Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes

by Aurelian Craiutu

Aristotle listed moderation as one of the moral virtues. He also defined virtue as the mean between extremes, implying that moderation plays a vital role in all forms of moral excellence. But moderation's protean character—its vague and ill-defined omnipresence in judgment and action—makes it exceedingly difficult to grasp theoretically. At the same time, moderation seems to be the foundation of many contemporary democratic political regimes, because the competition between parties cannot properly function without compromise and bargaining. The success of representative government and its institutions depends to a great extent on the virtue of moderation, yet the latter persists in being absent from both the conceptual discourse of many political philosophers and the campaign speeches of politicians fearful of losing elections if they are perceived as moderates.

Aurelian Craiutu aims to resolve this paradox. Examining the writings of prominent twentieth-century thinkers such as Raymond Aron, Isaiah Berlin, Norberto Bobbio, Michael Oakeshott, and Adam Michnik, he addresses the following questions: What does it mean to be a moderate voice in political and public life? What are the virtues and limits of moderation? Can moderation be the foundation for a successful platform or party? Though critics maintain that moderation is merely a matter of background and personal temperament, Craiutu finds several basic norms that have consistently appeared in different national and political contexts. The authors studied in this book defended pluralism of ideas, interests, and social forces, and sought to achieve a sound balance between them through political trimming. They shared a preoccupation with political evil and human dignity, but refused to see the world in Manichaean terms that divide it neatly into the forces of light and those of darkness. Faces of Moderation argues that moderation remains crucial for today's encounters with new forms of extremism and fundamentalism across the world.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction

304 pages, Hardcover

Published January 12, 2017

About the author

assistant professor
department of political science

Reviews

[Therese · Rating 4 out of 5]

An important, inspiring intellectual history that profiles a series of fiercely courageous thinkers of the twentieth century who defended moderation as a political value. For those who associate the word "moderate" with weakness or being wishy-washy, this is a book to blow up those perceptions. The author, Aurelian Craiutu, experienced life under communism in his home country of Romania, which adds a moving personal dimension to his exposition of thinkers like Raymond Aron (a friend and an intellectual opponent of the famous existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre) who (in marked contrast to Sartre) was among the first to recognize the true totalitarian nature of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe, while warning just as urgently of the dangers of rising Nazism and fascism on the nationalist and populist authoritarian far-right.

These were maverick thinkers who went their own way, often at the cost of being hated, persecuted, imprisoned, or ostracized, refusing to conform to prevailing currents of propagandizing, hatemongering, polarization, and extremist or anti-humanist philosophies. They believed in intellectual humility, openness to dialogue, civility, democratic institutions, independence of thought, and intellectual integrity. One of Craiutu's important emphases is that these thinkers found their political home bases at different positions along the political spectrum, with Aron and Isaiah Berlin on the Left, the Italian thinker Norberto Bobbio a liberal socialist, British philosopher Michael Oakschott a committed conservative, and Polish dissident Adam Michnik an anti-communist pro-democracy radical, who endured extensive time in prison for his activism in the Solidarity movement.

In the process, Craiutu also shows that political moderation can embrace a broad diversity of worldviews, while providing a framework of values in which openness, dialogue, and diversity can contribute to the common good of societies and countries. I would strongly recommend this book to anyone wondering whether there could be any alternative or solution to the problematic current trends toward increased polarization and hate in public discourse. Craiutu makes a persuasive case that moderation can act as an antidote to the poisons tearing us apart.

[Erika RS · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book explores moderation as a political philosophy by looking at the positions and careers of five moderates. Although the premise is sound, the writing was tedious and repetitive enough that I did not find it compelling. One of the challenges was that the author assumed more familiarity with the politics of Cold War Europe than I possed. Perhaps those who were educated in Europe are familiar with the ins and outs of Cold War politics in all of France, Britain, Italy, and Poland to not need any introduction. I, however, could have used a little more scaffolding. Another challenge with the text was how Craiutu never quite settled on whether each chapter should be a mini-biography focused on the influence of moderation on the careers of the subjects or whether each chapter should be an exploration of facets of moderation illustrated through the careers of individuals. Thus, neither purpose was served particularly well.

That said, it was so refreshing to see moderation explored as a political philosophy I rate the book moderately well as a whole. The prologue, first chapter, and epilogue are worth reading. The rest is only worth skimming.

Since moderation is often seen as tepid or indecisive, it's worth spending some time laying out what Craiutu sees as the content of the intellectual tradition of moderation. At its heart, moderation rejects ideological thinking in favor of a more nuanced (critiques might say more equivocating) view of the world. Rather than being timid, it often requires being a non-conformist. "The argument offered in this book is that moderation, in its many faces, is a fighting and bold creed grounded in a complex and eclectic conception of the world. ... Because it rejects ideological thinking, moderation implies a good dose of courage, non-conformism, flexibility, and discernment ... Finally, as a tolerant and civil virtue related to temperance and opposed to violence, moderation respects the spontaneity of life and the pluralism of the world and can protect us against pride, one-sidedness, intolerance, and fanaticism in our moral and political commitments."

