In the aftermath of World War II, Major General Barry Goldwater played a pivotal role in creating the United States Air Force. He is more widely remembered, however, for his epochal quote as an icon of the conservative movement:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

There's a certain irony in this legacy, considering he lost the 1964 election to Lyndon Johnson by 16 million votes.

In theory, Sen. Goldwater's defense of ideological purity and principled resolution deserves admiration and celebration. But the world we live in doesn't conform to theory. Extremist posturing from one camp frequently invites vigorous backlash from both opponents and moderate allies — even when we're right.

In 1868, five years after the Glorious Revolution deposed Queen Isabella II of Spain, a radical group splintered off from the left-wing Federal Republican Party. Their unyielding demand for pure republican democracy contributed to the collapse of the First Republic and the return of the monarchy, which lasted until 1931.

Members of this radical group named themselves the Volunteers for Liberty. But their determined refusal to accept the slightest political compromise earned them their nickname: Los Intransigentes, which gives us this week's addition to the Ethical Lexicon:

Intransigence (in*tran*si*gence/ in-tran-si-juhns) noun

Refusal to change one's views, opinions or behavior; uncompromising inflexibility.

The word derives from its Latin antonym transiger, literally to drive or pass through. Hence, we find such metaphors as bridging the gap, crossing the divide, and reaching across the aisle associated with conflict resolution. In place of combative adherence to an immoveable ideal, the spirit of mutuality leads to reciprocal understanding and principled compromise.

It's unfortunate that compromise has become a dirty word, especially in light of Ronald Reagan's pithy summation that, "The person who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and an ally, not a 20% traitor."

Guided by this mindset, President Reagan successfully collaborated with congressional Democrats to advance his own political agenda. During his tenure, spirited debate rarely devolved into personal attack or character assassination. Political pragmatism worked in concert with political ideology to overcome intransigence, not encourage it.

This outlook preceded Mr. Reagan by some 3,000 years. Speaking in the voice of wisdom, King Solomon writes: "Fortunate is the one who listens for me, attentively waiting at my doors day by day, keeping watch by the doorposts of my entryways."

Life is an endless series of transitions, from one phase to the next, over and over again. Every time we pass through a new doorway we expand our perspective, increase our awareness and enhance our worldview. We meet new people, create new connections, form new bonds, discover new horizons.

Intransigent ideologues deprive themselves of all these benefits. They also sabotage their own legacy. A sitting president might circumvent congressional opponents by issuing executive orders. But his short-term gains will vanish with the arrival of the oppositional chief executive who follows him.

In contrast, visionary leaders build consensus, rally support and make tactical concessions to win enduring victories that will survive beyond their time. Far better to get 80% of something than demand 100% and come away with nothing at all.

With all due respect to the late Sen. Goldwater, moderation is no more a dirty word than compromise. To be moderate in your view does not mean planting your flag in the arbitrary middle and hoping to attract followers from either side. It means rejecting the intransigence that invalidates any effort to understand opposing points of view and acknowledge, when appropriate, the intellectual integrity of opposing arguments, even if we ultimately align ourselves against them.

Above all, we need to moderate our behavior, to show respect for our ideological adversaries even as we passionately debate them. We need to appreciate how civil discourse and constructive disagreement can open our eyes to deeper truths and higher values. By summoning the courage and determination to step through doorways that appear dangerous and threatening, we can chart an ethical path forward through the gridlock of ideological absolutism.

See more by Yonason Goldson and features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists; visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Photo credit: Ugne Vasyliute at Unsplash