There are basically two meanings of the word “moderate.” One of them is good and one is, well, iffy.
Moderate (1) : You practice the virtue of moderation in your politics, which means you temper your own political enthusiasms and prejudices, consider nuances and competing goods, and recognize your own “team” is flawed and that your opponents have insights.
Moderate (2): You habitually split the difference between whatever the two sides of a polarized debate are saying and assume that’s where truth and justice is.
Moderation 1 is pretty much always good.
Moderation 2 *may* be ok depending on the issue, but there’s no guarantee that the middle path is actually the right one. Being principled is better than being above the fray.
Moderation 2 *may* be ok depending on the issue, but there’s no guarantee that the middle path is actually the right one. Being principled is better than being above the fray.
Be a moderate 1. If you happen to be a moderate 2 about a particular issue, make sure to moderate your moderation!
Sometimes truth and justice are in the middle, and sometimes they fall to one side or the other. Then again, sometimes both sides are so wrong-headed that truth and justice are somewhere way off the binary political spectrum.
Of course, the same logic applies to “extremism.”
You can be an extremist if you refuse to question your own righteousness or consider any truths that might complicate the narrative you want to push. That’s bad (although you might still do some good if your cause is good).
You can be an extremist if you refuse to question your own righteousness or consider any truths that might complicate the narrative you want to push. That’s bad (although you might still do some good if your cause is good).
In other hand, in some times and places what’s considered extreme is simply the right thing to do.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
