On Moderation: Some Observations from a Disgruntled Radical

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice."
-Thomas Paine

I'm writing today to describe a pattern I've been seeing in a lot of peoples' thinking lately. I also want to talk about why it's harmful to our society. I am talking, of course, about moderation. I often find myself in conversations with other people about a number of issues that I have strong opinions on. I have put in a lot of effort into developing these opinions, and I've learned a massive amount in the past year that has fundamentally altered the way I view the world. I think it's safe to say that my experiences at my undergraduate institution have undoubtedly made me into someone that most Americans would consider a radical. To put it bluntly, I have a lot of ideas that a lot of people think are horseshit. I'm coming to terms with that, and I accept that it comes with the territory. However, there is one idea I have that I don't feel is actually that radical: disagreements are both useful and necessary.


To situate this within some context, the social climate of my college is currently undergoing what I consider to be growing pains. There is a lot of tension between different groups of people on campus, specifically the mainstream culture and a relatively small [but vocal!] number of dissidents. I think the particular way that we engage with this issue is largely determined by the minuscule size of our student body (between 2500 and 3000 students). Whenever something goes down, everybody knows about it and everybody has a different opinion on the matter. So when there's division among the student body, you can be sure it will be on the tip of everyone's tongue. Due to a number of highly visible events on our campus within the past year, we have finally begun to have a dialogue to address our differences. So my question is: why are people so unhappy about that?

When I talk to some people, I get the feeling that they avoid certain topics around me because they are simply terrified that I might disagree with what they think. I understand that not everyone feels as strongly as I do about certain topics, but this is something I frankly have no patience for. It is absolutely unavoidable that when we have people with completely unique life experiences that cause them to interpret and perceive things differently, they will sometimes disagree. What's wrong with challenging one another? If I hear someone say something that I find to be completely ignorant, why shouldn't I tell them so? How are we as a people going to progress if we spend all of our time agreeing on everything? We need division and argument if we are to hash out what ideas are useful to us and what ideas are not.

Regardless of how I feel about it, it seems that most people don't think that way. Most people seem to want to go through their intellectual development with kiddie-gloves on, coddling each other and hugging and babbling about how much they agree with each other. Our society's fetish for compromise has become a widespread and effective roadblock to progress. On my college campus specifically, it seems like anyone who challenges the ideas of someone else is labeled a "radical". At first, I was really confused as to why any would think that this is a  practical way to proceed, but then I thought about what moderation accomplishes.

I think it's important to always consider what effect certain ideas and practices have on other people before espousing and enacting them. For example: racist prejudices and the discrimination that comes with them have a negative effect upon people of color while advantaging whites. For me, that puts them off of the table. So I return to this question of what moderation accomplishes. If space is not given for [strikingly] different opinions to be expressed in an open or direct way, we as a people will never change the way we think about anything. If we do not allow for people to argue the various benefits of, say, a radically different sexual misconduct college policy versus the old way of doing things, we will never make any change. Thus, moderation of this variety will inevitably perpetuate the status quo.

So now I have my answer for why people insist on moderation and compromise in every disagreement: they are resistant to change. People on my campus aren't used to being challenged, and try to force us onto the middle road that will leave them comfortably safe from dissent. If that sounds implausible to you, remember this: that is what these people accomplish when they claim that agreeing is always the better way. Whether you buy that this is their intention or not, that is the effect that their actions have.

So I hope that anyone reading this thinks twice the next time they dismiss someone else because they are "too opinionated" or "like arguing too much". I would ask that we stop and take a moment to reconsider when we pass judgment on someone because they have strong views. Such thinking can never do anything but lock us into mediocrity.




P.S. Someone has stolen all of my gruntles. I think it was the moderates, but I'm not sure.