Hard-line

Characterized by an uncompromising, rigid, and often extreme adherence to a particular set of beliefs, policies, or principles. A hard-line stance typically involves a resistance to compromise, negotiation, or deviation from the established position. It often implies a willingness to take strong or decisive action to enforce those beliefs, even if it means conflict or unpopularity. This approach can be seen in political ideologies, religious doctrines, social movements, and even within organizations and professional fields. The term suggests a firm, sometimes inflexible, approach, often prioritizing ideological purity or strict adherence to rules and guidelines above pragmatism or flexibility.

Hard-line meaning with examples

• The union's hard-line stance on wages threatened to derail the contract negotiations. Despite management's offers, the union leaders remained resolute, refusing any concessions. Their unwavering commitment to their demands, though popular with members, risked a strike. This inflexibility reflected their determination to secure the best possible deal for their workers, even at the cost of protracted discussions.
• Following the terrorist attacks, the government adopted a hard-line policy on national security, increasing surveillance and border controls. This decision was met with mixed reactions, with some praising the measures for enhancing safety. Others criticised the policy, expressing concerns about potential infringements on civil liberties, and suggesting that such rigid actions could incite further extremism.
• The company's hard-line environmental regulations made it a leader in sustainability, but it alienated some partners. Its strict adherence to eco-friendly practices, including sourcing only sustainable materials and reducing waste, was initially costly. However, these tough rules eventually improved brand image and attracted environmentally conscious consumers, and was an example of its core beliefs.
• During the Cold War, the hard-line approach of both superpowers heightened tensions and the risk of nuclear conflict. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union refused to back down on their geopolitical demands and militaristic ambitions. Each side's firm commitment to their ideologies and military superiority fuelled a constant cycle of mistrust and hostility, leading to several near-misses and escalating conflicts.
• Critics accused the religious leader of taking a hard-line position on social issues, condemning any deviation from traditional doctrines. His unwavering moral and religious beliefs led him to denounce practices like same-sex marriage and abortion. He stated this was based on his deep religious foundations, which resulted in this firm stand that alienated many, even within his own community.