It’s always fun to watch presidential debates. Each side attempts to pick a candidate who supports most of the tenants of a political party while being “moderate” enough to pull voters from a different philosophical mindset.
We hear that Tea Party activists or socialists are “extremists” and should be considered dangerous to all. In some ways that statement is correct, but the implication is completely false.
There are two accepted extremes when it comes to government:
Extreme Option 1: Government should be bigger and more engaged/controlling in the lives of its citizens
Extreme Option 2: Government should be smaller and less engaged/controlling in the lives of its citizens
We’ve been taught that people like Bernie Sanders represent Extreme Option 1 and people like Ron Paul represent Extreme Option 2. Everyone else falls somewhere in the middle of Big vs. Small and cunningly refer to themselves as “moderates.”
Is there really such thing as a moderate?
On the “far left” we have socialists and communists. Those who built many a failed state, but believe that government serves as a tool to equalize the lives of its citizens in all areas of life. On the “far right” we have conservatives and libertarians. Those who built one failed state (pre-20th Century U.S.), and believe that government should be limited to protecting and enforcing certain “inalienable” rights.
They are different, very different, true. Each side represents one extreme of a spectrum between big and small, but there is a common bond between them. Both sides are guided purely by philosophy and what each side believes is in the best interests of its citizens. To that regard, even a liberty junkie like myself can see integrity in a deep red communist.
This brings me to the point of this post. Our understanding of “extremism” is completely flawed. The idea that there is a “middle” that is somehow the best of both worlds is a ridiculous ploy used to keep a third and disgusting extreme in power. It’s the extreme of compromise, a word that gets a good reputation even though it merely means that one settles for less than what he or she believes to be true.
Some lucky politicians carved out that space they labeled as “the middle,” but all the middle is is one central point of an extremist triangle.
Here’s how the middle extreme works. Men and women pick one of two “sides”
– Civilian Expenditures
– Military Expenditures
So long as one side can get as much money as it ones for the causes it wants to advance, it can accept that the other side gets an equal share of the pie. Each “side” then uses the other’s growth to scare more people into voting for it. What do these expenditures go to?
People call the U.S. a “capitalist” country and blame corporations for ruining our economy. They believe that capitalists believe that corporations are people, but such is not the case. In a true capitalist economy, corporations exist for specific work and an individual is entirely liable for his or her company. This is how the U.S. operated well into the 19th Century.
Once socialism and communism failed to create moral or healthy nations (think Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union) a new idea emerged: What if we funnel government funds into companies and they control the market for us! It was a perfect plan.
Those on the “moderate left” get money for their friends in certain industries and those on the “moderate right” get money for their friends in industries tied to the military. It’s called the “military industrial complex” for a reason. Either way, friends of politicians get boatloads of government cash and elected officials stay in office, all by playing the fears of one against the fears of the other.
Meanwhile, our debt is out of control, other countries want to kill us and the poor are given a broken economy to find jobs in and just enough money not to riot. Like the center of a volcano, where the “left” and “right” meet is pent up force that inevitably explodes and kills everything for a while.
This isn’t just observation, it’s completely predictable. Hold your breath and watch this dramatized version of Ron Paul’s famous “Predictions in Due Time” speech to Congress:
The fact is; a middle can never exist. In our case, “the middle” is simply a way for politicians to avoid the true discipline of communism or libertarianism while making a pretty penny, and you better believe your favorite politician is most likely in line for their blank check.
There are three extremes, the left, the right, and the compromise. If anything, don’t compromise what you believe.