Appeals to moderation are always futile

When someone is "extreme", in whatever direction; then appeals to be moderate, to take a "middle path", are futile. 

Think about it: there are an infinite number of possible points between extremes. On what principle should we choose that point at which we are moderate? Presumably it isn't always necessarily half-way between extremes - but even if it was, what does that actually mean? 

Some kind of dilution of each extreme, somehow combined? Or some kind of 50:50 alternation between the extremes? Or what?  

In practice, the appeal for moderation is a negative recognition that neither option on-offer (by "extremists" is desirable - but no alternative principle is being suggested. 

The appeal to moderation is therefore an acceptance of the theoretical framework of the extremes; which is why it is always futile. 

And why - insofar as anyone really is motivated by moderation: their motivation is always weak. (There is no such thing as "a courageous moderate".)

So long as the theoretical framework is intact, then the extremes will carry the greatest authority - and no matter how well-motivated, moderation will be understood as an unprincipled and incoherent, hence  feeble and pragmatic, compromise. 

The real answer is never moderation or a middle way - but some higher principle; some framework that stands above, transcends, and contains the world-views of the extremes.