I agree completely.
But it seems also worth mentioning that the Buddha didn’t reject all forms of clinging and grasping - he discouraged clinging that leads to an increase in harmful qualities of mind and a decrease of beneficial qualities of mind and encouraged clinging that leads to an decrease in harmful qualities of mind and increase of beneficial qualities of mind.
Furthermore, he didn’t teach that beings should abandon the raft before they cross over. Those who seem intent on unconditional letting go and non-clinging may jump ship prematurely, getting swept away by the strong tides of tanha and diving headlong into dukkha - possibly drowning without ever reaching to far shore. If it was easy to reach the far shore, there would be no need to build a raft!!
I agree that it is probably not suitable to try to teach the Dhamma-Vinaya to unreceptive beings.
Interesting question!
I think the Buddha’s solution to this question is the cakkavatti king who governs based solely upon and in accordance with the Dhamma.
It seems that making laws based on religious teachings is not inherently bad nor good - it very much depends on whether the religious teachings themselves are bad or good - if the teachings or parts of the teachings are bad, then basing it those teachings seems bad to that degree, but if the teachings or parts of the teachings are good, then it basing on those teachings seems good to that degree. It seems to really depend on the validity and value of the teachings.
Can you explain what you mean here? I am not entirely sure what you mean by “views/teachings begin to break down and are gone”. 
Thank you in advance.
Simplistically, relativism says that there is no objective reality. Saying that “the teachings are true for one individual but not true for another” is an implicit endorsement of relativism.
Simplistically, absolutism says there is an objective reality. The view that “the teachings are true for one individual but not true for another” is pretty much explained as meaning “being A may hold view X, being B may hold view Y, and the reality ( C ) may be Z” - to whatever degree views X and Y accord with with Z, to that degree beings A and B hold the correct view and not otherwise.
In this view, person A may be right and person B may be wrong, person B may be right and person A may be wrong, both might be wrong, or both might be right.
However, if both hold diametrically opposite and logically inconsistent view - they both certainly cannot be right.
If one says killing is okay and another says killing is not okay - relativism says there is no right answer and no way to judge who is right and who is wrong - absolutism says that there is a right answer and both cannot be right. However, different absolutist might say the right answer is different: Sharia law might say one thing, Judeo-Christian ethics might say another, Hindu Dhamma, Jain Dhamma, and Buddhist Dhamma might say quite another.
My personal opinion is that relativists are probably always wrong, and absolutists may be wrong or right depending on how in accordance with the reality they actually are.
I also think the Buddha rejected relativism.
But the discussion above was about whether it might be possible for some “limited or qualified” forms of relativism to have some validity - like your favorite color is the “best” for you and my favorite color is the “best” for me - such a sentiment is acknowledged in the Dhamma-Vinaya: the sights, sounds, scents, tastes, and touches that are the most liked and wished-for by one is the best for that person.
That being said, this is taught an objective truth and reality - to argue against the Buddha that “the sights, sounds, scents, tastes, and touches that are the most liked and wished-for by one is the not the best for that person” would be rejected by the Buddha and thus the Buddha does not think that “anything goes” and “whatever a being thinks is right and true is necessarily right and true” in reality.
Can you explain what you mean by " absolute in scope" and “relative since it is circular”? I don’t think I understand.
I completely agree. 
I think the “rejection of any and all extremes altogether” seems fundamentally different than the “rejection of any and all dichotomies altogether.”
I think you are right that the Buddha does do the former, but I don’t think that he does the latter.
For example, I think the Buddha rejects any and all harmful actions (akusala kamma) through any and all possible avenues (body, speech, and mind):
delivered to Rahula regarding definitively not doing any actions at all that lead to the harm of oneself, others, or both oneself and others.
In this case, there is, in my opinion, a very very clear dichotomy, like a line drawn in the sand between the following two positions:
the doing of actions that lead to the harm of oneself, others, or both oneself and others.
the non-doing of actions that lead to the harm of oneself, others, or both oneself and others.
The Buddha seems to definitively and unequivocally reject the former and accept the latter.
He has made similar declarations in other suttas, such as one to Ananda where he said beings “definitively should do beneficial bodily, verbal, and mental actions,” and “definitively should not do harmful bodily, verbal, and mental actions.”
He said that anyone who says that the Buddha did not say this would be misrepresenting the Buddha.
Translating akusala kamma as “skillful action” could be a “linguistic trick” to help justify say, “skillful killings” or “skillful deceptions” or “skillful harmful actions” that somehow supposedly (despite the Buddha rejecting this as an impossibility, I think in AN book of 1’s or 2’s) lead the “good of others” (a “selfless sentiment” found only in later buddhist texts) - in my opinion, these are merely justifications, rationalizations, and excuses that often stem from trying to blur the clear dichotomy that the Buddha upholds in such cases (i.e. akusala kamma vs. kusala kamma) - I acknowledge that such a view of “clearly distinguishing between wrong and right” does not seem fashionable or trendy in pop culture today, where “true wisdom is realizing that everything is gray area” (implicitly rejecting that anything at all can be considered black and white). Popular doesn’t make something true though.
That being said, I completely agree that the Buddha does reject “all extreme views” and the sorts of “false dichotomies” that often lead to being veering between these two views.
For example, the Buddha rejects “indulgence in sensory pleasure”, but the Buddha also rejects the “deprivation of sensory pleasure” too. However, the middle way taught by the Buddha is not, as many beings in pop culture seem to interpret it, “a little bit of indulgence and little bit of deprivation” or “moderation in indulging in sensory pleasures.” Instead, it is the development of the Noble Eightfold Path.
So yes, he seems to reject the (overly-simplistic, false) dichotomy between indulgence and deprivation (among other dichotomies), but I don’t think that this can be generalized to mean that he rejected all dichotomies ever.
