(bright music) - [Announcer] The School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership presents "The Civic Discourse Project: Sustaining American Political Order in History and Practice."

This week.

- Because in the end, I will try to convince you that moderation can offer what we really need today.

We need a new MAGA, MAGA movement.

But wait a minute, it's Make America Governable Again.

- [Announcer] "The Civic Discourse Project" is brought to you by Arizona State University School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership.

Now, Aurelian Craiutu, a professor at Indiana University, reveals who is afraid of moderation.

- I would like to point out from the very beginning that it may seem pointless or utopian to ask this question, who is afraid of moderation?

We know who.

So let's start with this question, who needs moderation today?

This is the million-dollar question, and I think that the important question to ask is do we really need moderation and what do we mean by that?

Although I have written a lot about moderation, I must give you an advanced warning, a trigger warning, as some might say.

My answer may not seem moderate at all to you because in the end, I will try to convince you that moderation can offer what we really need today.

We need a new MAGA, MAGA movement.

But wait a minute, it's Make America Governable Again.

So this is the kind of moderation that I would like to suggest we need.

There is a lot that can be said about the image problem that moderation has in our world.

When asking this question, who needs moderation today, it's mostly about what do we mean by that and what kind of moderation.

And Professor Hay has reminded us of a sentence uttered six decades ago by one of Arizona's legends, Senator Barry Goldwater, "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

I'm sure that some of you think that we don't need moderation today any more than in 1964, and you may be right after all.

Today we live in bubbles and echo chambers.

Our cable news world has little use of this virtue and appetite for this virtue.

Under these circumstances, it seems that to practice moderation would be utopian at best and a self-defeating course at worst.

Above all, it is a difficult and dangerous virtue, as the image of this guy, the tightrope walker, suggests.

This is how I see moderates today.

The question that I would like to ask is a little bit different now.

Why have moderates become a sort of endangered species in dire of protection?

So it's not easy to answer this question.

It's no secret that moderation has an image problem in our world of fake news, alternative facts, echo chambers, hyperpolarization, and sectarianism.

We've seen our politicians and even our colleagues in academia saying, "My way or the highway."

We live in a no-compromise era.

We live in an era of cancel culture, public insults, and primaries in which moderates have been constantly challenged by those who stressed purity and litmus tests.

There is a declining faith in the democratic institutions as well, and moderates have been accused of being weak, timid, and indecisive.

And what's surprising is that the skepticism of moderation comes from all kinds of political angles and sides.

I would like to give you two examples here.

One is from John Stuart Mill, who said this on liberty, "The general average of mankind are not only moderate in intellect, but also moderate in inclinations.

They have no taste or wishes strong enough to incline them to do anything unusual."

This is not an endorsement of moderation from a liberal who wrote on liberty.

But then you have Rush Limbaugh, the famous conservative radio host who said this, "By definition, moderates can't be brave.

They don't have opinions.

Brave moderates?

Great moderates in American history?

Show me that book."

And there is also this idea which you can I think get from John Stuart Mill's quote, that moderates and moderation can never be truly democratic enough, that they condone various forms of injustice and status quo.

And this is something that you can get in Martin Luther King Jr.

's famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail."

This is the view of moderation as being a covert way of condoning injustice in society.

And this is the view that you have, for example, today in the words of someone like Ta-Nehisi Coates, who has promoted this view of America as a moderate country and therefore a locus for injustice.

But the nature and the complexity of moderation, I think, cannot be captured by using a purely philosophical or analytical approach.

You can't have a theory of moderation as you could have a theory of justice written by John Rawls.

It requires instead concrete historical examples and extensive historical foray.

So by definition, any study of moderation requires a foray into history.

And even more interestingly from my perspective as a historian of political thought is that the richness of moderation can be grasped only if it's placed within a larger semantic field, which includes related concepts such as temperance, prudence, juste milieu, mixed or moderate government, and antonyms, opposites, such as fanaticism, extremism, radicalism, or zealotry.

So it's very important to look at moderation as part of this semantic field.

So really anyone who studies moderation must take into account the complexity of this historical and semantic field.

And I think that this is extremely important for anyone who criticizes moderation because there's no such thing as moderation.

There are faces of moderation.

But the most inspiring definitions of moderation, in my view, can be found in the writings of two 17th century thinkers.

And the first one is Joseph Hall, who is the author of a book called "Christian Moderation" in 1640, in which he defined moderation as "the silken string that runs through the pearl chain of all virtues."

