Zero Props for the Moderates
I have no more patience for “moderates.”
The political spectrum is broad, with an expansive range of beliefs. Likewise there seems to be an ever-growing glossary of labels and combinations of labels for each specific set of beliefs. You don’t have to settle for being just a socialist or an anarchist: you could be an eco-socialist or an anarcho-capitalist; rather than be a conservative or libertarian, you can ascribe to liberal conservatism or paleolibertarianism, the latter of which I suppose means your political belief is dependent on hunting and foraging and not consuming dairy or processed foods. While there’s some room for debate on the merits of most political philosophies, except any kind of fascism or nazism which are unequivocally evil and garbage, and each may have something to offer in nuance to the left-right debate, they can all still be boiled down and placed somewhere on the binary. In its simplest form, all political thought falls to the left or the right. Though there are many subgroups of diverse beliefs and values, nearly everyone falls into one of the two larger groups, those who want to make life better for all people and those that don’t. However much individuals differ on either side, there is a good side and a bad side, one that wants to move forward and improve, and one that wants to obstruct and regress. But there is a third group that fits between the two and is entirely useless, the “moderate.”
The word “radical” is thrown freely with little thought for its meaning. In this country, particularly, anyone on the left who works for the good of others is derided as a radical. Advocate for everyone to have healthcare and a living wage and you’re a radical leftist. Meanwhile there’s a struggle for many to just come out and say that restricting the rights of LGBTQ people to exist or separating families and caging children are radically rightwing actions, or that openly advocating against democratic procedures is fascism. In simplest terms, to be a radical means that you believe in a political position strongly enough to declare it publically, work for it, fight for it. Being a radical means that, good or bad, you’re trying to get something done.
Given this, most of us are, to some degree, radicals.
Except the moderates.
Moderates are people who refuse to make a decision, whose beliefs are weakly held enough, or they simply hold weak beliefs, that they refuse to make the choice between good and bad and want to sit comfortably between the two. It baffles me that there are people in this world who can look at two different options and not only not pick one, but decide that they want to stay in the middle, abstain from choosing. Their position is that everything’s fine. Let’s not change anything. Perhaps they deserve some credit for not siding with evil, but they just as stubbornly decline to side with good.
You know who else had no patience for moderates? Martin Luther King Jr.
King was a radical, obviously of the left, the side of good. Yet he is invoked by those of the left, the right, and the “center” with an air of equal ownership, as if he himself were some middle of the road compromising moderate whose views and actions everyone has always agreed on. King was one of the most hated men in the US during the time of his activism. He was despised by the right, only got support from those more “radical” on the left, and didn’t get a goddamn thing from the moderates.
At least with “radicals,” you know where they stand. You know if they are on your side or not. You can almost respect an enemy who proudly declares their evil thoughts and intentions. But a moderate is useless. They will not help in the fight for good. Worse than that, they get in the way. Rather than allow the battle between good and evil to play out, they pathetically profess that a compromise is not only possible but the way to go. They will go to any lengths of inaction to see that nothing gets done and the status quo is preserved.
“I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.” Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail