Movements Are Judged By What They Internally Tolerate

Why groups must speak out against their own extremes or risk losing credibility

One of the most important and often overlooked questions in understanding controversies within any political party, social movement, or demographic group is: To what extent does the extreme behavior or rhetoric of some members represent the whole?

When protestors act out, when a faction of a political party makes inflammatory claims, or when an activist group embraces radical tactics, it is tempting, especially for outsiders and opponents, to assume that this speaks for the entire group.

However, this assumption is rarely accurate and can obscure more than it reveals.

“Is it the majority view or a fringe minority?”

This is the first question that should be asked when encountering controversial actions or extreme statements and ideas from within a group.

Whether it’s an ethnic or national group, political party, religious community, or ideological movement, every demographic contains diversity of thought. The loudest voices often belong to the most extreme factions, not the moderates or the majority. And yet, because they attract the most attention, they risk defining the group in the public mind. This dynamic distorts public understanding and can delegitimize causes that are broader, more nuanced, and often more reasonable than the headlines suggest.

A second question is almost as critical: Even if the fringe is small, does the rest of the group tolerate or excuse it?

This is where things become more complex. While most members may not support the extreme or offensive behavior, they may be reluctant to speak out against it. This can be out of fear of internal backlash, a desire to preserve group unity, or a belief that “the other side is worse.”

This silence can be costly. When extremism is tolerated, it can gradually reshape the movement's image, alienate potential allies, and erode public trust.

There are numerous historical and contemporary examples. In politics, both major American parties have struggled with radical factions whose behavior repels centrists and damages the party’s public credibility.

In activist circles, organizations lose mainstream support and drive away many of their own members if they are perceived to excuse or ignore violent or deeply polarizing actions. In religious organizations, the failure to clearly condemn harmful rhetoric and actions by its members is often seen as moral and ethical hypocrisy by the broader public and many congregants.

Thus, the key is not just identifying whether a view or action is fringe, but asking whether the broader group actively pushes back, or passively lets it stand.

Movements and groups that wish to remain credible and effective must not only promote their ideals, but also police their margins. They must have the courage to loudly say, “That does not represent us,” and back it up with meaningful actions.