Radicalism and Moderation

What does it really mean to be "radical"? Usually when the term radical is employed it has negative connotations. It is used to imply that someone takes something "too far" or that they are willing to use very extreme measures in the name of proving their point or achieving their desired goals. But I think that this common view of the meaning of being radical is quite flawed. A question that immediately pops into my mind is: radically what? Are you radically correct or radically incorrect? Radical relative to what? Radical Islam? Radical Capitalism? Radical Atheism? Radical Socialism? What does radical really mean? Why should the term radical be divorced from context? Why should the term radical always have a negative connotation? Couldn't it be good to be radical? Is there not a sense in which radical can simply mean logically consistant? Is someone radical for taking themselves seriously? Because if that's the case, everyone is radical to some degree. I don't have any shame in calling myself a radical. I'm proudly radical about what I think. That doesn't mean that I'm going to burn anyone's house down in the name of my beliefs, it simply means that I have the courage of my convictions and that I at least think that I have logical consistancy on my side.

On the other side of the coin, the term "moderate" is commonly employed in a positive manner. The moderate is supposed to be the opposite of the radical. The moderate is thought of as being reasonable, while the radical is thought of as being irrational. The moderate is looked to as someone who won't go through allegedly extreme measures to prove their point or achieve their cause. But I would say that there is a negative sense to being a moderate, particularly as it relates to politics. In my view, a political moderate is someone who lacks the courage of their convictions or is unable to make up their mind about much of anything. A moderate political person is someone who constantly changes their position in an oppurtunistic manner, essentially "blowing in the wind". A moderate politician is one who essentially panders. I don't see this as a good thing at all. Why is it a good thing to have your mind so open that you don't really believe anything? Shouldn't you have some courage to your convictions? The moderate lacks the certainty and confidence of the radical. The moderate is unstable in that they lack any fixity to their position on any ideological spectrum.

There's another sense in which moderation can be viewed. Moderation is the process by which people become radicalized. That is, when faced with new information or when one finds logical inconsistancies in their own positions, they moderate, as in change, their position. In order for someone to become a radical, they must go through such a process of moderation. Obviously noone starts out as a radical because they still are going through a learning process (and of course to some extent we are always going through a learning process, by being faced with new information and internally digesting that information and drawing one's own conclusions from it). In either case, as we can see, the whole radical vs. moderate dychotomy, as it is commonly thought of, breaks down because the way that the terms are typically used is disingenuous. They are essentially anti-concepts. Surely being inconsistant and uncertain ("moderate") is not necessarily a good thing, and surely being consistant and certain ("radical") is not necessarily a bad thing. Truth and falsehood is what really matters. But unfortunately the term radical has become a smear word against anything that is either logically consistant or certain.

In my understanding of the term, a radical is someone who holds the status quo up to an independant standard and refuses to back down in advocating change towards meeting that independant standard. The actual content of that independant standard is beside the point in terms of the general meaning of radicalism, although incredibly worthy of debate. The problem with dismissing all radicalism out of hand as irrational is that it avoids having to address the content of the radical's ideas. The moderate or "conservative", in contrast to the radical, bitterly resists any kind of meaningful challenge of the status quo. If they prefer any change at all, it has to be incredibly gradual. The moderate shrinks away from taking a strong stance and avoids oppurtunities to "push the red button", so to speak. While the radical, if actually given the oppurtunity to push a red button that would lead to a sweeping change that they desire, would push the button, the moderate would not. The moderate fears the consequences of meaningful changes and is hesistant to take a strong postion. While many radicals may be wrong about things, radicals alone have always been the driving force behind all of the progress of mankind because they do not shrink away from the certainty of their position and their advocation of change.