Skip to content

An “Extreme” Mischaracterization

From Google Dictionary:

a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.


I don’t know if it’s an intentional mischaracterization or if it’s just due to intellectual laziness, but the current controversies churning here in Belmar certainly have nothing to do with anyone’s “extremism”, as I’ve heard it referred to.  Extremism is ideological.

Yes, I am a libertarian and many people consider some of my political views to be extreme.  I think they are wrong.  In actuality I consider myself to be the epicenter of ideological normalcy in the universe and that it’s many of the rest of you that have gone off course and in some cases, extremely off course.

But none of this has anything to do with what’s going on in Belmar.

What Jim Bean, Mike Seebeck, myself and the other folks who are unkindly referred to as the “element” here in Belmar are fighting for has nothing to do with political ideology.  As a matter of fact, several of us are Democrats, even liberal Democrats.  Many of us, perhaps most of us, actually would prefer to kick the parties out altogether and have a non-partisan form of government in Belmar.

You see, we are not looking to impose any sort of ideology here in Belmar.  We just want honesty.  We want accountability.  We want transparency.  We want our money to be spent carefully and not wasted or given away.  We want a government that spends less time talking and more time listening.

And we want the rule of law.

This is what all the fighting is about and I believe these are issues that everyone should care about – whatever political stripe you are.

To our critics:

Do you want only a “moderate” amount of honesty from our elected officials?  A moderate amount of accountability?  Is it ok if only a moderate amount of our money is wasted?



  1. mark wrote:

    You truly believe if one considers themselves a “moderate” politically that it equates to that person supporting “moderate” honesty, accountability, and spending? C’mon…that’s a false equivalent and poor analogy and you know it. You lose (lose) much credibility when you make such nonsensical statements. You add to and feed the polarization, not unite. (and don’t forget the “listening” you seem to expect of others but not yourself)

    Monday, June 23, 2014 at 8:54 am | Permalink
  2. admin wrote:

    That’s not what I’m saying at all. It’s fine to be a political moderate on ideological issues. But what’s going on in Belmar has zero to do with ideology so the term “moderate” is completely inappropriate. I consider Ken Pringle to be a moderate, but he’s certainly no moderate in his opposition to some of the things Doherty is doing.

    Monday, June 23, 2014 at 9:14 am | Permalink
  3. Mark wrote:

    so are you backing off your statement “To your critics”?… are playing games with words…please don’t bring Ken into this to try to legitimize your positions…what’s the point of your 3 questions regarding moderates? Disingenuous and causes loss of credibility…own it…casting moderates as part of the problem moves you further from a solution.

    Monday, June 23, 2014 at 10:29 am | Permalink
  4. admin wrote:

    Maybe this post was worded a little clumsily. My point is that political moderation is one thing, but that nobody should be moderate in their acceptance of dishonesty.

    Monday, June 23, 2014 at 10:41 am | Permalink
  5. Mark wrote:

    This is your blog so say whatever you want. I am only pointing out your penchant for false equivalents and analogies in making your points. Common tactic and someone who pays attention can clearly see through it. If you “listen” maybe you will see it yourself and use it a bit more carefully.

    Monday, June 23, 2014 at 11:33 am | Permalink
  6. Bill Straus wrote:

    One of the problems found with moderate positions is the words “sometimes” or “depends” or similes to those. Moderate position on lets say abuse of power can be good if it’s done with good intentions. As an example you are a non smoker and also one who believes in limited government. The government bans smoking for the “common good” and you are glad you no longer have to smell smoke at your favorite place. That is a moderate where your values and principles move depending on if you are affected. If you were against Presidential executive orders when Obama was berating Bush about it you must now be against it with Obama. There are so many examples of this I cannot list them all here but you get the picture.

    Monday, June 23, 2014 at 4:28 pm | Permalink
  7. Sen. Charles Sumner wrote:

    I was called a radical for my views and actions against slavery and suffered even long-term physical harm from moderates. I cannot agree with Mark, for if I had gone his route “slave power” would still exist.

    Friday, June 27, 2014 at 11:19 am | Permalink
  8. Anonymous wrote:

    Sen. Charles Sumner

    The guy should’ve finished the job. Maybe we wouldn’t have had that dumb war.

    Saturday, June 28, 2014 at 5:40 am | Permalink
  9. VITO CORLEONE wrote:

    Mark Go to bed

    Saturday, June 28, 2014 at 11:34 am | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.