Thursday, April 16, 2015

Everything in moderation

People like to imagine moderates as occupying a Goldilocks 'just right' position between two otherwise obviously-wrong extremes, but being a moderate is often a matter of convenience rather than principle. They compromise because they just want to be left alone and will pick the path of least resistance, not because they see the position they're advancing at all ideal. More importantly, they're politically and socially irrelevant, precisely because they react rather than act - you can shift their positions just by screaming at them louder, and with more voices. But they never scream at anyone but the party that's already outnumbered anyway.

3 comments:

Athena Carson said...

"Being a moderate is often a matter of convenience rather than principle."

Agreed. See also - "The truth is always between the two extremes."

No. No it's not. That's the lazy way of looking at it.

Now, that's not to say that for any particular issue the truth is NOT between the two extremes, but you have to have a REASON for arriving there other than the simple principle of staying in the middle.

The Deuce said...

Well said. Real moderation is about self-control and deferral of gratification above impulse, not being controlled and cowed by others, or taking a "middle-ground" position. Most people who make a big deal out of how "moderate" they are are really just weaklings trying to rationalize their weakness as principle.

msgrx said...

See also - "The truth is always between the two extremes."


Reminds me of a joke I heard once: The other day, I happened across two mathematicians, who were arguing over whether the first integer is 0 or 1. For some reason, neither of them seemed inclined to accept my compromise solution of 0.5.