Four decades later, in the 1680s, the Marquess of Halifax referred to moderation as an art of balance and he referred to the concept of trimming.

It's an analytical metaphor that refers to the act of keeping the balance of the ship on an even keel.

So when the ship of the state, in this case, leans to the left, you lean to the right in order to prevent it from capsizing, and vice versa.

When it leans to the right, it leans to the left in order to maintain it on an even keel, the political meaning of moderation that became prominent in the 1700s.

So in the 18th century.

It is basically in the 18th century that we have a clear understanding of moderation as essential to building an institutional structure that allows people to live freely.

And this is a close relationship that thinkers in the 18th century drew between political liberty, moderation, security, and the laws.

And, of course, the author that I'm most interested in here is Montesquieu.

Montesquieu referred in his book "The Spirit of the Laws" to moderation as "the supreme virtue of the legislator."

Interestingly, he writes a book that has, I think, 507 chapters and 31 books, "The Spirit of the Laws," and it's only in the Book 29, chapter one, that he writes this, "I've written this work only to prove it: the spirit of moderation should be that of the legislator."

It's interesting that Montesquieu in 1748 when the book appeared wrote about moderate government.

And it is interesting also how he defines moderate government.

And he wrote in chapter 14 of Book 5, "One must combine powers, regulate them, temper them, make them act.

One must give one power a ballast, so to speak, to put it in a position to resist another."

As such, moderate government is a work of art, "a masterpiece of legislation that chance rarely produces and prudence is rarely allowed to produce."

What's essential here is that moderate government is based on the interdependence of mutually limiting powers and authorities.

So the connection between moderation and institutional complexity comes to the fore in this quote from Montesquieu.

Of course, you can find, contrary to what Rush Limbaugh tried to suggest as moderation in American tradition, there's a lot that can be said here.

"The Federalist Papers" are, I think, a book or a series of essays on moderation, which is equated here with open-minded reasonableness, a disposition to avoid extremes of action and expression.

The word moderation, I counted, appears over 11 times in the course of the essays, perhaps more in "The Federalist Papers."

George Washington's Farewell Address is also, in my understanding, is moderation can be seen as a source of strength and a judicious approach is essential for good government.

And I think that his warning in 1796 is relevant for us today because we need to resist intolerant extremes and ideological zealotry.

My favorite quote of all this comes from John Adams who said, "Without moderation, every man in power becomes a ravenous beast of prey."

Of course, there's finally in the 18th century the image of moderation as the opposite of fanaticism and political enthusiasm.

You see this in the works of Hume, Voltaire, the Encyclopedie.

But the idea here is that moderates believe that truth is never on one side only and the error on the other.

And the idea is that we should acknowledge that we have duties towards those who think differently from us other than trying to convince and convert them.

So the connection between moderation and toleration, between moderation and civility, are very important, I think, to keep in mind as we try to unearth this archipelago of moderation.

What this amounts to, you would ask, it's very important, I think, to highlight when we speak about moderation, we take into account three levels of observation or analysis.

Moderation as an ethical virtue.

Moderation as a mean between extremes.

It's linked to prudence.

It's a virtue that helps human being deliberate well about what is truly good and directs the wheel towards the target.

And it's a moral virtue that prevents passion from blinding prudence.

That is the idea that we can get from the classical authors, moderation as an ethical virtue.

But equally important, and this is what I've tried to suggest with the quotes from Montesquieu and Federalist Papers, is moderation has an institutional or constitutional side to it that is illustrated by the connection with separation or balance of powers, other devices such as bicameralism, veto, federalism, or polycentricity.

And those elements are usually neglected.

When people talk about moderation, they refer to the ethical component.

But the idea that there is such a thing as a moderate government that is intrinsically complex structure that depends on a judicious arrangement of powers and a combination of interesting groups, is not the work of nature, this idea tends to get lost in the conversation.

And finally, the third level of analysis which gets lost in the conversation today is moderation as a style or an ethos.

This may seem easy to define.

You could point to civility, humility, prudence, the opposite of self-righteousness and zealotry.

But it's only an illusion.

And I would think that it's better to be prudent and define moderation as the spirit which is never too sure that it is right and it's open to learning from others.

And I think that this is the best thing we can say about moderation in a way similar to what Judge Learned Hand said about the spirit of liberty, that you can never be sure that you are right, you are open to learning from others and correcting your mistakes, if any.

The question that is worth asking now is what do moderates stand for?

Lots of things that one could say here.

And I think that the question that we should ask is what is the mentality of those who tend to put moderation first?

