Dude, I think we're done. I don't know what you want me to say. For some reason this whole concept has eluded you in a way that I don't understand. Maybe it's the word extreme that you're hung up on. What do you mean by extreme? For me and the dope who wrote your article, extreme would be the furthermost end of the political spectrum. That is where the tea party lies economically. That position...the end... is what makes them extreme. What don't you get about that?
Extreme left is when the government runs every aspect of the economy. So in Communism (though, I guess not China), the government runs the businesses. The center is usually a mixture of regulations and private businesses. I can't point to an economy that is far right, because I don't know that one has ever existed in the way it's defined. Argentina and Chile have both come close, but each had it's exceptions. First it involves Free Markets the way economists would define them. The idea is, the government imposes zero regulations. Not only that, but absolutely nothing can be public. No public schools, no public water, no public healthcare, no social security. Also there can be no tariffs. It's free trade with everyone. The tea party position is that they support free markets and deregulation. I believe that puts them on the very end. They may or may not support privatizing water or ending social security, but that's how a free market is suppose to be. Even if you were to move them a hair left of that ultimate endpoint, they're still goddamn close. Do you see now how I'm saying that they're extreme?
If you still don't get it, just tell me to fuck off or something because I'm tired of saying the same shit over and over and over.