This is Aurelian Craiutu’s response to four critics of his Why Not Moderation? Letters to Young Radicals. The reviews to which this post is a response can be found over the previous four days on T21.
Tocqueville 21 Forum on Aurelian Craiutu, Why Not Moderation? Letters to Young Radicals (Cambridge University Press, 2024).
Author response by Aurelian Craiutu
Moderation: The New MAGA Movement (Make America Governable Again)?[1]
“We suffocate among people who believe they are right.”[2]
Albert Camus
I am grateful to Michael Behrent for the idea of organizing this symposium and would like to thank Ewa Atanassow, Matthijs Lok, and Tanguy Pasquiet-Briand for taking time to read and comment on my new book. I wrote the latter as an invitation to dialogue and am particularly pleased to see that it elicited thoughtful comments and some principled disagreement. While I cannot do justice to all the points raised by my colleagues, I should like to focus on a few core issues that are important enough to warrant further clarification.
First, a few words about my motivation for writing this unorthodox book are in order. I have been reflecting on political moderation for two decades now, which at first sight may be an egregious (and unpardonable) sign of … immoderation. Why Not Moderation? builds upon the ideas of A Virtue for Courageous Minds (2012) and Faces of Moderation (2017) and takes them into new directions. I began writing it during the pandemic and the controversial 2020 electoral year when it became painfully evident how difficult it is to sell the virtue of political moderation. Moderation was in short supply then, to use an understatement. Alas, nothing important has changed since then. We are still exhausted the apocalyptic rhetoric of the “Flight 93” politics.[3] To paraphrase Camus, we are still gasping for air among self-righteous people who believe that they are infallible and always on the right side of history.
Born out of my frustration with contemporary politics and concern for the future of our liberal democracy, my book was conceived as a manual to “land the plane,” as it were, and perhaps inspire, in Jonathan Rauch’s witty words, a new and better MAGA movement: “Make America Governable Again.” As such, I sought to launch a provocation and challenge to the ideas of young radicals, represented here by Lauren (from the Left) and Rob (from the Right). Their generation has become impatient with the limits of liberal democratic regimes and seems eager (and ready) to discard the latter in pursuit of its dreams and goals.
The task of speaking to younger radicals is made greater by the fact that our political landscape is dominated by sectarianism, alternative facts, and fake news and, as such, it is not conducive to moderation. The fracture of our world into political tribes makes politicians keen to eschew it to get elected and maintain power. Nonetheless, they are not the only ones to distrust moderation. The conventional view among the public is that unlike radicalism, moderation is not a magnetic idea and does not satisfy fundamental human needs. I set out to challenge this idea by writing a trade book (rather than an academic one) addressed to a general audience interested in politics and history. The readers are invited to participate in an open-ended conversation on what it takes to live in a free and open society and how to best defend and save liberal democracy from its present crisis.
The title and genre of the book are not accidental. I chose Why Not Moderation? instead of “Why Moderation” for a very specific reason. The underlying assumption is that nobody has the monopoly of truth and that there is no panacea for our present discontents. The book opens with a trigger warning (“Caveat lector”) that I was hoping my readers would take it seriously. I write from the perspective of a homo viator, who still searches for the truth. I do have more questions than answers and am not reluctant to express my own limits, hesitation, and doubt. That comes with a price. The authors of books defending neglected and unpopular virtues like moderation risk remaining marginal and being easily dismissed or criticized for their alleged opportunism, weakness, cowardice, or complacency. It is not clear that their message would reach those who most need it.
Moreover, writing for a general audience is not an easy task, especially for academics. There are many reasons for that. One of them is that moderation has several faces and is part of a larger semantic field that needs to be properly examined in order to understand it in all its complexity. Just focusing on moderation alone would not suffice. To render justice to moderation, one would need to pay attention to its synonyms such as prudence, civility, modesty, centrism, or compromise, as well as to its antonyms such as radicalism, extremism, fanaticism, or zealotry. And one should also address the critics of moderation that might have important things to say about it.
General readers have little patience for arcane details, long endnotes, and academic jargon. Their attention must be engaged in a carefully choreographed way, with surprises, interruptions, and contrasts that can make reading absorbing, a point noticed by Ewa Atanassow. Finding the right balance between philosophy, history, and contemporary politics is an additional challenge. If one were to remain too close to contemporary events, the book would risk becoming obsolete along with news headlines; if one were to maintain too great a distance from them, the book would be too abstract and ultimately uninteresting. The opening epigraph borrowed from Tocqueville’s Democracy in America illustrates my desire to escape from the dizzying labyrinth of current news and try to see farther than the parties, to the extent to which that is possible.
