But I have a problem with it. What he's advocating is mere pragmatism, or worse yet, the very superficial 'moderate' politics.
Concerning values and principles, there is no 'mean'. There's just what's right.
I could make this list:
Vice Virtue Vice
Injustice Meh Justice
Consent of Governed If it's not an 'emergency' Subjects
Religious freedom Political Correctness Theocracy
liberty arbitrary constitution security
Some things are just valid principles and values and there isn't a 'mean'. We need to hash out how principles translate into realistic political solutions.
Localism, nullification, etc. is a great paradigm. Go back to Jefferson, throw in Ayn Rand, and hell there are some lefties who see the need for localism too.
There isn't a 'golden' set of ideals for a nation. We possess our own ideals, whatever they are. Instead, there are political solutions that permit us to coexist with our varied ideals.
This smacks too much of inside-the-beltway thinking. As if policy debates can be settled by a golden mean and that therefore represents the direction of modern conservatism/libertarianism.
Inasmuch as libertarians are attached to unrealistic ideals, they need to keep working until they find something realistic - like nullification - rather than abandon their motivating principles for a mean. Likewise, conservatives need to realize that big government and warfare/welfare has nothing to do with their social values against gay people or whatever. There's just no harmony here, that I see, as if there's this spectrum we're all on and we need to seek the middle.
I admire this guy for trying, but again it smacks of Jesse Benton inside Washington baseball type thinking. Maybe the insiders need that? Whatever....