Could you spell out what you mean by extremist, and how the analogous argument goes? If there are three candidates, then yes, you should give all your support to one candidate, even if you hate one and don't distinguish between the other two. But that hardly makes you an extremist. I don't see any reason that this kind of argument says you should support the same party in every election, or for every seat in a particular election, or that you should support that party's position on every issue. Even if you are an extremist and, say, want to pull the country leftward on all issues, it's not obvious whether equal amounts of support (say, money) to a small far-left party will be more effective than to a center-left party. Similarly, if your participation in politics is conversation with people, it's not obvious that always arguing left-wing positions is the most effective way to draw people to the left. It may be that demonstrating a willingness to compromise and consider details may make you more convincing. In fact, I do think the answer is that the main power individuals have in arguing about politics is to shift the Overton window; but I think that is a completely different reason than the charity argument. ---------------------------------------- and then I looked up your comment on LJ and the comment it replies to and I strongly disagree with your comment. This has nothing to do with the charity argument. Whether this argument is correct is different matter. I think the Overton window is a different phenomenon. I think the argument to take extreme positions to negotiate compromises better applies to politicians than to ordinary people. But their actions are not marginal and so this is clearly different from the charity argument.