History Main / GoldenMeanFallacy

* In the 2019 Britain election, the Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn took a neutral stance on Brexit by supporting second referendum while not explicitly issuing a pro- or anti-Brexit position.[[note]] While the Labour Party is very pro-European Union, Corbyn has a long history of Euroskepticism and was a reluctant player in the Remain campaign.[[/note]] However, this approach backfired as pro-Brexit voters ended up voting for the Conservatives, who ran on an explicit Leave platform, while many anti-Brexit voters either stayed home or voted for other pro-EU parties like the Liberal Democrats. Many pundits cited Labour's indecisive stance on Brexit as a contributing factor towards their defeat in the election.

* ''Comicbook/{{Knightfall}}'': Jean-Paul Valley tried to apply this logic - and failed miserably - when he temporarily became Batman after Bane broke Bruce Wayne's back. Having been brainwashed as a child by his father into believing that the radical Roman Catholic sect they belonged to demanded that [[PayEvilUntoEvil evildoers be slaughtered by "avenging angels"]], Valley experiences a HeroicBSOD when, as Batman, he finds a serial killer at his mercy (hanging by one hand over a vat full of molten steel in a foundry) and is tormented by visions of both his late father and the medieval French saint, Dumas, who founded their breakaway movement. The elder Valley demands that his son shoot his blades at the killer so that he will fall into the vat, while St. Dumas insists that he must [[SaveTheVillain save anyone in danger]], no matter how reprehensible they are. Unable to reach a decision, Jean-Paul finally screams: [[TakeAThirdOption "I choose neither one!"]] The inevitable result is that the murderer eventually loses his grip and falls to his death - which is even worse than it would first appear, since the murderer had to be kept alive so that Batman could find his most recent victim, who'd been placed in a sadistic torture device, with the result that the victim died too.

* In one strip of ''ComicStrip/GetFuzzy'', Bucky built a robot designed to be the most moderate Presidential candidate ever, with [[MultipleChoicePast a hodgepodge of backgrounds]], friendly demeanor, and spouting quotes like "my father shared your job and/or ethnicity!" However, Rob breaks the robot when he asks it the first controversial issue he can think of: "Don't you need to raise taxes to pay for {{UsefulNotes/TheWarOnTerror}}?", causing it to explode from a LogicBomb.

* {{Invoked}} by Lucien Wilbanks (Creator/DonaldSutherland) in ''Film/ATimeToKill'' when he discusses with defense attorney Jake Tyler Brigance (Matthew [=McConaughey=]) the latter's latest case, which involves Carl Lee Hailey (Creator/SamuelLJackson) being tried for the vigilante slaying of [[AssholeVictim the two white men who raped his young daughter]] and left her incapable of ever having children when she grew up. Wilbanks says that if Carl Lee is found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity, JusticeWillPrevail (for the Hailey family) - but if Carl Lee is found guilty and sentenced to death, or at the very least to a couple of decades in prison, justice will also prevail (for the families of the slain rapists). Theoretically, a middle ground would be some kind of plea bargain to a lesser charge and a more lenient punishment (say, second-degree murder or manslaughter and a shorter prison sentence), but that's not going to happen because neither side is willing to make enough concessions to satisfy the other: the prosecution isn't going to offer anything truly lenient for fear of making it seem like they condone the crime, and Carl Lee won't settle for minor concessions like just avoiding the death penalty but still serving 25 years or more. [[spoiler:Carl Lee is ultimately acquitted on an admittedly questionable InsanityDefense and receives no further punishment, not even time in a mental hospital to treat the issues in question (which is usually the result of a successful insanity defense).]]

* In ''Film/GoodNightAndGoodLuck'', Edward R. Murrow argues with his producer, who says he needs to stop "editorializing" about Joseph [=McCarthy=] and the RedScare. Murrow responds that sometimes it just isn't the case that two sides have equally valid points and there is a reasonable compromise in the middle.

* {{Discussed}} in the meta sense on ''Series/LastWeekTonightWithJohnOliver''. John points out that it's the habit of debates and news articles to give both sides equal representation on topics that are not equally represented in society--that is, despite the overwhelming majority of people being on one side of an issue, a debate will still insist on having one for and one against. His example is the debate on climate change science, a subject on which 97% of the world's scientists agree, and he proposes a new format for debate: instead of having one climate change denier debate Series/BillNyeTheScienceGuy as this trope describes, three climate change deniers would debate ninety-six climate change-believing scientists... and Series/BillNyeTheScienceGuy.

