Extremism and Its Virtue

In the heat of a very intense nominating convention in 1964, Barry Goldwater addressed the issue of extremism.

Like any term of disapproval, it can be used for its power to summon a strong, negative emotional response. Those who worship power, as opposed to those unafraid to use power in service of a higher end, have no compunction about using such a word again and again without ever establishing a case for its validity. Such people distrust their fellow citizens. They do not want their minds and hearts, only to recruit them as pawns in their own attempt to gain checkmate.

This misuse of terms is as old as civilization. Plato takes up this theme in Gorgias in which Socrates asks of Callicles:

Do you think that orators always speak with regard to what’s best? Do they always set their sights on making the citizens as good as possible through their speeches? Or are they, too, bent upon the gratification of the citizens and, slighting the common good for the sake of their own private good, do they treat the people like children, their sole attempt being to gratify them?

Goldwater set about clearing the rhetorical swamp that characterized the bitter Republican infighting of the year of his nomination. He knew that the Left had successfully identified every negative societal trend with conservatism. He was going to clean that up and show what lasting American values really were.

Goldwater was no bigot. He spoke with pride of his Jewish ancestry though he was not Jewish. He vehemently opposed the Jim Crow laws by which racial discrimination in private life was imposed by government force. He founded the Arizona NAACP and worked to desegregate the Arizona National Guard and the Phoenix public schools among other things.

Goldwater considered the leader of the John Birch Society, Robert Welch, to be crazed. Years after the 1964 convention, he expressed regret at not having united the Republicans then by pushing through a condemnation of the group whose prime loyalty was to themselves and not to the Republicans.

But at that convention, Goldwater tried to clarify the issue of extremism by going to the core meaning of the word and showing that in some very important contexts, extremism was laudable. His words, most remembered of any spoken at that convention, were: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

First of all, this speaks to Goldwater’s conservatism — this powerful and carefully nuanced reading of extremism has a distinguished history. Its oldest source is from the Roman senator Cicero, whose renowned oratory was a staple in classical education for centuries. And it has deep American roots as well — the firebrand radical patriot Thomas Paine wrote: “A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.”

Goldwater’s intent is in harmony with Paine in that on the core issues, issues of principle, it is not virtuous to equivocate. This is the nature of the dedication to great and principled causes. American independence begins with this. The last words of the Declaration are: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

When the cause of civilization seemed nearly lost, with the British army leaving all its equipment behind as it fled a France broken before Hitler’s army, Churchill spoke to his full cabinet. His message was that compromise of the great principles behind their war with Nazism was not possible no matter how dark things seemed. He concluded his remarks with these words:

I am convinced … that every man of you would rise up and tear me down from my place if I were for one moment to contemplate parley or surrender. If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.

Great causes require great dedication.

But this is only part of the story of this teaching. As Paine put it, “Moderation in temper is always a virtue.” Depending on its employment, moderation can be either virtuous or vicious. And therefore, our discernment becomes crucial — is it temperament or principle that is at hand? The stakes are extremely high for anyone who cares about the difference between vice and virtue.

In his late twelfth century code of law, Maimonides set out the laws of character that derive from Scripture and the many precedents and rulings in the law system derived from its teachings. There he writes:

Each and every man possesses many character traits. Each trait is very different and distant from the others.

One type of man is wrathful; he is constantly angry. In contrast, there is the calm individual who is never moved to anger, or, if at all, he will be slightly angry, perhaps once during a period of several years.

There is the prideful man and the one who is exceptionally humble. There is the man ruled by his appetites — he will never be satisfied from pursuing his desires, and conversely, the very pure of heart, who does not desire even the little that the body needs.

The two extremes of each trait, which are at a distance from one another, do not reflect a proper path. It is not fitting that a man should behave in accordance with these extremes or teach them to himself.

If he finds that his nature leans towards one of the extremes or adapts itself easily to it, or, if he has learned one of the extremes and acts accordingly, he should bring himself back to what is proper and walk in the path of the good men. This is the straight path.

This ruling Maimonides not only built upon Scriptural references, which he cites there in his text, but also upon the writings of Aristotle. That great Greek noted a principle of balance at work in nature at large but especially in human character. In his Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle teaches that with respect to every personality trait, virtue is to be found at the balance point, not at the extremes. There in 2:6, he writes that virtue

is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect; and again it is a mean because the vices respectively fall short of or exceed what is right in both passions and actions, while virtue both finds and chooses that which is intermediate.

We see here the emergence of a Western civilization that includes both Athens and Jerusalem. In Maimonides, as with the best of the medieval Christian and Muslim philosophers, the insights of philosophy serve the ends of religion by giving it a power to communicate in universal terms, not dependent on the exclusive truth claims of each tradition. Aquinas and the Scholastics will tread this path; Avicenna (ibn Sina) and al Farabi had already trod this path.

Religions are known for inspiring their followers to extreme commitment. Well they should — the greatest truths in the world are worth sacrifice, and martyrdom is a most powerful testimony. In our examples above, the Declaration inspired American patriots to give all for the sake of an independence that would not otherwise have been achieved. And as Churchill said, it was the British people who were fought like lions in the victory over Nazism; he merely was called upon to give the roar.

But as Patton reminded us, the main job in victory is not to die for your cause, but to grant that to the enemy. For many Germans fought to the death, as did the soldiers of the Empire of Japan. That did not make their cause righteous.

And the same is true in our day — first we must be sure we are not slaves of our own immoderate temperament before we allow ourselves an extreme dedication. If we do not, chances are, we are devotion is to something other than the Highest and is, properly speaking, idolatrous.

Thus, in Maimonides’ law code, martyrdom, devotion to the point of death, is called “sanctification of God’s name” — but only secondarily and under the most extreme circumstances. Normally, one sanctifies God by demonstrating in one’s life a wise and virtuous path within life, even under provocation. He founds this on the Leviticus text that calls God’s laws as those “which a man will perform and live by them.” The laws were given so that one may live by them and not die because of them. If a person dies rather than transgress, he is held accountable for his life.

Goldwater’s thought challenges us. He said the words because they were true. As short-term expedients, they didn’t work. Democrats successfully and sophistically used his words to brand him as an extremist. But Goldwater’s courage brought Ronald Reagan to the public eye and so to the great rebirth of an American conservatism in tune with America’s heart and brought a stupendous victory in the war against the vicious extremism of Soviet communism.

We have issues worth debating thoroughly. To do that well, we have first debated within, finding the sweet balance point of our soul, so that we can hone in on the great truths that alone may call forth that last great measure of devotion. Like Goldwater, we must not be afraid of the good fight. But to fight that fight and win, we must not make an idol of our own quirks and proclivities. First, we must seek that clear center point, the natural balance people of wisdom have spoken of through the ages. Then, divested of idolatry, we will know where to devote ourselves entirely and rise to our divine calling.

READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin:

Friends May Betray Us, but Choose Agency

Wendell Berry Shows Us How To Love in Loss

Trivializing Religion Left Us Unprepared for Political Islam