  Jeff Jarvis coins a new term for the extremists out there: neo-nuts. He has some very good arguments to support his thesis. He first mentioned it in response to urlLink someone who said he was an extremist . He is no extremist in any sense of the word, and he, rightly, took issue with that. He then points out the constant references by the media that try to show how divided we are as a nation. And others urlLink have responded to the same sentiments. Another gentleman by the name of Oliver Willis (a blogger on the left that I read occasionally) also responded to Jeff's comments and had some urlLink very interesting observations and reactions . Basically saying, you call me names and I'll defend myself. To which Jeff urlLink responded .
Jeff points unquestionably to the fact that the divisiveness is being promoted by the media. And it doesn't matter if you're on the left or right of the political spectrum, the media big-boys are the ones pushing the extremist zeitgeist. Jeff them makes a call to take back the debate. Have open discussions that are respectful, not to sling mud and demonize the other side - something that I've urlLink written about urlLink before . Now, I don't always agree with Jeff, but I also don't know anyone with whom I agree with completely and in every case.
However, I think Jeff has pointed out what has been bugging me about the political discussion for so long. While I've been trying to call for more even-handed discussions, I have failed to point out why I thought that particular approach was necessary. I failed to notice that while I was so upset about it, there was a driving force behind my feelings. I focused on the results and not the cause. I think Jeff has found the cause. The template has been cast and now the accepted way to success in the political arena is to demonize the other side.
A former politician explained it to me once, and Jeff says the same thing: moderation doesn't sell. You can't be successful by trying to appeal to both sides, and you can't please both sides simultaneously. Rigid extremism doesn't necessarily play well for political success, but it is profitable and it does serve to motivate the masses.
But why does it have to be that way? Is it a paradigm thing? Is it human nature? I am going to lean on the side of human nature for now, but I have to wonder if maybe Jeff isn't more than partially correct. If the media didn't hype extremism, maybe the bile wouldn't rise as much. Possibly, if the media refused to peddle extremist views and focus on the chasm or divide or gap they say exists, maybe it would help to ameliorate the current viciousness that permeates our society. Maybe. 