Courage to swim against the current.

In many respects, moderates resemble the tightrope walkers that I tried to suggest earlier who must always be extremely careful to maintain their balance to avoid falling.

Moderates, as I understand them, are trimmers concerned with preserving the balance and the equilibrium of the states.

To restore equilibrium in society, moderates tend to adopt some of the soundest attitude and principles of all parties and they seek to facilitate agreements between them in order to count passions and heal wounds.

Far from being weak, timid, and indecisive, the moderates tend to have a kind of a fighting and energetic attitude that thrives on partisanship, radiates openness, and refuses to practice political vendetta.

Moderates share a preoccupation with limiting or fighting political evil.

They are open to dialogue and they reject an all or nothing approach, forces of light versus forces of evil.

They tend to endorse an ethics of responsibility as opposed to an ethics of absolute ends.

Not surprisingly, I think moderation rarely figures on the list of proposed remedies for overcoming hyperpolarization today.

We've seen plenty of examples in the last five years, in the last 20 years, examples of claims promising comprehensive, rapid, large-scale change omnipresent in our politics, in our social media.

You've heard about the Green New Deal, the Drain the Swamp, Abolish ICE, Defund the Police, the 1619 Project versus the 1776 Projects.

Now, I want to point out that moderation does not have answers to all of these questions.

These are electoral slogans most of the time.

I think that it's important to highlight the limits of moderation.

It's not the virtue for all times.

But I think that when we look at the attempts to simplify the political and the social landscape of today, I think that the world still needs some forms of moderation.

And I think that the question then is, again, what kind of moderation?

I think it's important to share some good news as well.

My hope comes from what's going on in civil society.

There are a number of organizations there that I've been following over the last five, six years, like Braver Angels, Third Way, No Labels, the American Exchange Project, More in Common, Hidden Tribes, Heterodox Academy.

All of these are examples of organization that seek to build bridges to overcome polarization.

And I think that it's fair to say that despite America's hyperpolarization, the middle may be larger than you think.

There is an exhausted majority somewhere, you may belong to it, and that exhausted majority would want to restore some level of sanity in our world.

So I think it's important to look at what moderation can offer to us today.

First and foremost, the greatest advantage is that moderation is not an ideology with fixed contours.

It's much more than the proverbial golden mean between the extremes.

It has affinities with different political traditions, liberalism, conservatism, and it can accommodate, it can accommodate a wide range of political views and forms of government.

This means several thing.

I take the phrase thinking politically from Raymond Aron.

It means, for example, it can mean choosing the lesser evil rather than seeking the perfect outcome, avoiding fixation on one particular principle, norm, in making political decisions, and believing also that to have political views is not a matter of once for all, that facts change, and we must adjust our views as facts change.

I don't want to convert anyone to the virtues of moderation.

What I've tried to suggest is that this is a complex virtue.

It is a tradition of thought more complex than one would tend to think.

And I think that it's important to challenge the common view of moderation as a weak virtue.

I've tried to suggest that it's a muscular and a radical virtue, that can be radical, that is different from the fuzzy center that some associate moderation with.

And I would like to conclude my lecture tonight with some rules for radical moderates, which may be an oxymoron of sorts.

Rule number one is the simplest one.

Refuse to define one single best way.

Avoid having fixed truth or dogmas when it comes to politics.

Instead, try to examine facts and be prepared to amend and nuance your beliefs when facts change.

Easier said than done, I have to confess.

Rule number two, avoid echo chambers and bubbles and do not be sectarian to the extent to which this is possible.

Always try to think politically rather than ideologically.

Keep the lines of dialogue open with your opponents, even when that may be uncomfortable or difficult.

Now, rule number three is my favorite here, do not be perfectionist.

Start working with the world as is, not as it should be.

Don't imagine theories of justice.

Defend piecemeal reforms rather than utopian blueprints for change.

Remember that the world is made by many shades of gray.

I was told that there are 50 shades of gray, I don't know, but I do know that gray too can be beautiful and this is something that I strongly believe in.

Gray too can be beautiful.

Rule number four says that we shouldn't become obsessed with purity, axes of evil, red lines, litmus test.

We should resist the temptation of dividing the universe between the forces of light and the forces of darkness because at the end of the day, we may never know which side of the bargain we would end up on.

And rule number five says the following, no particular belief should hurt us in political life.

Admit that most political issues, yes, from public policy to international relations, have more than one side.

