Selecting Correct Allegiances

In the current political climate, the time to organize opposition to what some may deem as "idiocy" is now. This call to action echoes the sentiments of two influential thinkers, Richard M. Weaver and Thomas Carlyle, who argued against middle-of-the-road politics in the 19th century.

Thomas Carlyle, a renowned literary figure, saw heroes and great men as those who had the courage to see the truth others were afraid to see and take a stand when others would not. He denounced political moderation that avoids strong convictions, believing that a lack of clear principles in leadership leads to chaos and decline.

Richard M. Weaver, on the other hand, contended that middle-of-the-road politics represents a compromise that dilutes core principles, producing ineffective governance and a society bereft of higher moral and intellectual standards. He emphasized the need for definitive values and the cultivation of a principled life to preserve cultural and moral order.

Historically, both thinkers emerged during periods of social and political turbulence, such as the Industrial Revolution, where compromise seemed to rewarded at the expense of moral clarity. Their philosophical opposition to centrist politics stems from a conviction that only through adherence to transcendent principles can society maintain coherence, purpose, and vitality.

Weaver warned that a beaten party without an issue is a dead duck, while a beaten party with a real issue has an excellent chance of coming back. He also noted that there is no viable middle position between militant collectivism and individualism and freedom. He characterized the emerging Republican establishment of the post-McCarthy period as representing a "curious piece of political servility and blindness."

The British Liberal Party serves as a cautionary tale. By taking a middle position between the Conservative Party and the Labor Party, the Liberal Party neutralized itself and was ultimately destroyed in British politics.

Machiavelli warned that neutrality is more dangerous than taking sides. Weaver described the operational thinker as someone who does not really 'think' but 'senses' like an insect with its antennae, detecting the drift of things. He noted that the right camp is never found in splitting the difference between two opposing camps, and playing both ends against the middle is also dangerous, since you prove to be a false friend to all.

Weaver also warned against self-defeat through compromise, stating that modern man is a moral idiot and a parricide who has taken up arms against what former men have regarded with filial veneration. He believed that something will be affirmed and advanced in the great and perpetual struggle that is history, and that somebody's philosophic principles will prevail.

Recent historical events seem to support this perspective. For instance, the middle-of-the-road Jeb Bush did not go to the White House, while the hard-hitting Donald J. Trump sits in the White House as these words were written. If collectivists win, it will be recorded by history that no people ever gave up so much for so little.

In conclusion, the importance of principles in political decision-making lies in providing a stable moral compass, fostering genuine leadership, and preventing the paralysis or superficiality that Weaver and Carlyle associate with middle-of-the-road politics. We do not need leaders or political parties predicated on self-defeat through compromise. Instead, we must stand up for the country and stand up for posterity.

The call to action in the current political climate reflects the sentiments of thinkers like Richard M. Weaver and Thomas Carlyle, who opposed middle-of-the-road politics due to their belief that it leads to chaos and decline.
Thomas Carlyle considered heroes and great leaders as those who stand for truth when others fear to do so, denouncing political moderation that avoids strong convictions.
Richard M. Weaver argued that middle-of-the-road politics dilutes core principles, leading to ineffective governance and a society without high moral and intellectual standards.
Historically, both thinkers emerged during periods of social and political turbulence, and their philosophical opposition to centrist politics is rooted in the belief that only through adherence to transcendent principles can society maintain coherence, purpose, and vitality.
Weaver warned that compromise can lead to self-defeat, and he believed that something will be affirmed and advanced in the ongoing struggle that is history, with someone's philosophical principles eventually prevailing.
Recent historical events seem to support this perspective, as a hard-hitting leader like Donald J. Trump, who did not compromise, sits in the White House, while a more moderate candidate like Jeb Bush did not.