* C.S. Lewis' famous trilemma was a response to this, namely the position that one could believe in the Bible but deny the divinity of Jesus, to avoid the "extremes" of orthodox Christianity and atheism. Lewis points out that this doesn't make sense, because in the Bible, Jesus claims and acts consistent with divinity, meaning that if you want to accept the Bible and deny Jesus' divinity, you have to either claim that Jesus was delusional or that he was lying. Some have criticized this trilemma on the basis that Jesus could simply have been genuinely mistaken about his divinity or that the Gospels were simply fictional, but Lewis' response was that taking this position still requires one to both deny the veracity of the Bible and deny the divinity of Christ, meaning that it's still an all-or-nothing proposition.

* In ''Franchise/TheElderScrolls'' series, The Redguards of Hammerfell have traditionally divided themselves into two sociopolitical groups: The Crowns, decended from Redguard nobility, hold Yokudan tradition in high regard and dislike foreigners, while the Forebears, descended from the warriors who conquered Hammerfell, are more comfortable with incorporating aspects of Breton and Imperial culture into their way of life. A third political movement, the Lhotunics, emerged after the Warp in the West, who espouse both the cosmopolitan values of the Forebears and the sense of tradition and respect for the past of the Crowns, and are generally held in contempt by both sides.

* The "Synthesis" ending of ''VideoGame/MassEffect3'' is criticized by people for falling into this trope (among other reasons). "Control" seems to prove the Illusive Man was right in that seizing power over the Reapers was the only way to win and the Reapers were wrong because there's the potential for organics and synthetics to peacefully coexist, and outside of the Reaper forces, [[spoiler: the new AI God Shepard leaves everyone else free will]]. "Destroy" seems to demonstrate that Shepard believes the Catalyst/Reapers were right that synthetic and organic life cannot co-exist, and ends the war [[spoiler: by implied genocide on synthetic species and individuals such as [=EDI=], with no guarantee the conflict simply won't happen later when the technology invariably re-emerges]]. "Synthesis" implies [[spoiler: both the Illusive Man ''and'' the Reapers were right. Organics and synthetics can't coexist, so the solution is to forcibly change ''everyone'', organic and synthetic, against their will to eliminate the distinction. To make matters worse this is similar to Saren's argument in the first game, and Shepard thought it was both stupid and a sign he'd lost his mind (though Saren's position differed in that he wanted organic life to be useful enough to the Reapers that they would allow it to continue because of that, rather than true synthesis).]]
* A point of contention certain fans have with Franchise/KingdomHearts is the idea of balance between light and darkness. Ideally, it would be more effective if those who use darkness for their own personal benefits weren't committing world ending catastrophes while those of the light aligned nature are fighting to thwart them. With sole exception to Riku and Terra, both of who catch all sorts of hell for using the dark powers in the process, the preaching of light and darkness finding a balance is pretentious at most. In VideoGame/KingdomHeartsBirthBySleep, Aqua learns of this balance early on and ultimately falls victim to Xehanort and the Darkness, losing 10 years of her life in the process. By the end of her arc, she really does learn that "darkness is really nothing but hate and rage."
** One of the explanations for this failure to balance is that all of the 'correcting' takes place within the worlds of light, rather than worlds mixed in light and darkness. It's like trying to add equal darkness to ''the sun'' - totally unnecessary and now a dark universe is even more dark.

** Therkla's attempt to keep both her mentor and her crush alive, by telling Kubota to stop trying to kill Hinjo and simply take his followers elsewhere to found their own kingdom if he wants to rule so much, and telling Elan to let them go in peace. Elan rightly points out that he's a criminal who tried to kill them (and should therefore be arrested), but Therkla manages to shush him. Kubota is even more unsatisfied, since he doesn't want to rule over only a few people instead of all the refugees of Azure City. He kills her for time to escape [[ShaggyDogStory and then dies himself]] after being recaptured.

Most people feel certain that there are two sides to every issue: their side, and the wrong side. Authors (and people in general) who subscribe to the Golden Mean Fallacy have another outlook. They believe that there are in fact three sides: the side of the complete morons to the left of them, the side of the complete morons to the right of them, and their own side, which combines the good points of each in sublime harmony while avoiding all the bad. If one position is argued to be superior ''solely'' because it is in the middle, then this is the Golden Mean Fallacy, aka "Argument to Moderation." It's also sometimes called the Gray Fallacy, between black and white options.

