The polarization of the U.S. becomes clearly evident upon each wave of presidential politicking every four years. Should America drift to the left or to the right? Ideally I think the U.S. should strike a middle of the road approach, but “middle” also depends on where one thinks the middle should be. That decision is often determined on the basis of recognizing the extremes of the political left and right and committing oneself to stay far away from such extremes. For example right-wing extremism can develop into authoritarian, intolerant fascism if not held in check by forces of the political left. However left-wing extremism can result in lawless anarchy if not held in check by forces of the political right. A country needs both points of view to have an outlet of expression in order to keep the culture from trending so far to the left or the right that there exists nare a word of caution to slow it down from becoming mired in its extreme elements.
I think Rick Joyner said it best when he stated, “If you are a student of history, you see how civilization fluctuates between extremes just like people do. The story of our U.S. government is fairly consistent, moving politically from the left and then back to the right. This is not necessarily a bad thing—an eagle needs both a left wing and a right wing to fly. Even so, if you are trending in one direction, moving to the left a little more each time than you do to the right, you will end up turning left overall. The same is true if you trend to the right.”[1]
[1] http://www.morningstarministries.org/resources/word-week/2012/developing-trustworthy-media-path-life-part-26
A Theology in Tension 
I think you have it completely backwards here. In the modern American understanding of “right wing” and “left wing” If you went all the way to the right you would have anarchy. Modern American conservatives, by definition, want government to assert less control over free and law-abiding people’s lives. For example, it wasn’t a right wing politician who proposed banning large sodas in New York City. That was a man with left wing inclinations, Mayor Michael Bloomberg. It isn’t right wing politicians proposing tax increase laws which strip people of their liberty in the form of earned income. Granted, most (certainly not all) conservatives are for some sort of government coercion when it comes to abortion and upholding the traditional definition of marriage but outside of those issues it seems that people on the right want less government not more. Even in the case of those social issues, their opposition is expressed in a way that would leave it to individual states to decide their futures, not the federal government.
On the other hand, the left wing of the political spectrum, when taken to an extreme would, in fact, resemble a totalitarian society devoid of any real personal liberty outside of sexuality. Those twentieth century societies that moved far to the left (i.e strong central governments): the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba, Kim Il-Sung’s North Korea, Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnam, etc.
Thanks for the good comments Tyler. Sometimes defining political terms and their affiliated consequences can be quite the challenge because it is often a moving target. What makes it even more difficult is that anarchists can come in many different stripes. Some anarchists are anti-war and oppose all forms of aggression and others are quite violent and revolutionary and advocate bombings. In my research the general consensus in academia is that anarchy is identified as a radical left-wing affiliated movement. You are right to point out thoughg that modern anarchists usually dislike and distrust centralized governments. But I think they approach that distaste for different reasons than right-wingers who also distrust government and want to minimize it’s intrusion in their lives. Modern anarchists are often social, left-wing anarchists who want to destabilize central powers of authority in the West because they feel the West tramples upon the rest of marginalized world and have no moral legitimacy. (Every time the WTO meets we see them in mass). Right-wingers tend to want to limit an expansion of government power because of a fear of losing individual rights. All that said anarchism as a movement has never been able to garner much coherency and attraction because there are so many contradictory viewpoints subsumed under the term anarchy today. One never knows what they really stand for.
Fascism is likewise difficult to nail down definitively. But historically it is usually identified as a right-wing movement of the populace that is anti-socialist and anti-liberal.