Moderates of the World Unite
Many Americans are profoundly concerned about the two-party polarization that has gripped and paralyzed our politics. Several recent polls suggest that a third of US voters do not identify as either Republicans or Democrats. In spite of that, neither major political party seems inclined to embrace more centrist candidates, much less positions.
Democrats censure Krysten Sinema and threaten to primary Joe Manchin. Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski are pilloried by Republicans as RINOs. Both major parties seem to have little appetite for elected representatives who come out of the Joe Lieberman / John McCain mold.
Energy in the extreme positions of the Democratic left and the Republican right has succeeded in co-opting each party’s committed party faithful. Under different circumstances, a viable political party’s establishment leaders (and donors) would seek to move toward the middle ground where wooable voters reside. Neither major party seems to be taking this high road.
There are many words that are used to describe longed-for middle-earth politics: moderate, centrist, center-left, center-right. The list is long. But the middle ground also carries many negative connotations, especially among committed extremists: unprincipled, wish-washy, flip-floppers, weak, indecisive. Positive descriptors of moderation get lost the political dialog dominated by left-right zealots: level-headed, tolerant, pragmatic, problem-solver, realistic. What happened to the ethos of moderation long held by many of our important thinkers?
The virtue of justice consists in moderation, as regulated by wisdom.
— AristotleModeration is the center wherein all philosophies, both human and divine, meet. — Benjamin Disraeli
Aurelian Craiutu, in his Niskanen Center article The Radicalism of Moderation, presents a compelling historical narrative about the poorly-understood complex virtues of moderation.
Far from being a philosophy for weak souls, moderation is, in fact, a rare and difficult virtue for courageous minds. It implies a good dose of courage, nonconformism, and eclecticism, which explains why it is so difficult to acquire and practice moderation.
Craiutu contends that moderation is a virtue of realism, understanding the world as it is and appreciating the positive role that conflicts and tension play in bringing about positive change. Moderates are often advocates of incremental change and of the old adage, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
The courage of moderates, says Craiutu, stems from their willingness to appear indecisive when there are calls to believe in dogma. Moderates typically refuse to buy into the binary choices that too often result from polarized positions. Moderates believe in pluralism, refusing to buy into the concept that there is only one definitive truth. The humility of moderates is displayed in their innate sense of fallibility.
Contrary to popular perceptions, moderates are never unquestioning defenders of the status quo. They are not opposed to change, but rather push for reforms that don’t cast aside traditional values and ways of life. Moderates bring curiosity, passion, and irreverence to their thinking, having no need for adhering to a single ideology. Everything is open to question.
Moderates recognize that our world is complex and immensely interrelated. In such a world, compromise is not to be feared but embraced — common ground is often the preferable position. Unlike extremists, moderates refuse to politicize everything.
It is charity — the opposite of the all-or-nothing mentality — that distinguishes moderates from their opponents. It is their willingness to consider and at the limit even compromise with antagonistic views that prevents moderates from viewing politics as total warfare in which enemies must be defeated and annihilated at all costs.
Moderates have a commitment to dialog. They demand that all voices be heard and reserve the right to always weigh pros and cons, even while acknowledging the seemingly unproductive nature of open communication. They abhor those who insist on strict conformity. Moderates are inherently willing to “swim against the tide”.
Craiutu wraps up his discussion by suggesting that what is needed today is some form of radical moderation that respects opposing ideas even as they are challenged — with civility but without the weakness that is often associated with moderation.
Unfortunately, moderates have a hard time having their voices heard in our duopolistic politics with single-member districts and popular primaries. In a system where moderate voices would be routinely heard and considered, says Craiutu:
Their unpredictability would give moderates, as unencumbered politicians, a real window of opportunity to make their voices heard at crucial moments in the passing of key pieces of legislation.
Craiutu ends his discourse with the radical form of moderation described by French philosopher, Albert Camus.
Camus thought that our world does not need tepid and lukewarm souls. It needs instead burning and passionate hearts, men and women who know the proper place of moderation in a world made of many hues of gray. To him, moderation was a source of strength, not weakness; it was the guiding principle of good government and decent society.
Selling moderation to a polarized electorate is a challenge — but it’s a challenge we must undertake if we are to save our democracy from the ravages of extremism.
