Why It's OK to Be a Moderate

Conservatives and progressives rarely agree on much?but one thing many agree upon is that it?s not OK to be a moderate. This book shows they are wrong.

In Why It?s OK to be a Moderate, Marcus Arvan shows how many of history?s worst evils have resulted from far-right and far-left radicalism, how escalating conflicts between conservatives and progressives are undermining democracy, and how many widely hailed social and political achievements have been achieved by moderates and radicals working in constructive tension with each other.

Using philosophy, science, and historical analysis, Arvan shows that critics of moderates tend to equate them with spineless centrists, but that most moderates aren?t centrists, falling into diverse categories across the political spectrum. Arvan then shows that although radicals tend to be popular in their era, many of them have gone down in infamy, while many moderates, like Abraham Lincoln or Clement Attlee, have endured short-term unpopularity to ?make history.?

Arvan shows that it?s OK to be a moderate precisely because not everyone should be one. He makes this case to you, showing that whatever your reasonable political ideology may be, things tend to go best politically when radicals and moderates effectively complement each other?s virtues while counterbalancing the other?s vices.

Key Features

• Uses science and historical analysis to show that while liberals and conservatives may have some political virtues, radicals on both sides of the political spectrum tend to display twelve political vices that undermine democracy


• Explores how Aristotle?s idea of the ?Golden Mean? and Buddhism?s ?Middle Way? might be used to better understand far-left and far-right mistakes in the UK, US, Continental Europe, and India


• Shows how moderates are a leading political demographic, existing in greater numbers than liberals or conservatives while falling into diverse categories across the political spectrum


• Documents how radicalism has underwritten many of history?s worst political events, along with many of the most widely acknowledged political problems of the 20^th and 21^st centuries


• Demonstrates to the reader that things tend to go best politically when radicals and moderates work in constructive tension with each other, and worst when there aren?t enough moderates

?Marcus Arvan has written an extremely valuable book about one of the most unfairly maligned and misunderstood figures in contemporary politics?the political moderate. He shows that far from being wishy-washy cowards, moderates in fact play a thankless but vital role in a healthy democracy. If you?ve ever been criticized for refusing to stick to an extreme view, you would benefit from reading this book. If you?ve ever issued such a criticism to another, everyone else would benefit from you reading it.? ? Justin Tosi, Georgetown University, USA

?Moderates are often derided by extremists on both sides, who see them as willing to compromise with the enemy. Against this backdrop, Arvan offers a compelling defense of political moderation?which involves pragmatism, respect for different values, and a view towards the long run. Combining historical examples with philosophical analysis, the book is especially relevant in these polarized times. Students, political philosophers, and concerned citizens in general will find much to draw from and engage with in this excellent short book.? ? Hrishikesh Joshi, University of Arizona, USA

?In a world that grows more and more polarized, many of us feel pulled further to the right or left. This book is an excellent prophylactic against that tendency. Though often disparaged, Marcus Arvan makes a compelling case for why it?s okay to be a moderate. Just as convincing are his arguments against being a radical. If you feel out of place in a world of political extremes, this is the book for you. I highly recommend it.? ? Brian Kogelmann, Purdue University, USA

?Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue," Barry Goldwater famously declared. This book challenges that claim, arguing that moderation is a principled and courageous response to the extremes that threaten democracy. Moderation is not a weakness but the discipline to navigate competing values and moral complexity. Its arguments are sure to unsettle conservatives, progressives, liberals, and libertarians alike, inviting readers to reconsider the role of compromise and restraint in a polarized time.?  ? John Thrasher, Chapman University, USA