I recently read a splendid book by Harry Clor, On Moderation: Defending an Ancient Virtue in a Modern World, whose purpose is to “articulate a coherent, defensible case for moderation as a virtue, the possession and encouragement of which is important for us.”
Maybe the best way to begin is to be clear on what Clor says moderation is not. Political moderation is not, he writes, the antithesis of holding principled and wholehearted commitments. It’s not simply a matter of being in the middle of two extremes. It is not “tepid, middle compromise” between opposing ideals.
Like thoughtful scholarship, political moderation, according to Clor, takes a disinterested account of opposing perspectives on complex questions. It is synonymous with proportionality. And it recognizes limits and takes into account circumstances. For example, determining how much liberty and how much restraint a society embraces can’t be answered in the abstract; it depends on circumstances. “A course of action, policy, or pronouncement that is valid in some or most cases would be wrong, even disastrous, in certain situations, and there will be exceptions to any proposition you could affirm,” Clor writes. Immoderation, on the other hand, “is characterized by a one-sided or absolute commitment to a good that is in fact only one good among several.”
Professor Clor goes on to warn that we should want politics that incorporates moderation and “you should be quite afraid of any leaders, movements, or polities wholly lacking them.”
I quite agree, and while there is a danger that one can be frozen because of the inability to decide on the merits of competing claims, the greater danger faced by most of us is more nearly the opposite: acting as if every course of action we have chosen is obvious and enlightened and could only be opposed by knaves or fools; and that every decision should be viewed as a zero-sum proposition, with all the arguments favoring one side (ours) and disfavoring the other. We go in search of data and studies that reinforce our preexisting views and ignore (or dismiss) the others. It’s of course easy to see these tendencies in others, and much harder to see them in ourselves.
“Willingness to entertain doubts is a moderating virtue when it reminds me, before I launch into some totalistic commitment, that there is more than one viewpoint or consideration to take into account,” Clor writes. “Moderation is intertwined with humility of a sort, the kind of humility that keeps us aware of our inevitable limitations – that we are all limited beings, limited in our capacity to master the unavoidable uncertainties and contingencies of life.”
This is something thinkers from Aristotle to Montaigne to Burke to Lincoln to C.S. Lewis understood, in one way or another; and it’s an insight all of us, of every political persuasion, would be wise to reacquaint ourselves with. Because moderation and humility, rightly understood, will help us to better ascertain the truth of things. And in politics, like life more generally, the truth shall set us free.
What the heck does political moderation mean? This is usually empty and meaningless rhetoric. Do we cut the baby in half to keep everybody satisfied? This so-called moderation stuff has only lead to a much larger and more intrusive government. Democrats have learned to ask for the moon and the stars—and then "compromise." It is a no lose tactic.
It is meaningless, it means giving into the other side. We already have enough liberals ruining this once great country by giving away the farm and stealing from our chidren's futures. We need more gridlock and less liberalism.
A thought provoking post. n nI wasn't aware that moderation was an ancient political virtue. As I recall, the classical world was not exactly a model of moderation in theory or, especially, in practice; as Cicero said, immoderation in the service of virtue is not a vice. Nor do I recall ancients praising moderation as a political, as opposed to a personal, virtue. Perhaps I'm missing something; but even if I am, I suspect that's because moderation was at best a B-list or C-list virtue. n nThe ancient political virtue that I do recall, and that bears certain similarities to what the professor calls moderation, is prudence. This affinity raises the question why the professor chose to praise moderation and not prudence. Perhaps because prudence requires a certain wisdom; not simply the moderation that leaves one sufficiently open-minded to hear both sides of an argument, but the insight and foresight that enables him to close his mind in favor of the best course of action — to recognize the most fitting policy to achieve the appropriate ends in any given circumstances. n nOne would think that moderation would require prudence as well. But prudence might exceed the reach of most people, whereas moderation, presumably, is well within their grasp. Two cheers for the B- and C-list virtues! n nAnd what if the most prudent policy is the immoderation of partisanship? It is not simply the case that the persuasion and pursuit of any policy only goes as far as its animating passions. Ours is an adversarial system of government; rather than rely on virtue, it relies on the moderating clash of opposed interests. By a sort of invisible clockwork, our system of checks and balances, dual sovereignties, and diverse interests transmute the partisan extremism of individuals and groups into the political moderation of the body politic. Hence America is moderate, and Athens and Rome were not. n
n nThis is garbage disguised as fancy words.
You, on the other hand, make no attempt to disguise your garbage. Only a blind ideologue could spew such anti-intellectual, pseudo-totalitarian nonsense.
Oh STFU… You have no idea who I am or what I am… Nice try Skippy. The fact remains, Moderation and not standing on principles is what got us into this mess.
I know what you said, and that's all that matters here. If you're going to troll around spewing anti-intellectual, pseudo-totalitarian BS – there's really no other way to characterize your comment – then expect people to call you out on it. I don't care who you are or what you are – your ideas, at least those you're expressing here, are pernicious.
There is a reason that you're reputation is -95. You sound like some progressive d-bag.
My "reputation" is not -95. My IntenseDebate rating is. n nYou got the progressive part very wrong. It's a shame, and false to sociological reality, that you think someone who finds your anti-intellectualism off-putting must be progressive. n nThe d-bag part is a matter of opinion, but I won't argue it. I don't have much tolerance for your kind of reactionary piffle.
Try keep up Skippy, I am a conservative, I inform myself on the issues. You can spew your tripe all you want.
Oh dear. And to think Britain was saddled with that immoderate Mr. Churchill in June 1940. "We will never surrender." How awful. And that "Evil Empire, We win, they lose" Ronald Reagan, yeesh! And don't even get me started on that John Paul II guy. n nWhat difference at this point does it make?