As Professor Atanassow remarks, the book’s dialogical form mirrors its substance; moderation and dialogue are closely connected and tend to reinforce each other. Why Not Moderation? offers an open Socratic conversation that combines short letter-essays with a (arguably livelier) question-and-answer format. It meanders and digresses at times, returning to a few core themes and ideas that draw upon the wisdom of leading figures from the past without idolizing them. Some questions and issues are intentionally left unanswered or only partly answered, inviting the readers themselves to think and complete the larger picture. Sometimes, the epigraphs opening each letter contain hints for deciphering its message. Finally, the epilogue, in a moment of (surprising) immoderation, proposes a few rules (in reality, a decalogue!) for “radical moderates.”
While I am aware that the structure and tone of the book may not be to everyone’s liking, I explicitly sought to avoid an old-fashioned lecture given from the lectern by someone who claims to have superior knowledge. My role was to act more like a gadfly and dialogue facilitator rather than someone who has definitive conclusions. I did not intend to play the role of “a priest warning against the dangers of sexual promiscuity” as Michael Behrent opines. To Matthijs Lok who wonders whether a Socratic conversation offers a forum suitable for a conversation with the young about moderation, I am prepared to respond in the affirmative. I see no reason why we cannot challenge them to learn new things and even revisit their views. Yet, of course, this doesn’t automatically mean that they are more likely to endorse political moderation.
As Michael Behrent argues, we may need to moderate the taste for moderation itself, especially when it comes to trying to settle conflicts over interests and power. Perhaps that is the case, but I am not sure. I agree that there are many types of radicalism, some good, some not so good; the same goes for reasonable compromises (as illustrated by Henry Clay) and rotten ones (for example the 1938 Munich accords or the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop secret pact). The book makes it crystal clear that there are moments when we must eschew moderation, but they are rather rare in history (think again of Churchill in 1940). Fortunately, “Flight 93” situations do not occur every year. Overall, it is hard to deny that the functioning of our liberal democracies cannot be conceived in general without some degree of moderation. That is one of the reasons why gradual reforms tend to work better than revolutions and large-scale transformations. For a detailed analysis, the readers can consult an interesting book on the virtues of incremental change published recently by Greg Berman and Aubrey Fox.[4]
Many seem to believe that the contemporary excesses of liberalism are at the origin of the current taste for radicalism and immoderation. This may be true but there is room for nuance here. Some types of radicalism may be pragmatic, oriented toward problem-solving, and not incompatible with some aspects of moderation. A good example of pragmatic radicalism in action that did not rule out reasonable compromises was Saul Alinsky. He was not a moderate, for sure, but his outlook shared a few surprising affinities with that of moderates. As a community organizer, he used polarization as a strategy to put pressure on the other side and get it to the bargaining table and win necessary concessions. Once this occurred, Alinsky was ready to change gears and espoused a bargaining position. The assumption was that the combat was not based on the hatred of the other side but on finding much needed common ground to solve urgent problems.
While radical in many respects, Alinsky borrowed a number of things from the moderates’ repertoire that I should like to mention here. First, I note his opposition to dogmatic rigidity; “I detest and fear dogma,” he once said, and remained true to this idea to the end of his life.[5] He acknowledged that he was fallible and did not have all the right answers to the complex problems he tried to solve. That is why he emphasized the need for constant self-criticism. The second trait worth highlighting was his pragmatism. “I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be” he once said, emphasizing the importance of working within the system to reform it.[6] Third, there was his willingness to strike timely and reasonable compromises with his opponents, a key trait that any civic organizer should have. Compromise, Alinsky claimed, “is a key and beautiful word” in the vocabulary of all organizers; “a society devoid of compromise is totalitarian. If I had to define a free and open society in one word, the word would be ‘compromise’.”[7] He viewed disagreements as a whetting stone to sharpen their views and improve their policies. Finally, there was his commitment to diversity and respect for various religions and cultural traditions, as illustrated by his dialogue with the prominent French Catholic writer, Jacques Maritain.[8] Alinsky also emphasized the need to carefully pay attention to people’s perspectives and local knowledge, maintaining differences rather than imposing central, uniform, one-size-fits solutions.
A general point that emerges from reading the four comments is that moderation is a complex virtue that is part of an entire archipelago with deep roots in the history of political thought. As an eclectic virtue, it draws on many political, economic, cultural, and religious traditions. As Tanguy Pasquiet-Briand remarks, there can even be a socialist type of moderation as the cases of liberal socialism in Italy and solidarism in France demonstrate, and it is simplistic to link moderation solely with (classical) liberalism. Some of my readers tend to focus on the ethical aspects of moderation that are well known but they tend to underplay the institutional and constitutional facets of moderation that are equally important. Moderation is intrinsically linked, among others, to balance and separation of powers, federalism, pluralism, bicameralism, polycentricity, neutral (third) power, judicial review, and mixed government. The key texts for studying the institutional aspects of moderation are Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws and The Federalist Papers, but one can also read Benjamin Constant’s political writings and Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America to understand the seminal link between moderation and institutional complexity.
