The White House Press Secretary’s Hateful Definition Of Extremism Is Counterproductive
To put it more generally, she condemned all minority views in a society as extremist, which can easily backfire at home and abroad.
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre shared the following definition of extremism during a press conference on Thursday: “When you are not with where a majority of Americans are, then, you know, that is extreme. That is an extreme way of thinking.” To put it more generally, she condemned all minority views in a society as extremist, which can easily backfire at home and abroad. The present piece will thus explain exactly why her hateful definition is so counterproductive to US interests there.
On the home front, ethno-racial minorities have struggled for decades to achieve true socio-economic and political equality with their majority-Caucasian peers, yet Jean-Pierre – who herself is an openly LGBT Black Haitian female migrant and therefore a quadruple minority – is inadvertently smearing them all as “extremists”. Of course, her intent was obviously to discredit the MAGA-led political opposition, but there’s no denying how hypocritical her blanket condemnation of minority views was.
The next point to make builds upon the last-mentioned with respect to her description of supposedly minority political views as extremist. Her own party was at certain times the political minority in the country, yet they’d have fiercely opposed being smeared as “extremists” on that basis alone, notwithstanding the fact that some of the Democrats’ current socio-cultural policies such as those connected to their passionate support for “drag queen story hour” can indeed be described in that way.
Moving along, the domestic political context in which she attempted to discredit the political opposition also deserves attention. The midterms are coming up in approximately two months, yet the press secretary for the self-professed “leader of the free world” is now undemocratically discrediting their opponents in a vicious way that would have been condemned by her own government had a Global South leader or their representative done the same vis a vis their own rivals ahead of a tense vote.
Her hateful remarks also have international implications for US interests abroad. Washington wants to impose its hyper-liberal socio-cultural, economic, and political models onto the rest of the world, the vast majority of which rejects at least some – if not all – of these views, especially regarding the promotion of LGBT ideology in traditionally Muslim countries. Without intending to, she just extended credence to those same governments’ efforts to stop the spread of those ideas, which the US criticizes.
Furthermore, her twisted definition of extremism will also throw a spanner in the US’ plans to hatch Color Revolutions against those multipolar Global South states that refuse to submit to the Golden Billion’s demands. Africa is already poised to become a leading theater of proxy warfare between those two blocs, especially after America’s latest publicly unveiled strategy towards the continent strongly implied as much, yet now Washington’s regime change plots will have a harder time succeeding.
To elaborate a little more on that as the final international point in this piece, those targeted governments can literally cite her own definition to accuse the US of supporting extremists in their country if anyone in the political opposition (including affiliated media) is found to have any sort of connections with that declining unipolar hegemon. Washington will still almost certainly impose sanctions and threaten other forms of pressure against them in response, but they’d lack credibility.
Therein lies the lasting lesson from Jean-Pierre’s hateful definition of extremism: it’s purely the arbitrary imposition of double standards employed in order to advance the interests of America’s ruling elite at all other’s expense at home and abroad. It’s this definition that most accurately encapsulates the so-called “rules-based order”, with Jean-Pierre’s definition infamously representing the means through which it’s actually applied in practice, thus further discrediting the entire concept of Western Democracy.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.