Conservatives as racists. Religious fundamentalists as theocrats. Non-Progressive corporate executives as greedy. Republicans as right-wing conspirators. Liberals as communists. Democrats as unpatriotic. Time after time, either directly or by insinuation, we see opinion makers employing these images.

What is represented in this style of discourse is the activist tactic of "Polarization." In Polarization, an opinion maker images one side in political debate as Good and other, competing actors as Evil. A device that plays to human emotion, the purpose of polarization is to compel a target audience to act in support of the activist's agenda or political party. Renowned progressive organizer Saul Alinsky wrote that: "Before men can act, an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil."

What harm can there be in polarization? Perhaps it can lead us to a higher, more progressive society. Perhaps "Progressives" are the only force for tolerance, and in de-legitimizing alternative voices we could eliminate hate. Perhaps the American Civil Liberties Union is on the side of enlightened reasoning, and kicking out the religious people might result in a more humanized society. Perhaps conservatives are the repositories of Americanism, and stripping influence away from liberal cultural elites might result in a more patriotic United States. If our country will advance to a higher level as the result of actors employing the polarization technique against their opponents, is not the price worth it?

The problem with polarization is that it fosters the notion that people can indict others of base behavior even when such accusations are extreme and the targets are innocent. The problem with polarization rhetoric is that persons who have their own axes to grind or interests to promote can come to believe that there is nothing wrong with portraying benign behavior on the part of innocent people as despicable.

Once society and its elites legitimize demonizing as an acceptable form of political discourse, is anyone's reputation safe? Lawrence Summers resigned as president of Harvard University as a result of charges of sexism that were not true. Joseph Lieberman -- his party's vice presidential pick in 2000 -- lost his state's primary in 2006 after being characterized as a racist and a far right-wing ideologue. In 2007 three students on the Duke University Lacross team were persecuted because of false racism charges. In 2008 the Obama campaign in South Carolina compiled a list of reasons "proving" Hillary Clinton was racist. In July of 2009 President Obama initially accepted as real false allegations of racism against a Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer.

It is easy to become accustomed to polarization as a tactic of politics. It is especially possible to do this at election time or in periods of partisanship and divided government. And the First Amendment expert might actually value demonizing as a sign that freedom of speech is alive and well. But the device is not to be taken lightly.