I agree with Matthijs Lok that more space could and should be given to exploring the socio-economic factors of moderation. I touched upon this in the letter on eclecticism and pluralism to which I would like to return here. I relied upon the work of Daniel Bell whose The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (1976) showed that an ideological crossover is both possible and necessary in late capitalism. Like Bell, I also believe that there are several axial principles in modern society that regulate different spheres (economy, politics, culture, religion). There is no possibility for one single principle to rule over all these areas. The economic sphere is regulated by the principles of rationality and efficiency, along with free market. In the political sphere, the axial principles are equality before the law and legitimacy, while the cultural realm functions according to the principles of authenticity, self-expression, autonomy, and self-realization. Religion follows the principles of obedience, tradition, and heteronomy.
All this has important implications for the policies we advocate. The type that I defend in this book embraces eclecticism and pluralism which derive from (and are mandated by) the very nature of modern society. I argued that “once we take eclecticism and pluralism seriously, we can no longer think of modern society in holistic terms or through the lens of a single value, or principle, be that equality, liberty, or justice.”[9] Emphasizing the evils of private property, domination or exploitation would not take us further either; same goes for the controversial dilemma pro-life or pro-choice. In my view, the reason is simple: there is no longer a single cockpit or central command station in modern society, as Marxists or religious fundamentalists would have us believe. Critics of neoliberalism from both the Left and Right point to the free market as a possible central point, but the truth is more complex than that; after all, there are many areas and things in life that remain beyond the spheres of supply and demand.
To make a long story short, it is possible to a be a classical liberal committed to constitutionalism and the rule of law in the realm of politics and defend a moderate version of the (social-democratic) welfare state in economics while also emphasizing the importance of religion and tradition. One can acknowledge the virtues of free markets and the limits of decentralization plus the need for effective state-led policies conforming with the logic of the market (artificial limits on the price mechanism will not do it). Such combinations may appear to some as an oxymoron, but I am convinced that modern society calls for eclecticism, pluralism, and trimming, all of which are related to moderation.
What I want to remind in the end is that moderates are tightrope walkers for whom balance and trimming between competing values and principles are key virtues. Moderates refuse to use one single yardstick in judging the political and social world in which they live. They favor competing centers of power, checks and balances, pluralism, and diversity. They have a vision of the destination they want to reach and stay focused on it, paying attention to every step they take. In so doing, they follow the fluid contours of reality and constantly assess the risks and opportunities that may arise. They seek to redress imbalances in society and trim between the extremes. They aim at restoring a fragile balance between competing principles and values: freedom and equality, justice and efficiency, freedom and order, regulation and deregulation, centralization and decentralization. When foundational norms and issues are at stake, moderates have no hesitation in becoming radical defenders of the values and principles of modern society.
This is the type of politics that can make America governable again. It equips moderates with a roadmap for resolving conflicts and tensions in daily life, one that respects the complexity and diversity of life, without turning into another ideology. As an art of balance, moderation requires training and patience, attention and flexibility, prudence and courage, foresight and intuition, in addition to luck. Moderates will always favor complexity over uniformity and will be skeptical of safe spaces or bubbles. They will always seek to remain in dialogue with their friends and critics alike. I believe that this is one of many strengths of moderation, a virtue for courageous minds. It is also one of the reasons for which I am grateful to my colleagues for generously contributing to an important debate that must continue beyond this point.
[1] Jonathan Rauch’s endorsement on the back cover of Why Not Moderation? Letters to Young Radicals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024).
[2] Albert Camus, Between Hell and Reason: Essays from the Resistance Newspaper Combat, 1944-1947, trans. Alexandre de Gramont (Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press, 1991), 118.
[3] Publius Decius Mus (Michael J. Anton), “Flight 93 Election,” The Claremont Review of Books (September 5, 2016_, https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/the-flight-93-election/.
[4] Greg Berman and Aubrey Fox, Gradual: The Case for Incremental Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023).
[5] Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals (New York; Vintage, 1989), 4.
[6] Ibid, xix.
[7] Ibid, 59.
[8] See Bernard E. Doering (ed.), The Philosopher and the Provocateur: The Correspondence of Jacques Maritain and Saul Alinsky (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994).
[9] Craiutu, Why Not Moderation?, 130.