People often take the political middle as being conciliatory and as a fair take between extremes. It’s seen as a place of reason between reactionary extremes. However, the political middle has no driving end goal. It must borrow its ideas and content from the extremes. This creates a hodgepodge of ideas with no clear direction. As well, one has to be the middle of good and evil. If a certain idea set is extremely good and another is extremely evil, the modus operandi of the middle roader is to find a compromise between the two. The middle is ultimately a directionless compromise that threatens one’s morality.
In the end, the political middle is driven by the extremes. Since the middle is an average of all other positions, that means the content of those other positions determine the content of the middle. Indeed, the middle must change as soon as one of the extremes change. This makes people in the middle dependent upon the opinions of the extremes. If an extreme position wanted to change the middle, they would merely have to change their own position, and the middle would adjust accordingly. This makes the middle directionless on its own (Its direction is decided by the directions of the extremes).
The middle means being the middle between good and evil. This makes the person in the middle worse than the good position, which would be an extreme, even if they’re a bit better than the evil position. The good position is, by definition, the right position. This means that being in the middle is to concede one’s righteousness and correctness. Anyone attempting to adopt the extremely good position will find themselves hindered by those in the middle, as they attempt to acclimate the good with the evil. This puts the middle at odds with what is the right choice.
The middle of a position can have its uses when it’s a non-moral issue. However, when it’s clear there’s a right position, taking a middle position is betrayal of the good. The middle has no content of its own but from the extremes that it attempts to make an amalgamation of. This leaves the middle with no direction and a dependency upon the extremes. Even though it may seem to mean well, picking the political middle position is fraught with errors.