The pros and cons of radicalism

A recent post by Paul Krugman got me thinking today. His editorial really tries to portray the GOP as an extremist group. Maybe it is now, I'm not sure, but if so why is this bad? If you believe in a certain way of thinking, it would seem to be quite natural to move positively in that direction. Krugman, here is justifying why the democrats are better than republicans as if the democratic party wasn't just as full of radicals as the republican party.

Either way, there is implicit "way of the Buddha" = good in his post, that I don't think is a fair assumption. Certainly, keeping the middle ground will certainly keep a person popular but it by no means guarantees that your philosophy or theology or whatever is well grounded. I come at this point from my own perspective of libertarianism where I really see a firm grounding in what they believe, contrary to what most conservatives or liberals seem to believe. Both sides make lofty statements to defense or education or whatever topic with out any real sense as to why what their arguing for is such a good thing. Maybe that's why the two sides seem to disagree all the time. Their implicit assumptions are not known to themselves or to the other side, so they simply talk past each other. If that's true maybe it is a good thing that we cherish the middle ground, because if you don't have a firm philosophy in mind you're quite likely to go careening off into dangerous territory.

I remember reading the Quest for the Radical Middle which is a history of the Vineyard movement which I've been a part of since college. It's a great story of trying to split the line between Pentecostalism and Evangelicalism, a position the vineyard has had since it's inception and why I think they tend to come down on the correct side of so many issues when it comes to religion. Really its about believing the whole of scripture in its context and then moving forward radically in that direction. It's certainly something that drew me to the movement and hopefully will sustain it for many generations.

How do these things relate? I guess it shows that when you are well grounded in your assumptions, be they be political philosophy or theology you can be and should be quite radical. Push forward with whatever you believe in. It's those kinds of radicals that change the world for the better. On the other hand, if you fail to ground yourself and you become radical you'll end up a touchy-feely, wishy-washy pentecostal versus an all brain, no heart, bible thumping evangelical. Or a bleeding heart liberal versus tea-partying conservative.