To understand moderation as a perspective, it's worth breaking down its key aspects. Moderates can hold a variety of opinions; moderates are not, as some would have it, inherently conservative. Their similarity tends to come more from the ways they look at the world than the conclusions they draw about it.

Avoiding extremes: Moderates generally reject absolutes. Ideologies that claim to have an ultimate answer are looked upon with suspicion. They do not reject change. Rather, prudent, incremental change is generally prefered to sweeping change. When they do hold extreme opinions they tend to hold them tentatively rather than dogmatically. This does not mean that they reject the idea of known truths. Rather, they do not apply the certainty of truth to things that are controversial or unsettled.

Keeping dialogue open: Moderates often keep open dialogue with those they disagree with. Because of their willingness to listen to views they do not hold, they may appear to get along better with their ideological opponents than with their ideological allies, especially when those allies are leaning toward extremes.

Avoiding dualism (dividing the world into forces of good and evil): Moderates do not deny that there are some positions or ideologies which are evil. However, they generally try to see what is valuable in the perspectives they generally disagree with and what is flawed in the perspectives they generally agree with.

Advocating an ethics of means rather than absolute ends: Moderates generally reject plans that sacrifice ethical considerations in the short term to achieve some greater good in the end.

Trimming: Moderates seek to keep the ship of state on an even keel. They aim for balance through small, frequent adjustments rather than visible and dramatic corrections. Balance often requires leaning against the dominant ideology or amplifying ideas that do not have much visibility. Thus, they may appear as nonconformists. Because trimmers are prone to changing sides as one side or another goes to extremes, they may not be seen as fully trustworthy by either side.

Valuing pluralism: Since moderates generally reject ideologies and see value in many different (and often conflicting) perspectives, they tend to deeply appreciate the value of diverse ideas. Since we rarely have the foresight to know which ideas are right, pluralism is one of the primary tools for avoiding the damage caused by extreme ideologies.

Upholding civility: This dedication to pluralism requires an emphasis on civility in the face of disagreement. Civility is not merely a matter of polite behavior. "Civility presupposes that while we are all free to pursue our private ends, we are also called to abide by the requirements of the common good loosely defined. ... It is a certain style of thinking and action that makes us regard our antagonists as reasonable opponents with whom, our differences notwithstanding, we can argue about the best ways of pursuing both individual and common projects and interests, rather than implacable enemies who must be eliminated from the public sphere."

[Art]

The New York Times, Sunday Review, opinion by Peter Wehner, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, who served in the last three Republican administrations. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/opi...

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

While defining it gets complicated, I would consider myself a moderate both by political leaning (or non-leaning) and by temperament. How to express or justify that moderation is difficult, as it tends to be mistaken for weakness, cowardice, opportunism, stupidity, contrarianism, or apathy. Strangely enough, when we think of moderation we usually don’t have any idea what it means outside of a spot on a binary spectrum, even though most people would accurately fall somewhere in the middle.

So, it’s difficult to know what to do with myself in today’s world, other than warm my feet by the fires of the culture war and wait. Fortunately, I’ve come across this book instead. It’s ultimately a collection of a few short biographies that tries to bring out of diverse contexts a semi-unified conception of moderation that can be used today. The final answer seems to be that there is no neat and tidy definition, but involves different tactics of skepticism, empathy, and realism. The book itself is “meh”ly written and repetitive, but is chock full of great quotes and books for further study. I recommend it to anyone who would like to strengthen the reasonable middle against it's overly-certain opponents.

The biographies/cases focus around the ideologies of the 20th century: fascism and communism. We get a selection of writers nominally on both sides and see how they approached their attack on ideology and fanaticism. We see Raymond Aron in France try to disillusion Sartre and other Marxists from their foolish laws of history, and then we see Norberto Bobbio in post-fascism Italy attempt to balance defense and criticism of communism through dialogue. We also see Adam Michnik in Communist/Postcommunist Poland wavering back and forth as the force of extremism moves back and forth the other way. Looking at these unusual political situations, the greatest takeaway is the acknowledgement that there is not and will never be a final solution to political problems. The best we can do is quite literally the best we can do, though that’s also not an excuse for complacency.

[Alex Chalmers · Rating 3 out of 5]

Could have been a third of the length tbh - interesting individual portraits but tries too hard to create a cohesive theory of moderation. Makes it pretty ponderous/repetitive

[Mills College Library]

320.01 C887 2017