Why do people become extremists?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Why do people become extremists?
Position‹3 of 5›: People disagree with government policy
Argument: Disagreeing with government policy

Disagreements over policy can incite people to feel like they have lost their political or economic voice. Feeling a loss of political agency can lead to depression and anger, and both are emotions that cause extremist tendencies.

The argument

Disagreements over government policy can incite extremist violence very fast, because policies are implemented over a large area and affect many people. The polarization of politics also enflames extremism because both sides feel they need to discredit the other to gain power and status. Policies also impact different socioeconomic groups differently. Socioeconomics play a large impact in policy and the reaction to it. Violence rates are much higher in larger cities, because of the inequity issues and disparities between groups of people. Extremism in politics does not always lead to violence, which is important to note. While extremism can include forms of violence, whether public or private, extremism can also be in the form of thoughts or simple conversations. Politics and policies are very sensitive issues and because of that, dissenters and displeased people can become extremists because of politics and government policies.

Premises

[P1]Government policies affect many people over a large area, so disagreements over them can quickly incite extremist violence. [P2] Political polarization inflames this, as each side seeks to discredit the other for power, and policies hit socioeconomic groups unequally. [C] Therefore, because people disagree with sensitive government policy, they become extremists.

Counter-arguments

Government policies are open for appeal and dissent that do not include extremism or extremist violence. Politics may be divided does not—and should not—lead to an increased amount of extremist or extremist violence.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Disagreement with government policy is close to universal while extremism is rare, so the premise cannot explain what it is offered to explain: a condition present in almost everyone cannot account for the conduct of a very small number. "Can incite extremist violence very fast" also asserts a speed and directness the research on radicalisation does not support, since it generally describes gradual processes involving networks, personal grievance, identity and active recruitment. [Rejecting P2] The claims gathered here do not connect. Polarisation describes the distribution of opinion rather than a route into violence; the socioeconomic point substitutes urban violence rates for extremist violence, a different phenomenon with different perpetrators and causes; and the argument itself concedes that extremism often involves no violence at all, which leaves the premise supporting a conclusion about beliefs while the evidence offered concerns violence. As the counter observes, the ordinary channels of appeal and dissent are open to exactly the same people, so what actually needs explaining is why a few bypass them.