Picture this situation: You have a group of one hundred people; fifty, say two plus two equals four, and fifty, say two plus two equals five. Five refuse to budge and hold that two plus two equals four, and five hold that two plus two equals five. Ninety people compromise and agree two plus two equals four and a half. This 90% feels that cooperation is a higher value than truth. By compromising and agreeing that two plus two equals four and a half, one side sacrifices truth (two plus two equals four) for political expediency, and the other delays its ultimate goal (two plus two equals five) for a half-step step toward its goal. Over time, and with repeated compromises and sacrifices of truth, the non-truth wins out. The side representing truth loses all its values. Eventually, two plus two will officially equal five. When this occurs, every equation requiring a five will fail. With compromises, the truth is lost. When truth is sacrificed, reality is discarded, and competence disappears.
In this example, ten people still do not agree two plus two equals four and a half. Five still say that plus two equals five, and five say two plus two equals four. These ten people would be called “extremists” by their opposition but not their supporters.
In this example, 90% of the people lack moral integrity and sacrifice truth to preserve their relationship with others. Five percent are gaslighting the public and are 100% invested in a lie. Only 5% dare to hold to their convictions and stand for truth regardless of the consequences. These are the most courageous, noble, and moral, yet they are labeled “extremists” as a way to vilify them. Those who are labeled extremists are those who dare to stick to their convictions. When morality is on the line, only truly moral people will stick to their convictions, and the genuinely moral will often be vilified as “extremists.” When you hear the term “extremist” uttered, notice the moral convictions of the condemned person. If the “extremists” are violent or engage in criminal activity, they are terrorists, not “extremists.” If they are not violent and stand to defend the Constitution and the rights of the people and do so without compromise, they are patriots. It’s okay to be extremely patriotic.
We often see members of Congress compromising the people’s values for political expediency. When members of Congress have stock portfolios that are out-pacing the S&P index by a wide margin, it questions whether they are there to serve the people or get rich through insider trading. In each session, they only have a limited amount of time to enact laws that will move the markets in a way they can capitalize on. Those there to profit don’t have time for robust debate on Constitutional issues; they want to pass laws that affect markets. Those with fidelity to the Constitution will not budge on moral issues such as the God-given rights of the people. Those with moral convictions are okay with everything coming to a screeching halt. They would rather see gridlock than sacrifice a moral value. Those who hold personal profit as their highest value will quickly compromise on everything since time is of the essence to them.
2023 saw several representatives hold their ground on the Speakership of the House. These representatives were elected by constituents on their promise to do all possible to end continuous resolutions, the printing of money, and the expansion of the government. They demanded Kevin McCarthy make a promise to refrain from engaging in continuing resolutions, printing money, and expanding the government. When House Speaker McCarthy broke his promise, they invoked a motion to vacate the House and succeeded. Polls showed over 80% of conservatives in the public supported vacating the Speaker, but the vast majority of “Conservatives” in Congress were quite the opposite. The members of Congress were concerned that they “Can’t get anything done!” They were more concerned with making laws and affecting markets than the financial solidarity of the nation. The few representatives who held to their convictions were all vilified by the establishment as “extremists.” If only we had more of them, our nation wouldn’t be in such disarray.
Your political opposition loves “moderates” because they have no underlying principles, are easily swayed, and will compromise truth. Moderates often cannot articulate a point effectively and convincingly; they have yet to think an idea through in the big picture or are not being honest. Moderate conservatives have conservative values with liberal myopia and don’t see the big picture; they lack the conviction of an “extremist.”
When the only metric that qualifies a person as “extreme” is the unwillingness to compromise, and since morals mean nothing if compromised, then being accused of being an “extremist” on a moral issue is a badge of honor, and being called a “moderate” on a moral issue is a mark of shame.
What does it mean to be extreme when you are promulgating moral concepts? The extreme view on freedom of religion is that you are free to practice your faith and have the relationship with God you want. The extreme view on freedom of the press is you are free to share what you experience with others. The extreme view on freedom of speech is that you can speak without consequence. The extreme view on the right to assemble is that you can meet up with others. The extreme view on the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is that you have the right to be listened to (without consequence) when you have a complaint. The extreme view of the presumption of innocence means you have a right to defend yourself and a right to due process. I could go on, but you get the picture.
The extreme view on law is that the laws created by the people’s representatives should be followed as they were created so long as they remain congruent with the protected rights of the people. Sadly, we have come a long way from congruent laws and now have a state where laws contradict rights, leading to a condition where the public loses trust and respect for the authority the people give to the Government. Instead of securing rights, the Government serves a portion of the people at the expense of those not protected.
We created a Constitutional Republic with democratic elections to secure our rights. People who respect the opinions of others stand in defense of the republic as it was made. Only those who selfishly want what benefits them without regard to the process and laws created by the people are not extreme when it comes to fidelity to the republic.
Extremism when it comes to the Constitution is patriotism.