The ideal position, then, is not in the center, closer to the less moral position. It’s further out.
For example, let us say that we believe it’s self-evident that all people are equal under the law
Total equality would be an ideal
1) a proposition that creates less equality;
2) one that creates more equality;
then the midpoint is further away from equality than the 2nd proposition
That’s IF all accept equality as an ideal
If the latter is true, we are compromising not on tactics but on our principles
We may arrive at some middle point short of our goal—but because opposition held us back, not because we moved toward opposition.
As for convincing your opponents of the rightness of your ideals over theirs, I say:
You don’t convince people to go in your direction by going in their direction.
My ideal as a world with no guns. I support a total ban on the sale and manufacture of guns.
My stance on guns is that sweeping gun control legislation is the compromise position, in alignment with that ideal.
If not, I’m happy to work toward a total ban on the sale and manufacture of guns.