If you were lucky enough to have witnessed a piece published last week in The Badger Herald called "Voting divides, spurs authority," my job as a columnist will be all the more easy. A guest columnist dubbing himself an "Anti-Authoritarian Social Revolutionary" was telling us all that we should not vote because it is a "divisive system."

Simply put, if you wanted a case against radicalism in politics, he made it for you.

At a campus like UW, where political tensions always seem to be running at full blast regardless of what is on the political docket, it is easy to get swept up into an ideological crusade, whether it be on the right or the left. However, when we do this, we leave valuable abilities like logical reasoning and rationality behind us in favor of adhering strictly to an ideology that none of us can really fathom is beneficial or, in some cases, feasible.

Bill Anderson, the author of the column in question, envisions a world where we are united into utopian decision-making processes by which citizens are actively engaged and where voting is wrong because it encourages divisive political attitudes, such as competition and factionalism.

The problem is not that plans such as Anderson's are simply infeasible, it is what the words behind his message actually mean. He is effectively arguing against democracy, but why would he ever do that?

Most groups are quite content to fall into the democratic process in the United States, if for no other reason than it provides us adequate venues for grievances against over-bearing governmental power and, perhaps the most compelling reason to support democracy, offers a legitimate shot at power.

An additional requirement for belief in democracy is maintaining a certain degree of humility. If you do not enjoy the popular support of the public, then you do not have any legitimate right to rule. That is what voting does; it confers upon electoral victors a legitimate right to rule the people.

Radical political actors have been historically less supportive of concepts such as "legitimacy" and "popular support" because after all, that wouldn't make their politics so radical.

Perhaps Anderson's arrogance is rooted in a greater problem for politics, but certainly much more so for radicalism, the belief that their views are infallible. It is here where distinctions between anarchists, communists, religious extremists and fascists simply disappear.

Radicals certainly believe their politics are correct, but the belief that they are infallible represents a kind of arrogance that even Democrats and Republicans will shy away from, if for no other reason than to maintain the very legitimacy previously discussed.

Remember all those times that President Bush would stand in the face of opposition and bull-headedly respond with classics like "Bring it on?"

Americans loathed that response, and groups, especially on the left, went crazy claiming that the guy had done everything from encouraging more attacks against the United States to mocking the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Public opinion mattered then, as it does today, to Bush. The mid-term elections show just how powerful a base of informed voters can be against the arrogance and vanity of leaders like Bush. Anderson's vision of governance — as a decision-making process done as a collective, absent of accountability and any discernable form of law or economy — falls immensely short as people will continue to make changes to the lives of others, and no one will be held directly responsible.

In a system where you advocate for the end of the Federal Reserve, and with it their "monopoly on money," you should expect people are going to want to hold someone accountable when the plan inevitably breaks down and ruins the lives of others in the process. However, the point is not to rip on leftist or rightist politics, it is to claim that radicalism, generally speaking, is a form of politics so virulent that it threatens the very common institutions that we know.

It is not that radicals could not exist within our government, it is that they choose not to. And with that choice comes consequences that they simply cannot handle.

If Anderson did anything with his column, it was to show all of us why his political views were wrong, and with this, why we should stay grounded with our political thought and not leap to an extremist's point of view.

Robert Phansalkar ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in languages and cultures of Asia and political science.