>If a policy is effective and correct, I would not call it extreme.
>I guess it depends on the definition of extreme, but I would not think "good" policy would be extreme
The issue is that you've begged the question in your definition: Good policy isn't extreme, therefore all policy that is extreme isn't good, therefore no extreme policy. You've just redefined extreme to mean bad - so we can't really discuss much more.
I'll propose a different definition for use here, one that accords with common use: 'Extreme', in this case, is whether or not the position is unreasonable, unmoderate, or exceedingly unusual.
With this definition we can find examples of positive extreme policy positions: We take take the abolition of slavery as an example of extreme policy. Granting women suffrage is another. Desegregation is another.
This isn't to say that all extreme policy positions are right - many, maybe most, are wrong. But digging into the trade-offs between the two requires a far more nuanced discussion than the one we're having here, because there's a lot of legal history about the relative velocity of legislative change and that's gonna take up more room than we have.
The abolishment of slavery wasn’t an extreme positive position to take in pre civil war America. A truly extreme position would be granting non-white races equal rights up to and including the right to vote. Pennsylvania and New Jersey abolished slavery but walked back equal rights in voting after once passing laws to allow it.
To contrast, the ideals of the slave holders were extreme.
As for abolishing slavery, internationally both slavery and serfdom had slowly been banned by every organized headed religion and country on the European continent. It was only in the US, and then only in the Southern states that people held the extreme position of needing to enslave an entire race despite how immoral and unprofitable it was.
I say this to argue that an effective policy is rarely an extreme one. Effective policies are simply one step to the left or right of where we already stand, not a great leap into the unknown. Often, as with abolishing slavery, we already will have examples where other people experimented with the policy.
There is a ton of room for movement between or beside the two extremes that are usually associated with Democrats and Republicans. And one issue voters would be able to find those points to move forward if it wasn’t an all-or-nothing situation.
I say “good” in the sense of good policy, not the moral sense. Good policy should obviously be moral but needs to be tractable and not extreme.
So yes, I would say extreme policy is bad policy, because it leads to all sorts of unintended consequences. First, it’s extreme because of impacts to others. A policy wouldn’t be considered extreme if the vast majority of people agreed with it and it aligned with common sense. People often don’t agree with it because it impacts them in a negative way.
You can’t pass “extreme” policy that is extreme in the eyes of the voters without blowback of some kind and a massive swing the other way. So I’d make the argument that incremental progress would get more done in the long run. We don’t need massive change that will be unwound when one side loses control in a few years.
And the abolition of slavery, woman’s suffrage, and desegregation were not “extreme” things. They were ensuring the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for United States Citizens. They were progressive, but not extreme in their time.
And do you have reading on the relative velocity of legislative change? I’d like to see how it changed as tech evolved.
>I guess it depends on the definition of extreme, but I would not think "good" policy would be extreme
The issue is that you've begged the question in your definition: Good policy isn't extreme, therefore all policy that is extreme isn't good, therefore no extreme policy. You've just redefined extreme to mean bad - so we can't really discuss much more.
I'll propose a different definition for use here, one that accords with common use: 'Extreme', in this case, is whether or not the position is unreasonable, unmoderate, or exceedingly unusual.
With this definition we can find examples of positive extreme policy positions: We take take the abolition of slavery as an example of extreme policy. Granting women suffrage is another. Desegregation is another.
This isn't to say that all extreme policy positions are right - many, maybe most, are wrong. But digging into the trade-offs between the two requires a far more nuanced discussion than the one we're having here, because there's a lot of legal history about the relative velocity of legislative change and that's gonna take up more room than we have.