* {{Invoked}} by Lucien Wilbanks (Creator/DonaldSutherland) in ''Film/ATimeToKill'' when he discusses with defense attorney Jake Tyler Brigance (Matthew [=McConaughey=]) the latter's latest case, which involves Carl Lee Hailey (Creator/SamuelLJackson) being tried for the vigilante slaying of [[AssholeVictim the two white men who raped his young daughter]] and left her incapable of ever having children when she grew up. Wilbanks says that if Carl Lee is found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity, JusticeWillPrevail (for the Hailey family) - but if Carl Lee is found guilty and sentenced to death, or at the very least to a couple of decades in prison, justice will also prevail (for the families of the slain rapists). Theoretically, a middle ground would be some kind of plea bargain to a lesser charge and a more lenient punishment (say, second-degree murder or manslaughter and a shorter prison sentence), but that's not going to happen because neither side is willing to meet in the middle: the prosecution isn't going to offer anything truly lenient and Carl Lee won't settle for minor concessions like just avoiding the death penalty but still potentially serving life. [[spoiler:Carl Lee is ultimately acquitted on an admittedly questionable InsanityDefense and receives no further punishment, not even time in a mental hospital to treat the issues in question (which is usually the result of a successful insanity defense).]]

* {{Invoked}} by Lucien Wilbanks (Creator/DonaldSutherland) in ''Film/ATimeToKill'' when he discusses with defense attorney Jake Tyler Brigance (Matthew [=McConaughey=]) the latter's latest case, which involves Carl Lee Hailey (Creator/SamuelLJackson) being tried for the vigilante slaying of [[AssholeVictim the two white men who raped his young daughter]] and left her incapable of ever having children when she grew up. Wilbanks says that if Carl Lee is found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity, JusticeWillPrevail (for the Hailey family) - but if Carl Lee is found guilty and sentenced to death, or at the very least to a couple of decades in prison, justice will also prevail (for the families of the slain rapists). Theoretically, a middle ground would be some kind of plea bargain to a lesser charge and a more lenient punishment (say, second-degree murder or manslaughter and a shorter prison sentence), but that's not going to happen because the prosecution isn't going to offer anything truly lenient and Carl Lee won't settle for minor concessions like just avoiding the death penalty but still potentially serving life. [[spoiler:Carl Lee is ultimately acquitted on an admittedly questionable InsanityDefense and receives no further punishment, not even time in a mental hospital to treat the issues in question (which is usually the result of a successful insanity defense).]]

* {{Invoked}} by Lucien Wilbanks (Creator/DonaldSutherland) in ''Film/ATimeToKill'' when he discusses with defense attorney Jake Tyler Brigance (Matthew [=McConaughey=]) the latter's latest case, which involves Carl Lee Hailey (Creator/SamuelLJackson) being tried for the vigilante slaying of the two white men who raped his young daughter and left her incapable of ever having children when she grew up. Wilbanks says that if Carl Lee is found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity, JusticeWillPrevail (for the Hailey family) - but if Carl Lee is found guilty and sentenced to death, or at the very least to a couple of decades in prison, justice will also prevail (for the families of the slain rapists). The mean, therefore, would be to find Carl Lee guilty, but only of second-degree murder or a lesser charge, and make the punishment as lenient as possible (permanent house arrest, say). [[spoiler: But defied, for this is not the point of view the movie ultimately takes, having Carl Lee be cleared of all charges and not punished at all beyond his temporary jailing, and this is portrayed as completely right in view of the heinous crime the [[AssholeVictim victims committed]], which could spur virtually any father to do as Carl Lee Haley did.]]

* In ''Literature/AnitaBlake: Vampire Hunter'', the title character considers conservatives to be bigoted troglodytes who want to exterminate vampires for being different, and liberals to be air-headed idealists who think that vampires are harmless fluffy fanged bunnies and forget that they are dangerous and not entirely human. Since Anita is a complete CanonSue, her views are entirely accurate.

* The way the gun control debate in Season One of ''Series/ThePunisher'' is presented is somewhat less than nuanced. The far-right position is represented by a MadBomber who thinks blowing up a bunch of civilians is an appropriate response to "the government trying to take away our guns." The far-left position is represented by a DirtyCoward whose loathing of guns somehow doesn't keep him from wanting armed mercenaries all around him the moment his own hide is on the line. Sitting in between them and looking ''really'' good in comparison to both is Karen, whose opinion boils down to, "we should have guns, but not use them to shoot innocent people."

