Political moderates are often regarded as reasonable simply because they occupy a position somewhere between two extremes. Extremists, meanwhile, are dismissed as irrational, dangerous, or fanatical.

But moderation is not necessarily evidence of reason, any more than extremism is necessarily evidence of error.

Sometimes, the extremist is simply the more honest and consistent advocate of principles the moderate already accepts.

And that should concern the moderate considerably more than it usually does.

The Problem With Halfway Principles

Consider two people who agree that government should redistribute wealth to achieve greater economic equality.

One believes this should be accomplished through moderate taxation and social programs. The other believes that private ownership of productive property should be abolished altogether.

The moderate condemns the extremist for going too far.

But too far according to what principle?

If economic equality justifies violating property rights, why should those violations stop at some politically convenient percentage? If one person's need establishes a moral claim upon another person's earnings, what principle determines when that claim becomes illegitimate?

The extremist may simply be following the moderate's premises to conclusions the moderate finds uncomfortable.

The disagreement is often over how much coercion is acceptable, rather than whether coercion is justified in the first place.

And when the disagreement concerns degree rather than principle, the more consistent advocate possesses an important argumentative advantage.

The Extremist's Advantage

Political extremists frequently possess something moderates lack: ideological consistency.

They take an accepted premise and follow it toward its logical conclusion without allowing political convenience, public discomfort, or electoral calculations to interrupt them.

This doesn't make them correct.

A perfectly consistent argument built upon a false premise remains false.

But it does expose something important about the moderate who shares that premise while rejecting its implications.

If you believe the state has the moral authority to control economic activity for the collective good, the person demanding more extensive control isn't necessarily contradicting you.

He may simply be asking why you refuse to follow your own reasoning.

If you believe individual rights can be overridden whenever a sufficiently large majority demands it, what principled objection remains when that majority demands something truly oppressive?

At what point does a principle you consider virtuous suddenly become vicious?

And why?

Moderation Cannot Rescue a Bad Premise

Imagine someone arguing that theft becomes morally acceptable when the proceeds are distributed to sufficiently deserving recipients.

One person proposes taking 10 percent of someone's earnings. Another proposes taking 90 percent.

The first calls himself moderate. The second is condemned as an extremist.

Yet neither has established the moral legitimacy of taking what belongs to someone else without consent.

Their disagreement over percentages does nothing to resolve the underlying question.

A smaller violation of a right doesn't establish the legitimacy of the violation.

Nor does a larger violation become wrong merely because it is larger.

The relevant question is whether the action is justified at all.

This is why political moderation, treated as a virtue in itself, can become an intellectual refuge for people unwilling to examine their own assumptions.

They mistake restraint in applying a principle for proof that the principle is sound.

When the Logical Conclusion Becomes Unacceptable

There is a valuable intellectual test that people across the political spectrum should apply to their beliefs:

If consistently applying your principles produces outcomes you find morally unacceptable, you should reconsider the principles themselves.

That doesn't automatically mean every extreme application is logically required. Some principles contain legitimate limits, and those limits can be defended rationally.

But those limits must be established, rather than invented whenever the consequences become embarrassing.

A person who supports individual liberty, for example, need not support the liberty to murder, steal, or enslave. Respecting individual rights already entails respecting the equal rights of others.

The limitation follows from the principle itself.

By contrast, someone who advocates sacrificing individual rights to collective demands must explain why the sacrifice should stop wherever his personal comfort ends.

Without a principled boundary, moderation becomes a matter of preference.

And preferences are notoriously vulnerable to political pressure.

The Wrong Question

Political debates frequently revolve around which side has become too extreme.

But the more important question is whether the principles guiding either side are true.

A moderate socialist and a revolutionary communist may disagree profoundly about methods, institutions, and the amount of private ownership they would tolerate.

Those disagreements matter.

But wherever they share the premise that collective needs authorize overriding individual property rights, the revolutionary has an opportunity to challenge the moderate's inconsistency.

The moderate must either establish a principled limitation or reconsider the premise.

Simply declaring the revolutionary too extreme settles nothing.

The same standard applies to conservatives, nationalists, religious movements, and every other political philosophy.

No ideology deserves exemption from examining where its principles lead.

Conclusion: Consistency Is a Test, Not a Virtue by Itself

The extremist is not necessarily wrong because he is extreme, and the moderate is not necessarily right because he is moderate.

Both must be judged by the truth of their premises and the consequences of consistently applying them.

Consistency cannot turn a falsehood into truth. But it can expose the falsehoods that moderation conceals.

And sometimes the most revealing thing about an extremist is that he has the courage, or the recklessness, to take seriously what the moderate advocates only halfway.

When you recoil from the logical destination of your own political principles, the intellectually responsible response is to examine the road that led you there.

Because the problem may have begun long before anyone went too far.

"An essential point in the social philosophy of interventionism is the existence of an inexhaustible fund, which can be squeezed forever. The whole system of interventionism collapses when this fountain is drained off: The Santa Claus principle liquidates itself."

~ Ludwig Von Mises from his book Human Action [hat tip Joshua Mawhorter in his article '“Socialism to Me”: Definition by Wishful Thinking']