Why would anyone want to be "the most radical" in anything? Being the most radical just means you've closed off appeals to common sense, prudence, and a proper balance among competing principles.
Indeed who among the accomplished persons we admire was one of "the most radical"?
Indeed who among the accomplished persons we admire was one of "the most radical"?
https://twitter.com/kvallier/status/1295122494551199749
The men among the American founders that I most admire--Washington, Jay, Hamilton, Adams--achieved extraordinary and enduring things precisely because they were not among "the most radical."
theamericanconservative.com/articles/ameri…
theamericanconservative.com/articles/ameri…
As to recognizing that Enlightenment liberalism is no cure for mankind's ills--well, I've thought that my entire life. And yet I have never found anything appealing in being "the most radical." I leave the pleasure of that kind of recklessness to the Marxists.
I've known plenty of adolescents who are attracted to being the most radical.
At that age, there is a tendency to confuse a powerful, principled stand with "the most radical" stand.
At that age, there is a tendency to confuse a powerful, principled stand with "the most radical" stand.
But men and women attain maturity by attaining balance. The truth always lies in the proper balance of principles.
They learn you can have a powerful, principled stand, and yet for it to be true because it is takes into account the necessary balance of competing principles.
They learn you can have a powerful, principled stand, and yet for it to be true because it is takes into account the necessary balance of competing principles.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
