Finally a defense of extremism

Jonah Goldberg puts forth an excellent defense of extremism is today's NRO.

I have always disliked the idiots who are always pushing "moderate" and "centrist" approaches to problems. It is a weak argument. The argument Goldberg makes about extreme solutions points out that at least they are feasible. Both extreme positions on the war in Iraq are feasible. Either we get tough and discard the rules of engagement, or we simply admit defeat and withdraw. Currently we are trying to fight in a "centrist" manner: kill terrorist but try to avoid any bad press or civilian casualties.

I have always distrusted people who claimed they were moderate. What that person is bascially saying is "I do not have any real core beliefs or anything that I could not compromise on." To me that is untenable. It reeks of a life lived without passions.

Whittaker Chambers once said that a man needs a reason to live and a reason to die.

Would anyone die for the moderate position on anything?

I know most people turn to the moderate position out of a belief that they are doing the right thing, that they will take the best of the extreme positions, put them together and form a workable solution. What they end up with is a hodgepodge of contradictory ideas that turn into a bureaucratic nightmare.

For those advocates of moderation I have the following questions: Am I to be moderate in my pursuit of justice? Am I to be moderate in the pursuit of the Good and Truth? Am I to be moderate in doing what is right?