Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

https://aeon.co/ideas/moderation-may-be-...ing-virtue

EXCERPT: [...] Although our democratic institutions depend on political actors exercising common sense, self-restraint and moderation, we live in a world dominated by hyperbole and ideological intransigence in which moderates have become a sort of endangered species in dire need of protection. Can we do something about that to save them from extinction? To answer this question, we should take a new look at moderation, which Edmund Burke regarded as a difficult virtue, proper only to noble and courageous minds. What does it mean to be a moderate voice in political and public life? What are the principles underlying moderation? What do moderates seek to achieve in society, and how do they differ from more radical or extremist minds?

Before answering these questions, we must address the common view that tends to equate moderation with indecision, weakness, opportunism and cowardice. In the eyes of those who espouse this interpretation, moderation appears as a bland, incoherent and undesirable virtue, the opposite of the firmness and clarity of purpose desired by those who prefer starker contrasts and brighter colours. ‘Moderation sees itself as beautiful,’ Friedrich Nietzsche once quipped, only because ‘it is unaware that in the eye of the immoderate it appears black and sober, and consequently ugly-looking.’ To others more politically inclined, moderation is unsatisfactory because it is seen as a form of appeasement that does not offer a suitable platform for mobilisation and reform.

What did the ancients think about all this? For one thing, they didn’t share our present skepticism toward moderation. On the contrary, they praised it and thought that the alleged ‘barbarians’ were also incapable of moderation, that is, of following a rational middle course. If classical authors agreed on the importance of moderation, they also insisted that it is not an easy virtue....

MORE: https://aeon.co/ideas/moderation-may-be-...ing-virtue

(Jul 29, 2017 01:11 AM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Although our democratic institutions depend on political actors exercising common sense, self-restraint and moderation, we live in a world dominated by hyperbole and ideological intransigence in which moderates have become a sort of endangered species in dire need of protection. Can we do something about that to save them from extinction?

Part of the problem is that ever since the civil-rights-movement, all political issues seem to have turned into moral issues, into questions of good and evil.

Contemporary politics these days seems to largely consist of moral condemnations: Where it was once Heathen!, Heretic! or Adulterer!, today it's more often Bigot!, Racist! or Denier! and many more. (Our moral guardians are infinitely inventive.)

I'm starting to think that political activists today are the lineal descendants of 17th century dressed-in-black puritans trying to cleanse society of sin.

And that's just the thing. Where prior to the 1960's political opponents were the kind of people that politicians could compromise with in 'smoke filled rooms', today compromise with what is perceived as evil has become impossible.

Compromise with evil is itself perceived as evil, so people strive instead for public demonstrations of moral purity.

(Jul 29, 2017 08:09 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jul 29, 2017 01:11 AM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Although our democratic institutions depend on political actors exercising common sense, self-restraint and moderation, we live in a world dominated by hyperbole and ideological intransigence in which moderates have become a sort of endangered species in dire need of protection. Can we do something about that to save them from extinction?

Part of the problem is that ever since the civil-rights-movement, all political issues seem to have turned into moral issues, into questions of good and evil.

Contemporary politics these days seems to largely consist of moral condemnations: Where it was once Heathen!, Heretic! or Adulterer!, today it's more often Bigot!, Racist! or Denier! and many more. (Our moral guardians are infinitely inventive.)

I'm starting to think that political activists today are the lineal descendants of 17th century dressed-in-black puritans trying to cleanse society of sin.

And that's just the thing. Where prior to the 1960's political opponents were the kind of people that politicians could compromise with in 'smoke filled rooms', today compromise with what is perceived as evil has become impossible.

Compromise with evil is itself perceived as evil, so people strive instead for public demonstrations of moral purity.

Good point!  I’ve thought the same thing.  They’re both cut from the same cloth.

I consider myself a moderate, and my great hope is that leaders on both sides of the aisle will TRY to find some common ground, so that both sides can work together. I fear there will never be more than those two sides (repub and democrat) to choose from, so we should try to work with what we have in front of us. I've been accused though of not standing firm enough on certain political problems and topics, as that is how the left and right sort of see moderates. And in a way, I admire people who cling fiercely to their ''side,'' without equivocation, even if I completely disagree with their views. I have convictions, but moderate allows me the ability to understand both sides, for there's always two sides.

The perception of moderation can seem different to different people. For me the concept in it's purest form isn't just arbitration but the capacity to try and look for the best solution by bringing together proponents held by those that otherwise are ignored because of their tainted narrow-minded view set based upon those individuals beliefs, personal choices or parties manifesto.

In theory it's actually a bedrock to build great things from, however in practice it can be undermined, controlled and abused. At which juncture it then leads to the necessity of reform.

To be honest I see political systems lacking from the same capacity as software. Software on occasion requires to be completely rebuilt rather than patched because continued advances in technology changes the playing field, what use to work in programming becomes obsolete or depreciated, so a change becomes a necessity.

While it would be possible to moderate a program to be built to do a particular task, sometimes that moderation would have capitulate to the fundamental way that those programs can be sculptured and as to what platform they can run on.

In essence sometimes moderation can't apply any more band-aids to a mortal wound, and it's best just to start afresh.

"Moderation" has little meaning in the political sense. It doesn't define a specific platform or even a unifying set of principles. And while individual moderates may have specific policy goals, there seems to be little stringing them together but fancy, and most would actually end up with a not insignificant leaning to one political side or the other, if they tallied their goals. The impression that they are indecisive, whether as individuals or a group, seems based on a basic tenet of logic...the law of excluded middle. And it's probably much more productive to talk about whether a proposed policy will have the desired effect (true or false) whether than the proposal is good or evil.

Real moderation isn't telling people to get along or work together. It's having the temperance to look at issues and try to resolve the actual effects of policy. IOW, the virtue to temperance doesn't really apply to political labels.

That is true in the sense that moderates don't have a specific ideology unto themselves but in politics, it can be refreshing to see people who aren't clinging to one party's ideology. I like the phrase "classical liberal," because it fits my centrist views. I believe I've read stats that show "most Americans" classify themselves as moderates, so there's that.

Most people who associate themselves with one party do not necessarily agree with party leadership or all the party platforms. For example, in the Democrat party alone you have socialist Bernie Bros, establishment/Hillary supporters, classic liberals, etc.. Maybe there's a misconception of party homogeneity that keeps people from claiming a party. And yes, there are overlaps. For example, libertarians and conservatives generally believe in classical liberal values as well. So it comes down to which policies you advocate on each issue and which side the bulk of those align with. Associating with either the right or left also doesn't preclude you from advocating for compromise, which may be another misconception.

Or true moderates, e.g. independents, are just not politically active enough to know who they agree with most:


For independents (true centrist, non-leaning moderates) lack of interest likely does correspond to a lack in clarity about their policy goals.

I think that's interesting, Syne.

We could always take this test for a more accurate composite picture. You might be surprised where you end up. lol

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Good test, Leigha. It properly distinguishes fascism from anarchism and collectivism from libertarianism (as opposed to the naive, wishful thinking and single dimension ones that try to pit fascism as opposite communism).
I was exactly where I thought I'd be...2.88 right/-0.87 libertarian. So as you can see...not far from center. But I wasn't surprised because I know what my policy goals are and why.

Where did you land?