* Creator/OrsonScottCard's ''Literature/{{Empire}}'' is (according to WordOfGod) a novel calling for "tolerance" and opposing "polarization", without mentioning which specific political values should be upheld beyond "compromise". This is only made worse when the novel itself clearly favors the right over the left, not to mention that Card himself is ''far'' from moderate on a number of issues, most notably gay rights.

* [[UsefulNotes/PoliticalIdeologies Fascism claimed]] that it was a post-ideological movement based purely upon practical policy prescriptions, taking effective communist and capitalist programs and using them to advance the national interest. In doing so it ''de facto'' [[BecameTheirOwnAntithesis created a new ideology]]. Some ideologically liberal academics, especially in the USA, teach their students that Fascism was a compromise between group and individual identity since it neither erased national boundaries nor respected individual rights like the latter. That is a valid perspective, but believing that it was important at the time is a misconception arising from a backward reading of the age's issues. Certainly, rich people of the time did promote individualism to try to protect their wealth being taxed/expropriated by collectives (whether by communities, unions, or nations) - but belief in individualism was neither prevalent nor something the Fascist program was particularly dedicated to eradicating.

* ''Series/{{Friends}}'' utilized this trope a lot in an attempt to keep all six characters favorable in the eyes of the audience even when issues rose up that split the group. The most notable instance was the infamous "we were on a break" argument, where Ross slept with another women after Rachel wanted a vague "break" from their relationship. The following episode dealt with the fallout where neither party took the blame and looked to their friends to declare who was more in the right. Eventually, the other four tell Ross and Rachel that who's right or wrong isn't important to them, but that if they couldn't get over it and be civil to each other, then the whole group could not be together from that point. While Ross and Rachel both believe themselves to be in the right for the series, they take the words to heart and bury the issue for the sake of the group.

* Defied by Creator/{{Aristotle}}, even though he is often looked to as the source of the fallacy. Though he does argue that each virtue is a mean between two extremes, he remarks that it would be stupid to infer that therefore we should seek moderation in all things.

* The Compromise of 1850 in the United States was designed to avert an impending crisis over slavery by giving both sides some of what they wanted. The result was the compromise simply kicked the can down the road ten years, and fell prey to Okrent’s Law besides. The following decade caused the battle lines on both sides of the issue to harden considerably, and practically guaranteed that the issue would be solved with guns, not words.

* Historian Gaddis Smith observed that during the Cold War, when strategists were called upon to provide the president with a list of options for a crisis situation, they'd usually provide five options. Option #1 would be "capitulate", option #5 would be "nuclear war". The strategist's actual proposal would be option #3.
* During the Constitutional Convention, two of the compromises were essentially this.

** The second compromise, the Three-Fifths Compromise (slaves count as three-fifths of a person), was a more literal application of this trope (but then, a ''perfectly'' literal application would have been to count a slave as ''two-point-five-fifths'' of a person) and is often considered the founder's [[MyGreatestFailure greatest failure]]. [[MustMakeAmends It has since been redacted by the Thirteenth Amendment]].
*** Many people today don't seem to realize that not counting the slaves at all was the ''anti-slavery'' position, and that it was the ''pro-slavery'' faction that advocated counting them as full people - for purposes of allocating congressional delegates, presidential votes, taxes, etc., certainly not for giving them any rights or the vote. The compromise was an attempt to reduce the political power of slave holding states from what it would have been if slaves had been counted as full persons, with the hope that eventually the free states would have enough congress members to make slavery illegal through legislation. It didn't work out that way.

* Because of two vocal factions reacting to the Boy Scouts Of America's ban on gay members, the group proposed to allow gay youth but not gay leaders (since the organization does not condone having leaders discuss homosexual behavior with Scouts). One side wants no gay members; the other points out that gay children grow up.

