In Moderation: Where is the Middle?

In the last article of the In Moderation series, I wrote about surplus and its uneasy relationship with moderation. This time I want to ask a question that sounds simple but is more tricky than it seems: Where is the middle? What does it mean to be “moderate” when the ground beneath our feet never stops shifting?

The middle is not a single point on a map. It moves. It bends under circumstance, changes with context, and shifts according to the values of those looking for it. What seems moderate today, how we eat, exercise, or even dress, may feel outdated tomorrow, reshaped by health, culture, or shifting social norms.

A moderate ideology

"Let us not despair but act. Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past - let us accept our own responsibility for the future." -John F. Kennedy

In politics, that middle ground can seem to vanish entirely. It’s easy to see the appeal of the extremes since clear answers are present and there is a flag to rally behind. But taking a moderate path asks for something much tougher: the patience to listen, the guts to compromise, and the humility to admit that no one has a monopoly on the truth.

The Traditional Left-Right Axis

Historically, the political spectrum has been envisioned as a single horizontal line, with the left and right representing opposing views, primarily on economic matters. This concept originated during the French Revolution, where supporters of the king sat on the right side of the assembly and revolutionaries sat on the left.

• The Left is generally associated with ideals such as equality, collectivism, and a greater role for the government in the economy. Ideologies on the left often advocate for social welfare programs, wealth redistribution, and government regulation of businesses. In its extreme form, this can manifest as communism or socialism.
• The Right typically emphasizes individual liberty, free markets, and a limited role for the government in the economy. Right-leaning ideologies often support lower taxes, less regulation, and private enterprise. In its extreme form, this can manifest as libertarianism or conservatism.

Recognizing the limitations of a single economic axis, political scientists and analysts now frequently use a two-dimensional model to provide a more comprehensive view. This model adds a vertical axis representing social and personal freedom.

The Authoritarian-Libertarian Axis

This vertical axis gauges the appropriate level of government intervention in personal and social life.

• Authoritarianism (top of the axis) represents the belief that the government should have a strong, centralized control over both public and private life. This can include a range of views from a desire for strong law and order to the suppression of individual freedoms in favor of the state.
• Libertarianism (bottom of the axis) emphasizes individual autonomy and freedom. This perspective advocates for minimal government interference in personal choices and civil liberties.

The Four Quadrants

The intersection of the economic (left-right) and social (authoritarian-libertarian) axes creates four distinct quadrants:

• Authoritarian Left: Believes in a state-controlled economy and a high degree of government control over personal lives. Ideologies like Stalinism are archetypes of this quadrant.
• Authoritarian Right: Favors a more traditional social order and a strong state to enforce laws but with a capitalist or market-based economy. Fascism is an example of an ideology in this space.
• Libertarian Left: Supports economic equality and social ownership while also championing individual freedom and minimal government intervention in personal affairs.
• Libertarian Right: Strongly advocates for a free-market capitalist system with a minimal state, confined primarily to protecting individual rights. This view is powerfully articulated by economists like Friedrich A. Hayek. In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek warns against central planning and collectivism, arguing that the abandonment of economic freedom inevitably leads to oppression. He states that "the guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy remains as true today as it was in the nineteenth century."

This two-dimensional model allows for a more nuanced understanding of political ideologies and helps identify moderate positions that may not fit neatly into the traditional left-right spectrum. By considering both economic and social dimensions, individuals can better navigate the complex landscape of political beliefs and find a balanced approach that aligns with their values.

It’s no surprise that the more extreme corners of this chart are home to history's monsters like Hitler and Stalin. Their entire worldview was built on total state control over what people earn, what people do, and even what people think. An ideology that extreme always ends in the same place: a brutal regime that crushes dissent and violates human rights.

The extremes are also where you will find the loudest voices that thrive on conflict and demand radical change, and treat compromise like a dirty word. More often than not, it is a reaction, a retreat into a defensive stance because of people feeling threatened or ignored. In contrast, the middle ground doesn't have a megaphone. It’s the quieter space where pragmatic solutions are hammered out, and balancing different interests is the goal, not ideological purity.

Ultimately, the "moderate ideology" isn’t a fixed belief system, and its not necessarily a "centrist" position. It’s a constant balancing act, like trying to hold a seesaw perfectly still. It's easy to plant your feet on either end. But standing in the middle requires constant adjustments and a willingness to weigh every issue. That's why true centrists are so rare. Its the demanding, endless work of thinking for yourself.

The Golden Mean

"Virtue is the golden mean between two vices, the one of excess and the other of deficiency." - Aristotle

For Aristotle, the connection between virtue (being a good person) and reason (thinking correctly) is perfectly illustrated by his famous concept of the "Golden Mean." He argued that every moral virtue is the ideal midpoint between two extremes, or vices: one of excess and one of deficiency.

Being a virtuous person isn’t about following a simple set of rules. Instead, it requires using your reason to find the perfect balance in any given situation.

Ideals require effort, discipline, and a commitment to something greater than ourselves. They are the guiding stars that help us navigate the complexities of life and resist the pull toward disorder. They provide a framework for making decisions and taking actions that align with our values and aspirations.

Source: Virtue Ethics (Wikipedia)

So, where is the middle? The middle exists beyond any charted point or statistical peak. The middle exists as an active equilibrium that needs continuous maintenance through deliberate work. The middle exists in the pursuit of ideals that fight against the natural tendency toward chaos. The chivalrous path requires courage together with integrity and the determination to maintain principled centering in a world that tends toward extremes.

The authentic middle emerges through deliberate decision-making. People must make continuous energetic efforts to fight against the disorderly movement toward ideological extremes and entropy. The chivalrous pursuit of balancing competing virtues to hold a principled, moral center. The search for middle ground requires sustained effort in the challenging process of maintaining equilibrium against all forces that seek to divide the world.