This chapter examines the meanings of moderation in the American political tradition, beginning with George Washington’s Farewell Address, continuing with Benjamin Franklin’s Autobiography, and ending with Abraham Lincoln’s speeches.

This chapter explores the spirit of moderation starting from the famous definition of the spirit of liberty given by Judge Learned Hand. It builds upon the ideas of Desiderius Erasmus who had a moderate temperament.

After reading the previous letters, Lauren and Rob remained unconvinced about the benefits of moderation. Here is a short note I received from them that I take the liberty of reproducing here in full.

You wrote about moderation as an alternative to ideology and antidote to fanaticism. We know now what moderates are against, but the question remains: what do they stand for? Do they have a real and coherent vision of what a good society might look like, or are they simply against any radical ideas and plans broadly defined? Do their agendas have any fixed points or lodestars? Or it is rather the case that they change constantly and have no such fixed points? If so, can then moderation be viewed as a real virtue rather than a merely circumstantial strategy?

This letter comments on the affinities between prudence and moderation. It starts from the definition of prudence given by the sixteenth-century Spanish writer Baltasar Gracián in his classic book, The Pocket Oracle and the Art of Prudence (1647), and then examines the different faces of prudence as illustrated by Titian’s famous Allegory of Prudence.

This chapter responds to the objections raised by critics of moderation beginning with the famous remark of Barry Goldwater in 1964. It makes a case for moderation understood as a rebellious attitude that requires courage and non-conformism. It calls attention to the iinstitutional aspects of moderation that are often ignored or underestimated.

This chapter shows the limits of political Manichaeism with reference to the career of Maximilien Robespierre and his fellow Jacobin leaders during the French Revolution. It criticizes the use of litmus tests and the search for purity in political life, it also engages with the rhetoric of key members of the Claremont Institute whose radical agenda shows disturbing similarities with that of the Jacobins.

This chapter is conceived as a lively dialogue between the authors and the two imaginary interlocutors with questions and answers. It introduces the topic of the crisis of liberal democracy and possible solutions to it, among them radicalism. The latter is likely to appeal particilarly to the young generation, in search for tranformative change. The chapter calls for caution and prudence in dealing with present challenges.

My younger interlocutors wanted to discuss one more time the prospects for moderation in America today. I was more than happy to honor their request since the topic – what place and role moderation might have in our contemporary culture and society – continues to intrigue me. What follows is our final exchange that gives voice to their dreams, concerns, hopes, and fears.

This chapter discusses centrism as another face of moderation. It distinguishes between various meanings of centrism and makes a connection between a vital center and political moderation. It also considers a few concrete topics on which a centrist agenda is possible and desirable.

This chapter examines trimming as a face of moderation. It starts from the definition of trimming given by the Marquess of Halifax in a famous essay, “The Character of a Trimmer” (1684), and compares trimmers to tightrope walkers. It argues that trimmers tend to support the parties they dislike least and search for a “wise mean between barbarous extremes.”

This chapter shows the limits and ambiguities of the concept of moral clarity even when it is applied with good intentions. Using concrete examples from contemporary politics, it warns that quite often claims invoking moral clarity are an expression of reductionist thinking and tend to overrreach.