* Ever since the Iraq War, The Mainstream News Media has been constantly accused of this for better or for worse.
* A tactic typically used by the US military when advising the President of options in a conflict is to present options ranging from the most extreme to the most underwhelming, with their preferred choice snugly in the middle. This has at least once backfired, with Trump picking the most extreme one.
* UsefulNotes/MartinLutherKingJr began thinking so later in his life, as said in the [[http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html Letter from a Birmingham Jail]], saying that the worst enemies of the black cause weren't the ones openly opposing them, such as the openly racist politicians or Klan members, but the "white moderate" "who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice" since they would slow the activists' fight to a crawl, or even a complete stop, while still pretending to agree with them.
* In the 2019 Britain election, the Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn took a neutral stance on Brexit by supporting second referendum while not explicitly issuing a pro- or anti-Brexit position.[[note]] While the Labour Party is very pro-European Union, Corbyn has a long history of Euroskepticism and was a reluctant player in the Remain campaign.[[/note]] This approach, however, backfired as pro-Brexit voters ended up voting for the Conservatives, who ran on an explicit Leave platform, while many anti-Brexit voters either stayed home or voted for other pro-EU parties like the Liberal Democrats. Many pundits cited Labour's indecisive stance on Brexit as a contributing factor towards their defeat in the election.

A few notes about this trope: it does not mean giving equal weight to two opposing viewpoints, when in reality one is far more credible than the other. That is called "False Balance". It is also not saying that moderate compromises are always wrong. Sometimes an option somewhere in between two polar opposites really ''is'' the best choice; this trope is when the author claims the best choice ''must'' be found in the middle. In other words, it is the opposite of the [[FalseDichotomy False Dichotomy]], or [[TakeAThirdOption Take A Third Option]] turned up to 11. In conclusion, [[SelfDemonstratingArticle use neither the False Dichotomy nor the Golden Mean Fallacy,]] [[HypocriticalHumor but reason somewhere in the middle.]]

* During the 2019 Britain election, the Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn took a more neutral stance on Brexit by supporting second referendum while not explicitly issuing a pro- or anti-Brexit position.[[note]] While the Labour Party is very pro-European Union, Corbyn has a long history of Euroskepticism and was a reluctant player in the Remain campaign[[/note]] This approach, however, backfired as pro-Brexit voters ended up voting for the Conservatives, who ran on an explicit Leave platform, while many anti-Brexit voters either stayed home or voted for the pro-EU third parties. Many pundits cited Labour's indecisive stance on Brexit as a contributing factor towards their defeat in the election.

* Spoofed in ''Film/DrStrangelove'' when General Turgidson (George C. Scott) tells the President that if they execute ''his'' nuclear strike plan, only ''millions'' of people will be annihilated instead of billions, which isn't too bad. (This "joke" is later used more seriously in ''ComicBook/{{Watchmen}}''.)

* ''{{Film/Denial}}'': Prior to Lipstadt writing her book that Irving would sue over, she notes that several student newspapers (some of which are even run by Jews) run adverts proclaiming Holocaust denial, under the reasoning that "both sides deserve to be heard". Which ignores that one side is demonstrably wrong.

* In one strip of ''ComicStrip/GetFuzzy'', Bucky built a robot designed to be the most moderate Presidential candidate ever, with [[MultipleChoicePast a hodgepodge of backgrounds]], friendly demeanor, and spouting quotes like "my father shared your job and/or ethnicity!" However, Rob breaks the robot when he asks it the first controversial issue he can think of: "Don't you need to raise taxes to pay for UsefulNotes/{{the war|
OnTerror}}?", causing it to explode from a LogicBomb.

%%* {{Invoked}} by Lucien Wilbanks (Creator/DonaldSutherland) in ''Film/ATimeToKill'' when he discusses with defense attorney Jake Tyler Brigance (Matthew [=McConaughey=]) the latter's latest case, which involves Carl Lee Hailey (Creator/SamuelLJackson) being tried for the vigilante slaying of the two white men who raped his young daughter and left her incapable of ever having children when she grew up. Wilbanks says that if Carl Lee is found innocent by reason of temporary insanity, JusticeWillPrevail (for the Hailey family) - but if Carl Lee is found guilty and sentenced to death, or at the very least to a couple of decades in prison, justice will also prevail (for the families of the slain rapists). The mean, therefore, would be to find Carl Lee guilty, but only of second-degree murder or a lesser charge, and make the punishment as lenient as possible (permanent house arrest, say). [[spoiler: But defied, for this is not the point of view the movie ultimately takes, having Carl Lee be cleared of all charges and not punished at all beyond his temporary jailing, and this is portrayed as completely right in view of the heinous crime the [[AssholeVictim victims committed]], which could spur virtually any father to do as Carl Lee Haley did.]]

* In one strip of ''ComicStrip/GetFuzzy'', Bucky built a robot designed to be the most moderate Presidential candidate ever, with [[MultipleChoicePast a hodgepodge of backgrounds]], friendly demeanor, and spouting quotes like "my father shared your job and/or ethnicity!" However, Rob breaks the robot when he asks it the first controversial issue he can think of: "Don't you need to raise taxes to pay for [[TheWarOnTerror the war]]?", causing it to explode from a LogicBomb.

