In Defense of Extremism: A Critique of Moderation

When reason and evidence isn’t on your side the only hope one has in winning a debate is to use negative sounding words to describe the opponent’s position in an attempt to scare people off of adapting views one disagrees with. Simply calling someone’s views “extreme,” is often enough to persuade others to steer clear of such a philosophy. Extremism has a negative connotation and so all you have to do is call someone else’s position extreme (without even having to explain how this is so or why extremism is bad) and you’ve won the “debate.”

All extremes are bad and the moderate position is always right seems to be the common sense view of the day. No matter what the position is, the truth is always a compromise between two “extreme” positions. Moderation is seen to be the most compromising position trying to make both sides happy instead of only one. Moderation is viewed as not choosing a team but simply weighing the facts objectively and coming to the conclusion that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Black and white thinking (aka extremism) is simplistic and dogmatic. Moderation is thoughtful and cool. Extremists let their emotions get the better of them, while moderates lack such dogmatism and only care about what is better for society. At least this is what we are told.

But is moderation good in and of itself? Is the middle of the road position always the most moral and ethical position, or is moderation sometimes good, but not all the time? Perhaps moderation should be taken in moderation and having moderation always be the correct position is extreme in itself.

Simply assuming that a compromise between two “extremes” is the correct position is lazy thinking. Instead of thinking about the issues, one only has to divide to come to the right answer. Instead of thinking about what is right, one only has to say “if it’s moderate it’s right and if it sounds ideological it ain’t.”

Moderation is the idea that one should have no moral views. Moderation is the coward’s view since it’s safe. Moderation doesn’t seek to challenge the status quo and make waves. Moderates say that they have no moral and ethical views since to hold moral and ethical views consistently is to be extreme. Moderates aren’t interested in what’s right but in moderation whatever that position may be.

If extremism is bad then extremism is bad irrespective of context. Either extremism is the problem or it’s what your extreme about that is. In other words, either extremism is bad no matter what the view is or that certain actions are immoral and having extreme immoral views is even worse. If extremism isn’t the problem than a moderate immoral view is worse than an extreme ethical view. If this is so then the problem is not with extremism but what one is extreme about.

Suppose there are two people arguing. Both have extreme positions. One says he doesn’t want anyone to be murdered and the other says he wants everyone in the state of Texas to be murdered. Who is right? According to the open-minded compromising moderate both sides are right to a degree. The moderate would say that murdering everyone is wrong but so is murdering no one. In an attempt at compromise, the moderate suggests only murdering 100 people. Both sides are happy here. The person who advocates murder is happy since he gets to murder but is not totally happy since he doesn’t get to murder as many people as he would like. The person who advocates no murder is happy by having not as many people murdered. In short, the moderate position is to make both sides unhappy and to not consider what the ethical view is. Instead of trying to analyze whether murder is wrong or not, the moderate just tries to please and the result is innocent people being victimized.

While I’m giving an extreme example of the moderate position it is an accurate one. Is taxation theft? The moderate doesn’t care. Instead of taxing people at 90% the moderate wants a compromise at 30% and so the result is again creating innocent victims. The moderate needs to be popular which is why the moderate is more interested in appeasement than in standing up for what is right. The moderate has no moral views and if the status quo is that the moderate is being too moderate he will gladly tweak his moderation.