When you drive your car, do you drive in the middle of the road? This seems a silly question to ask because you don’t, of course, if you want to stay alive and get somewhere.

But a lot of people have been sold on the idea that the middle of the road is the safest place in politics on all sorts of controversial questions. They have been led to believe that in the middle position you are out of harm’s way and you are more likely to be right than those who are on either side of a question. A little thought will show that this idea is born not of wisdom but of confusion or fear or both.

Richard M. Weaver
“The Middle of the Road: Where It Leads,” 1956

Machiavelli warned that neutrality is more dangerous than taking sides; for if you fail to take a side, both sides will despise you. Playing both ends against the middle is also dangerous, since you prove to be a false friend to all. And being everyone’s friend will not work if each side represents diametrically opposing principles. The right camp is never found in splitting the difference between two opposing camps. Conservative philosopher Richard M. Weaver pointed out in 1956, “middle-of-the-roadism is not a political philosophy at all. It is rather the absence of a philosophy or an attempt to evade having a philosophy.”