[[folder:Fan Fiction]]

** {{Lampshade|Hanging}}d in the episode in which Homer gets his jaw wired shut. In the middle of a long story about the old days, Grandpa says: "...after that, things got pretty quiet until FDR challenged Superman to a race around the world. FDR beat him by a furlong, or so the stories say. The truth lies somewhere in between..."

* In ''Series/TheOfficeUS'', this is Michael Scott's idea of a compromise. When Oscar protested that Angela's baby posters were offensive to him, his idea of a compromise was to have the poster made into a shirt Oscar would wear everyday so Angela could see it but Oscar couldn't. Do we even need a spoiler tag here to hide the fact that neither of them liked the idea? [[spoiler: No. No we don't.]]

* The "Synthesis" ending of ''VideoGame/MassEffect3'' is criticized by people for falling into this trope (among other reasons). "Control" seems to prove the Illusive Man was right in that seizing power over the Reapers was the only way to win and the Reapers were wrong because there's the potential for organics and synthetics to peacefully coexist, and outside of the Reaper forces, [[spoiler: the new AI God Shepard leaves everyone else free will]]. "Destroy" seems to demonstrate that Shepard believes the Catalyst/Reapers were right that synthetic and organic life cannot co-exist, and ends the war [[spoiler: by implied genocide on synthetic species and individuals such as [=EDI=], with no guarantee the conflict simply won't happen later when the technology invariably re-emerges]]. "Synthesis" implies [[spoiler: both the Illusive Man ''and'' the Reapers were right. Organics and synthetics can't coexist, so the solution is to forcibly change ''everyone'', organic and synthetic, against their will to eliminate the distinction. To make matters worse this was Saren's argument in the first game, and Shepard thought it was both stupid and a sign he'd lost his mind.]]

* The Labour Party's indecisive stance on Brexit was one of the contributing factors to their catastrophic losses during the 2019 Britain election. In an attempt to win both Remain and Leave voters, party leader Jeremy Corbyn took a more neutral stance on Brexit by supporting second referendum while not explicitly issuing a pro- or anti-Brexit position.[[note]] While the Labour Party is very pro-European Union, Corbyn has a long history of Euroskepticism and was a reluctant player in the Remain campaign[[/note]] This approach however backfired as pro-Brexit voters ended up voting for the Conservatives, who ran on an explicit pro-Leave platform, while many anti-Brexit voters either stayed home or voted for the pro-EU third parties. Subsequently, Labour suffered its worst election defeat in over 50 years because Corbyn's indecisive stance on Brexit failed to win any side of the Brexit debate.

* The Labour Party's indecisive stance on Brexit was one of the contributing factors to their catastrophic losses during the 2019 Britain election. In an attempt to win both Reman and Leave voters, party leader Jeremy Corbyn took a more neutral stance on Brexit by supporting second referendum while not explicitly issuing a pro- or anti-Brexit position.[[note]] While the Labour Party is very pro-European Union, Corbyn has a long history of Euroskepticism and was a reluctant player in the Remain campaign[[/note]] This approach however backfired badly as pro-Brexit voters ended up voting for the Conservatives, which ran on an explicit pro-Leave platform, while many anti-Brexit voters either stayed home or voted for the pro-EU Scottish National Party. Subsequently, Labour suffered its worst election defeat in over 50 years because Corbyn's indecisive stance on Brexit failed to win any side of the Brexit debate.

* This was arguably doomed Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn during the 2019 Britain election. Although Corbyn ran as a staunch leftist, he attempted to have a more neutral stance on Brexit by supporting second referendum while not explicitly issuing a pro- or anti-Brexit position.[[note]] While the Labour Party is very pro-European Union, Corbyn has a long history of Euroskepticism and was a reluctant player in the Remain campaign[[/note]] Although Corbyn hoped that his more balanced stance would help keep both pro-Leave or pro-Remain Labour seats, this approach backfired badly. His gambit failed to win over pro-Brexit voters who instead voted for the Conservatives, which ran on an explicit pro-Leave platform, while also depressing the anti-Brexit voters who either stayed home or voted for the pro-EU Scottish National Party. Subsequently, Labour suffered its worst election defeat in over 50 years because Corbyn's indecisive stance on Brexit alienated every demographic.