As a result, we should resist the temptation to interpret events in light of any single value or principle and I think we should be prepared to make reasonable adjustments and strike compromises for the sake of the common good.

So if you are prepared to endorse these rules, I think you should be ready also to join me in launching this new movement that I've been engaged in, Make America Governable Again.

So to return to the title and question of my lecture today, who is afraid of moderation, I'm prepared to say that those who are afraid of making America governable again are also afraid of moderation, and vice versa.

Those who are afraid of moderation are also afraid of making America governable again.

I would like to end with the words of Albert Camus.

He's wiser than me and wiser than most of us in many ways.

And he said this, "Our world does not need tepid souls.

It needs burning hearts, men who know the proper place of moderation."

So I would like to invite you to reflect on the words of Camus and think about the complexity and the timeliness of moderation in a world that has so little of it.

Thank you very much.

(audience applauds) (bright music) - Aurelian, you mentioned the juste milieu, the effort in France after 1789 and really after the Restoration in 1814 to find a balance that is neither revolution nor reaction.

And this was the mission of a number of figures, Benjamin Constant and also Francois Guizot.

But let me ask you a question.

Why was it so difficult to achieve a juste milieu?

In many ways through the 19th century, revolution became not a moment, but part of the weather of French politics.

And it seems to me that finding moderation is difficult.

So what does that experience of crafting a juste milieu mean for our own day?

What was so difficult and what can we learn?

- The French Revolution has partly the answer to your question.

During the French Revolution, there was a period, an opening period, 1789, 1791, when the French could have followed the British.

So I don't need to tell you why the British constitution, unwritten constitution, was their model, but they didn't succeed.

The liberals failed.

Then followed the Terror of 1793/'94.

So for a country to come back from the wounds of the Terror and heal those wounds, it took decades.

There were those who thought that the revolution didn't go far enough.

So within this landscape, there were a few liberals that understood that the future belongs to democracy, but democracy needs to be educated, purified of its revolutionary excesses.

So this is the task of juste milieu, to accept what happened in 1789 but to prevent the excesses of 1793/'94, which is the Terror.

For us today, I think the lesson is very important.

I don't know why I felt compelled to study the French, French liberalism is an oxymoron.

I mean, you say French liberals and you say, "Who are they?"

And there aren't that many still today.

But they understood something important.

So democracy is just.

Democracy is to be equated with justice.

And there are some principles at the heart of democracy, equality is one of them, and freedom, that are important.

But democracy left to its own devices tends to go to extremes, and this is the lesson that the liberals in France understood better than others.

So democracy needs to be educated.

Something that you are doing here at the school, for example.

Democracy needs to be purified, needs to be moderated, moderated of its excesses.

So I think that today, this is a relevant lesson for us because in many ways, we have an excessive belief in the virtues of democracy.

- You said that one ought to prefer a decent society rather than a just society.

And I'm wondering if you could try to describe what the difference is between something that's decent and just, and how that works with this civil society movement for moderation in a ethos way.

- In the European sense of the word, which is right of the center here, this society is a society that maintains a balance between too much and too little.

There is inequality in every society.

So we need to have a society in which the extremes of inequalities are avoided.

So you have to have liberty but not liberty at the expense of equality.

You have to have equality, but not at expense of liberty.

At the end of the day, it's a very Aristotelian understanding of a decent society.

It just happened that I taught Aristotle yesterday and I was reading again two chapters from "Politics," which is chapter 11 in Book 3 and chapter 11 in Book 4.

And those two chapters are actually very qualified defenses of democracy.

What did Aristotle stand for at the end of the day?

Well, he stood for a kind of a mixed government, which I define as a form of decent society.

Neither too much nor too little.

And I think that that gives us a sense of what a decent society is.

It's not necessarily a just society.

It will still have inequalities, it will still have differences, but it will be, let's say, animated by this ethos of avoiding excesses of all kinds.

And I think that the concept of decent society was theorized by the Israeli political theorist Avishai Margalit in a book published in 1994.

And he makes this contrast with Rawls' theory of justice.

I think it's, at the end of the day, I think we should all acknowledge how privileged we are to live in our open societies.

It's a privilege that was not given to previous generations in history.

Certainly, we are privileged from a larger standpoint of view.

But we also need to understand that our free societies are fragile constructs, that they need constant nurturing, and that constant nurturing requires some form of moderation.

- Thank you again.

- Thanks for your questions.

(audience applauds) (bright music) - [Announcer] "The Civic Discourse Project" is brought to you by Arizona State University School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership.

(bright music continues) (bright music continues)