Typing fast means errors. Jason The pointed out a statement in my last post could be read as a generalization. The quickly typed sentence was: "In the years following the war, the radical left has been able to completely take over the Democratic Party. The Republican [Party] has been marginalized both as an [spp] political force and intellectual force."
If you read the paragraph as: "All Democrats are Radicals" then what you see is a blatant generalization. Of course, this is neither the intent of the statement, nor is it the intent of the statement.
The statement is actually an observation of the nature of radicalization.
The word "radical" comes from the Latin radix which means root. Radicalization is a process that happens at the foundations of a system of thinking that ends up dominating the system of thinking. Radicalization is an effort to force a dramatic change of a system by manipulating it as a subliminal level.
Radicalization, by definition, is something that transforms a system.
One could make a strong argument that Bush's "unilateral" invasion of Iraq radicalized the Republican Party as it made supporting the war the central issue of Republicanism and the conservative movement.
Republicans have a very big problem. Republicans tend to be for a smaller federal government, fiscal responsibility and moral leadership. Something radical appears to have happened in the Republican leadership that made it the opposite of what Republicans believe.
Radicalization is dangerous because it completely transform a system in ways that cannot be predicted. The general trend is that it raises the rogues into power. Moderate and antiwar Republicans were marginalized in the party.
The statement that "all Democrats are radicals" is a generalization, the statement that radicalization "completely takes over" a system is not.
If my goal in this blog is to influence, people in a particular, I would not have included the sentence. But this blog is intended for flow of conscious style writing. This type of writing is meant to link together different ideas.
PS: I reject the argument that Bush intended to radicalize the Republican Party. I would not be surprised if some of the neocons in his administration were thinking along these terms. I think there is a strong case that the people who flew the planes in the World Trade Center and Pentagon were doing so in hopes of creating radical change. Horowitz makes a good case that the Far Left has radical intentions.