General Discussion

"The radical mind-set was identified by Max Weber ...The radical ethic of conviction: Make your moral judgements without considering that there are bad actors who may cause your action to result in an unwanted outcome. An example of this would be a radical who voted for Ralph Nader because he believed Nader was better than Gore; and voting one's conscience is best; end of thinking. ... It is a 'moral' rule that says, 'vote as you would as if there are no bad actors in the real world.' To this day, if you read a radical analysis of the Nader voters, they will say, ... 'It's not Ralph Nader's fault ... Gore ran a lackluster campaign.' This is exactly the type of excuse that Weber predicts would be used by those following the radical ethic: If an action of good intent leads to bad results, then, in the actor's eyes, not he but the world, or the stupidity of other men is responsible for the evil. Just as Weber predicted, the radical blames Gore's loss on his stupidity, not on those who knew the danger of wasting their vote and chose to ignore it.

"Weber's liberal ethic of responsibility says people are responsible for taking account of real-world consequences, as best they can, including the likely actions of bad actors. Liberal ethic of responsibility: People should strive for good outcomes given reality, bad actors and all. If the radical Nader voters had followed the liberal ethic, there would have been no Iraq War. That cannot be disputed. That's why the liberal ethic is more progressive than the radical ethic, and it's why radical righteousness so easily leads to evil outcomes.

"When you think about it, Weber's insight is a bit of a shock. It says quite plainly that in some crucial ways, radicals are not trying to win. ... Given a choice, radicals would rather be 'right' than obtain what they agree is the best possible outcome.... But really, they do what they do because their religion tells them what's 'right,' saving them the trouble of taking responsibility for their actions. The difference between liberals and radicals ... is not in wanting fundamental change for the better. The difference is that liberals think strategically about the real world when trying to change it for the better. And that's why they have had success."

Steven Stoft, "How Democrats Win, Resisting Dark Side Radicalism"