Wit & Attitude Quote by John Avlon

Avlon is doing a careful high-wire act: he opens with symmetry, then breaks it. The first clause nods to a familiar centrist reflex - yes, extremes exist on both ends - which buys him credibility with readers tired of partisan outrage. Then he cashes that credibility in by making a time-stamped claim: early Obama years, the far-right was "far crazier". That comparative phrasing is the move. It signals judgment without pretending to be above judgment, and it frames "craziness" not as an inherent moral defect but as a political condition with triggers.

The subtext is less about ideology than about incentives. Avlon argues radicalization isn’t merely a collection of bad beliefs; it’s what happens when a party is denied the disciplining force of governance. Power, in his telling, is a kind of ballast: budgets, coalition-building, and policy consequences force reality-testing. Out of power, politics becomes performance. Activists and ideologues "take over" because they can - media attention rewards maximalism, donors reward purity, and there’s no immediate cost for being wrong.

The context matters: the Obama administration coincided with the Tea Party surge, conspiracy-laced misinformation about health care and birth certificates, and a conservative media ecosystem increasingly optimized for outrage. Avlon’s intent is to diagnose a pattern that isn’t flattering to any side while still naming the asymmetry he sees in that moment. It’s a warning disguised as even-handedness: if political energy is fueled by grievance without responsibility, it metastasizes into spectacle, and spectacle is a terrible substitute for opposition.