It’s the concept of polarization that doesn’t make sense. Maybe I’m reading the term too literally. It’s just extremism on one side from what I can see.
I don’t think the term implies that the left is causing it in some way, but I do get where you’re coming from, and agree that the extremism is one-sided.
I think the article is just suggesting that the Liberals need to address the source of the problem.
The extremism is from one side, but there is a risk that, to protect against that extremism, a polar opposite comes (Liberals most probably). Also, maybe im misunserstanding the word “polarisation”, but i understand it to mean “two polar opposites”, neither of which is necessarily extremist. For instance, I would argue that the US is polarised, but only the Republicans are the extremists, while Democrats are a defensive response to the Republicans.
It’s the concept of polarization that doesn’t make sense. Maybe I’m reading the term too literally. It’s just extremism on one side from what I can see.
I don’t think the term implies that the left is causing it in some way, but I do get where you’re coming from, and agree that the extremism is one-sided.
I think the article is just suggesting that the Liberals need to address the source of the problem.
The extremism is from one side, but there is a risk that, to protect against that extremism, a polar opposite comes (Liberals most probably). Also, maybe im misunserstanding the word “polarisation”, but i understand it to mean “two polar opposites”, neither of which is necessarily extremist. For instance, I would argue that the US is polarised, but only the Republicans are the extremists, while Democrats are a defensive response to the Republicans.