. As with Angle, Paul has seen his political prospects rise thanks to Tea Party support. He's even further to the right than Angle, though. On many issues, he's really more of a libertarian than a Republican.

But Paul, too, is an interesting case. For years, he has criticized parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, echoing the classic libertarian view that the government has no right to tell private businesses that they can't discriminate based on the color of someone's skin. While the Civil Rights Act was debated vigorously before its passage in the mid-'60s, few have seriously questioned its intrinsic merit and constitutionality over the past four decades.

And so, like Angle, Paul immediately sought to control the damage, insisting that he detests racism and would have voted for the Civil Rights Act if he had been a senator at the time of its passage. Some libertarian!

Political consistency is tough for anybody, even those on the far right or left where consistency is most prized. Circumstances sometimes bring out the hypocrite in the best of 'em.

Consider Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor and a rising star in conservative circles. Jindal opposed President Obama's economic stimulus package, calling it "irresponsible," but when oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico and threatened the shores of his state, he appealed for federal aid. "Big government" is unthinkable, it seems, until there's a disaster that requires a big solution.

These examples suggest the classic clash of the theoretical and the practical, textbook vs. reality. Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page mused that he was disappointed to learn that Rand Paul was not named for the uber-libertarian writer Ayn Rand. After all, Paul and his father, Ron Paul, hew closely to many aspects of the libertarian thinking that Rand helped popularize in the 1960s. "I, too, was a fan of Ayn Rand," Page writes of a common case of youthful flirtation with the author's work. "Then I grew up." By growing up, Page means "to reconcile one's ideology with other people's reality."

When politicians embrace an extreme ideological view, left or right, they open themselves to the likely possibility that they will end up violating their professed principles in one way or another. Political reality is just too messy and murky -- and too much in need of pragmatic solutions -- to have much use for ideologues.

Geoff Schumacher (gschumacher@reviewjournal.com) is the Review-Journal's director of community publications. His column appears Friday.