I think that might be true in the US. The issue in the US is that extremism is incentivized. Because of the two party system and the primary system it encourages selection of extreme candadites at the primary level where involvement is small and without a 3rf party the jump from right to left is too far so staying in your camp makes sense. So I disagree that letting the extreme voices have a voice enables ectremisim. Having a system that structurally reinforces extreme positions results in extremism. Also the democratization of everything down to the dog catcher including judges allows this extremism to infect all aspects of society.
In Canada we have 3 relatively central parties who wouldn't dare touch abortion or defund public medicine. We still have the Primary problem but because we have less frequent and non-planned leadership races, local ridings setting their own dates, and centralized power in the PMO you don't have the same ability to enrich yourself by becoming an MP and their is no national primary season. This allows local candidates to be controlled
The 3 party system ensures that smaller minorities can win seats. It encourages vote splitting amoung the majority block. In theory you would think it would allow an extremist position to get votes while the majority is split. Instead at a national level it encourages the fighting for the middle as steeling points from the other party is easier than improving turn out from the extremes and if you stray to far from the middle the central party steals your moderates.
The ease of which parties can get on the ballot also improves resistance to extremism.
Structurally Canadas system is more resistant to extremism than the US and so you see it less. So I reject the argument that moderates being moderate and listening increases polarization. Political structures that incentivize polarization are the leading factor
|