The beguiling myth of a 'sensible centre'

The greatest injury they sustained was the loss of control of the Supreme Court of the United States, previously crowded with "progressives": justices who believed the Constitution was flexible, and that their job was to reflect preferred political outcomes. They cried foul when President Trump appointed justices who believed their job was to simply interpret the Constitution faithfully to its original intent, and preferred outcomes were irrelevant to their legal decisions.

Last year saw "progressives" sustain riots for seven months, shoot at least 23 people dead, injure more than 700 law enforcement officers, damage over 150 federal buildings, and destroy hundreds of small businesses in the name of "progress". Corporate media and other "progressive" elites (including all those suddenly decrying political violence), celebrated and promoted the behaviour, rationalising and justifying it – even calling it "mostly peaceful". They claimed the Constitution, democracy and justice system were inadequate to achieve the social "progress" they desired, therefore political violence was at least understandable if not necessary.

It would be so much more comfortable if there was a "sensible centre", a third option somewhere between the lunacy of gender theory and the biological reality. There isn't.

It would be just dreamy if there was a way to end coal mineral mining without making electricity unaffordable to those individuals and industries which can least afford the most expensive electricity in the world, and even better if such a human cost would have a significant slowing effect on historically inevitable changes to global climate patterns. Wake up.

Is there a middle ground somewhere between the Christian belief that all human life is sacred and the "progressive" dogma that a human life in utero is merely a disposable piece of property which can make it sometimes okay to kill? Nope.

But what about law & justice? Surely there's a third philosophy which appeases the "progressive" demand for an activist judiciary, democracy if convenient and a fluid Constitution? Surely there's a compromise with the Conservative ideal that elected legislators make laws – not judges; that political violence and other lawless mayhem is never justified in a liberal, inclusive democracy; that justice should be impartial to identity; and that the Constitution can only be changed through the method prescribed by the Constitution? Such a fantasy!

Such a comfortable dream of a middle ground is beguiling because most of us hate conflict. We just want to get on with our lives without all the angst. Yet we can't escape it because Truth, justice, liberty and even peace are worth fighting for.

There is no middle ground between right and wrong. There is no centre point between Truth and lies. There is no sensible balance between wisdom and folly.

There is only half right, half true, and half wise – half progressive – and who wants to be that?

I am unapologetic about my position on the things that are most responsible for the polarisation of politics. I will not appease the insatiable appetite of "progressives" for destruction of boundaries and institutions.

Of course there are sensible debates to be had about less fundamental things as there always has been, but they are not really what polarise us.

The beguiling "sensible centre" is perhaps more dangerous than the radical left because, while appearing less contentious, they are simply a slightly slower path to destruction; seductive because of their mixing of lies with some truth, folly with some wisdom, and immorality with some morality.

Such is the strategy by which society has been incrementally ratcheted towards the current brazen extremes of "progressives", and such is the path to political polarisation from those who will not mix poison with their supper.