Can Embracing Political Moderation Help Us Reduce Toxic Polarization?

We’ve explained that the movement to reduce toxic polarization doesn’t require you to be a moderate or a centrist. People with any political beliefs, even those with beliefs some might see as extreme, can join the movement to overcome our toxic divisions. That’s because toxic polarization is largely a problem of excessive contempt and distrust; it’s not a problem of passionate beliefs. Wanting to reduce toxic polarization means believing in engaging in nontoxic, non-contemptuous ways with one’s political opponents.

In his essay “Radical Moderation,” Aurelian Craiutu, Movement Partner, professor of political science, and the author of the book Why Not Moderation? Letters to Young Radicals, writes: 

“Wherever we turn our eyes, we encounter people who are intransigent and overconfident in the truth of their beliefs. They are full of zeal for their own tribe and hatred toward others. They prefer incrimination and denunciation to civil debate and are opposed to compromise and negotiation with those whose views they dislike. Not surprisingly, some of us have begun to ask ourselves whether a nation that is so divided and polarized as ours can survive in the long run.”

Many people think of moderation as something boring, something lukewarm and indecisive. It can seem, as Craiutu puts it, like “a fuzzy center between extremes.” And extremes are exciting. We can be drawn to extreme beliefs — and we may also be angry with people who don’t see the “obvious truth.” Not surprisingly, the concept of moderation can sound unappealing to those with a lot of political passion — and to politicians and pundits who think moderate approaches might make them seem weak.  

Craiutu writes: 

“True moderation does not spring from exhaustion, fear, or indifference. If moderates claim the right to hesitate and weigh the pros and cons in each case, they never lack a compass when making their choices, nor are they wishy-washy in their commitments. They do have a moral and political compass given by their firm commitment to the principles of open society, among them, freedom, civil equality, toleration, pluralism, limited powers, and the rule of law.”

Craiutu makes the case that moderation is “a complex virtue with a rich tradition and unexplored radical sides.” And that moderation is largely about engaging respectfully with our fellow citizens — even if we may strongly disagree with them.

Admittedly, this isn’t easy! It requires bravery and a dedicated commitment to democratic principles. 

We hope this helps you see some of the complexity and thought behind the “moderate” label that some people embrace, instead of seeing it as evidence of weakness or lack of moral commitment.

To learn more, read a review of Craiutu’s book Why Not Moderation? 

Want to keep informed about the depolarization movement? Sign up for our newsletter.