Caring deeply, and advocating strongly, for a cause can be admirable or disreputable. “Zealot” has a predominantly negative connotation, with synonyms like: fanatic, extremist, and militant. “Zealous,” on the other hand, is more positive than negative, with synonyms like: ardent, avid, dedicated, and earnest, overbalancing words like fanatical, and rabid. Why is this? We recognize that moral and factual context matters.

Not every cause is noble, and the more marginal the moral valuation, the less admirable is strong advocacy for that cause. Believers in unrestricted abortion rights cheer on the Senate Democrats, and excuse “Destroying a Man’s Life,” as zealous defense of a woman’s right to choose. Dr. Kermit Gosnell believes, to this day, in abortion through the point of infanticide. Read about him, or watch his portrayal on screen, and you see an abortion zealot. Think through the political, cultural, and media efforts to protect Roe v. Wade against any chance of limitation, let alone being overturned. Are they zealots or zealous defenders?

Turn it around. Consider Senator Lindsey Graham’s sudden passion in defense of Judge Kavanaugh, and Graham’s outrage at the Democrats’ conduct. Think about him calling out any Republican, who fails to vote to confirm Kavanaugh, as complicit in the smear. Watch as he seeks every angle to achieve his desired results, including advocating the immediate re-nomination of Kavanaugh, should he lose this week, and making the midterms a campaign to vindicate Kavanaugh.

Has Senator Lindsey Graham become a zealot, or is he zealous for a noble cause? Note that Senator Heitkamp went from 4 to 10 points behind her Republican opponent, after Democrats launched their smear campaign against Judge Kavanaugh. Is Senator Jeff Flake right in his moral moderation, equivalency, and claims that there is too much heat, too much incivility, too many zealots, in our politics? Or is he lukewarm, bloodless, lacking in moral clarity that would lead to zealous advocacy of just causes and vigorous opposition to bad policy and tactics?

Jeff Flake used the Goldwater Institute, in Arizona, as his launch pad for his political career. Was Senator Barry Goldwater a zealot, or a zealous advocate for liberty?

Anyone who joins us in all sincerity, we welcome. Those who do not care for our cause, we don’t expect to enter our ranks in any case. And let our Republicanism, so focused and so dedicated, not be made fuzzy and futile by unthinking and stupid labels.

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.

Compare this to Jeff Flake’s pronouncement on 2 October 2018:

During a joint appearance with friend and colleague Chris Coons (D-DE) at The Atlantic Festival in Washington, D.C., Flake said he was “very troubled” by the tone of Kavanaugh’s lengthy, outraged opening statement.

“I hope I would sound that indignant if I was unjustly maligned,” he said, “but then it went on.”

“And the interaction with the members was sharp and partisan and that concerns me,” Flake continued.

While he was willing to give Kavanaugh “a little leeway” based on “what he’s been through,” he said, “on the other hand, we can’t have this on the court, we simply can’t.”

Is this real moderation, or militant moderation? Is it zealousness for civility, or the workings of a special sort of zealot? We may be able to render an informed judgment, by the end of the current week, as the Senate Majority leadership slammed the door on further delay. Apparently, they now see voters supporting Kavanaugh’s confirmation with sufficient zeal to counteract the zealotry of the #Resistance.

Exit question: This is not the first, nor the second post in which I have engaged the topics of Kavanaugh and Flake, so, am I . . .

Zealot or zealous?