There are two kinds of political moderation: conscious and arbitrary. Proponents of conscious moderation are defectors who consciously choose their position between the extremes of the right and left sides. In turn, those whose views are arbitrarily moderate find themselves in the middle, since they consider each issue separately, and the extreme right or left views are equally wrong for them.
You can distinguish those whose moderation is conscious from those for whom it is a matter of chance. If we take a scale in which the extreme left opinion on any issue is 0, and the extreme right is 100, then in the case of conscious moderation, the assessment of people's opinion on each of the issues will be approximately equal to 50. For people who did not think about the moderation of their views, scores will be scattered across different areas of the conditional scale, but the average value of the score will tend to 50.
People with conscious moderation are similar to those on the far left and the far right in that, in a sense, their opinions are not their own. The defining quality of an ideologue (both left and right) is the integrity of his opinion. People for whom moderation is a conscious position do not make separate decisions on different issues. Their opinion on taxation can be predicted based on their attitudes towards same-sex marriage. And although it may seem that such people are the opposite of ideologues, their beliefs (although in this case it would be more accurate to say “their positions on various issues”) are also integral and consistent. If the average opinion shifts to the left or to the right, then the opinion of people with a conscious moderation of views will shift accordingly. Otherwise, their views will cease to be moderate.
In turn, people whose moderation is arbitrary choose not only the answers, but the questions themselves. They may not attach importance to those issues that are very important for supporters of left or right ideas. In this way, you can evaluate the views of a person with arbitrary moderation by the intersection of those issues that are important to him and those who stick to the left or right side (although sometimes this intersection can be very small).
The phrase “if you are not with us, you are against us” is not just a rhetorical manipulation, it is often simply wrong.
Moderates are often ridiculed as cowards, especially by those on the left. And while it is possible and correct to regard as cowards people who deliberately hold moderate views, most of all it takes courage not to hide your arbitrary moderation, because you will be presented with claims from the right and left, and the opportunities to be a member of some larger group, who can provide support, no.
Nearly all the most impressive people I know have an arbitrary moderation in their views. If I knew more professional athletes or people in the entertainment industry, my experience might be different. Adherence to the right or left side does not affect how fast you run or how well you sing. But one who works with ideas must have an independent mind in order to do his job well.
More specifically, you must approach the ideas you are working with with independent thinking. You can follow any political doctrine very strictly and still be a good mathematician. In the XNUMXth century, many good people were Marxists - it's just that no one understood what Marxism included. But if the ideas you use in your work intersect with the politics of your time, then you have two options: stick to arbitrary moderation or be mediocre.
Notes
[1] It is theoretically possible that one side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong. Indeed, ideologues must always believe that this is so. But this has rarely happened in history.
[2] For some reason, far-rightists tend to ignore moderates rather than despise them as apostates. I'm not sure why. Perhaps this means that the far right is less ideological than the far left. Or maybe they are more confident, humble, or disorganized. I don't know. [3] If you have an opinion that is considered heresy, you are not required to express it openly. It might be easier for you to save it if you don't.The people to whom I am grateful for reading drafts of this text are Austen Allred, Trevor Blackwell, Patrick Collison, Jessica Livingston, Amjad Masad, Ryan Petersen, and Harj Taggar.
PS
Source: habr.com