The controversy surrounding Michael Moore’s latest film Fahrenheit 9/11 has brought to the forefront an old debate. Extremists. What are they? What is their place in American politics? Moore is often considered a liberal version of such conservative extremists as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Ann Coulter. Though this simplistic model of political views may make it easier for the average joe to understand, it is nonetheless a faulty assumption.

The idea really has its roots in in the very Western notion of dualism. This goes all the way back to the origins of Christianity and the Gospel of John which portrays a very dualistic view of the world (good vs. evil, body vs. spirit, etc.). And it was later emphasized further by such philosophers as Rene Descartes. Now dualism is a part of the way we think about virtually every aspect of life, including politics. Thus, the left and the right are viewed merely as two equally correct polarized opposites.

However, even though both sides have worthwhile ideas, it would be unreasonable to assume because of this that they are always equally correct. Which brings me back to political extremists. These people are often criticized for being too polarized and refusing to acknowledge the benefits of the other side. For instance, Michael Moore has been criticized for attacking “President” Bush because the assumption is that no matter how bad he might be, he cannot possibly be as bad as Moore accuses him of being. He is the president, after all.

I find this interesting because it reminds me of an argument many Americans made after World War II. The argument went something like this: We’re not like Germany because we could never do what they did. We have now apparently brought this argument full circle by adding another line: Because we could never do what they did, we’re not like them. Or think about it this way. We could never have a bad president because we would never elect somebody who wasn’t good. And because we would never elect somebody who wasn’t good, whoever is president must be good. It’s the very definition of a circular argument.

But the problem is that such talk is nothing more than an attempt by the American people to feel more comfortable with the person they elect. Unfortunately, it is far from the truth. The requirements for becoming president are startlingly low. All a person really needs is a good advertising campaign, regardless of his or her actual qualifications. Most regular jobs have stricter requirements.

So forget for the moment whether or not Bush is a good president. Imagine there was a person in office who had no business being president, and Michael Moore made a documentary outlining everything he did wrong. Should we then ignore Moore because he is a liberal? Should we instead try to meet this horrible president on some kind of middle ground?

We have all been told since we were little that compromise is a good thing. And while it certainly has its benefits, it is hardly the solution to all of the world’s ills that some would have us believe. Too often compromises take the worst parts of both ideas and discard any merit either side would have offered. Sometimes “compromise” is just another word for “surrender.”

Again, conservatives do have a number of good ideas. But there are also many times when they are simply wrong. As an example, look at a commercial that was run by Yahoo! some months ago. The ad featured the liberal comedian and writer Al Franken and conservative writer and actor Ben Stein. The ad is meant to be a funny look at American partisanship, but the debate is actually very telling. Note that the worst thing they have to say about liberals is that they don’t want to kill things. Similarly, liberals are often mocked by being described as “bleeding heart.” In other words, liberals are bad because they are sympathetic toward those worse off than they are. But wait a minute. I thought compassion was supposed to be a good thing. Does Bush also have a “bleeding heart?”

There is a time a for compromise, and there is a time to fight. Now is a time to fight.