I'm excited to report that my third book, Why It's OK to be a Moderate, is now available for pre-order for only $19.99 (the book is also available on Amazon).
Here is the book's jacket description:
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.
Here's a chapter-by-chapter description of its contents:
1. The Curiously Poor Reputation of Moderates
This chapter shows that many people falsely equate moderates with political centrists and disdain centrists as unprincipled defenders of the status quo. The chapter then provides evidence that most moderates aren’t centrists, showing in turn how difficult it is to define exactly who is a moderate. Finally, the chapter details why, whereas many radicals have enjoyed short-term popularity before perpetrating many of history’s worst horrors, many moderates were unpopular in their era before going on to be widely hailed in historical retrospect for their moderation.
2. What is it to be a Moderate? Means, Ends, Degrees, Contexts
This chapter argues that it seems impossible to define precisely what makes someone a moderate because ‘moderate’ is a vague category. Rather than precise conditions that define what makes someone a moderate, moderates instead tend to bear a cluster of “family resemblances” to each other, much like medical conditions are characterized by sets of possible symptoms. Moderates tend to be pragmatists, value pluralists, compromisers, and gradualists to higher degrees than radicals, and whether someone is “a moderate” then is a matter of the degrees that they exemplify these qualities with respect to means and ends in a relevant context of comparison.
3. The (Potential) Virtues of Progressivism and Conservatism, But (Very Real) Vices of Radicalism
This chapter outlines a politically nonsectarian method for distinguishing political virtues and vices. It then explains what progressives and conservatives take their own virtues to be, before arguing that radicals on both sides of the political spectrum tend to exhibit twelve related political vices: moral extremism, Manichaean (“good versus evil”) thinking, moral grandstanding, dehumanizing demonization, polarization, political misperception, motivated reasoning, conspiracism, magical thinking, crude consequentialism, violence, and authoritarianism. These vices are shown to at best result in political gridlock or swings of the political pendulum from one side’s favor to the other, and at worst, to political violence, tyranny, and war.
4. The (Very Real) Virtues and (Potential) Vices of Moderates
This chapter argues that moderates tend to display five political virtues more than radicals: unique forms of political prudence, moderation, and civility that tend to foster civic friendship and achieve gradual change while avoiding moral and political disasters. It then shows that the main vice that moderates can demonstrate is “business as usual” deference to the status quo. The chapter concludes by detailing how widely hailed forms of progress have often resulted from radicals and moderates complementing each other’s virtues while counterbalancing their vices.
5. Radical 20th Century Solutions, Radical 21st Century Problems: From Isolationism, Communism, Fascism, Reaganomics, and Thatcherism to Brexit, White Nationalism, and Back Again
This chapter details how although humanity is arguably faring vastly better than at any time in recorded history, radical left-wing and right-wing politics have contributed to many of the world’s most serious and widely-acknowledged problems from at least the 20th Century to the present—including two world wars, Nazism, Fascism, Communist tyrannies, Islamic extremism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, soaring inequality, and reemergence of white nationalist neo-fascism. It then argues that the lesson we should learn is that prudent politics requires balance: the kind of moderation that Aristotle’s “Golden Mean” and Buddhism’s “Middle Way” advocate.
6. Why It’s OK to be a Moderate: Prudently Guiding the Political Pendulum (with Radicals!)
The chapter shows that regardless of your political leanings, you have reasons to believe it’s OK to display political prudence: strategies for effectively advancing your political goals while avoiding political reversals or catastrophes such as tyranny. The chapter then uses history, current events, and science to show that progressives should believe it’s OK to be moderate progressives, conservatives should believe it’s OK to be moderate conservatives, and that it can often (but not always) be OK to be a centrist because centrists help to preserve democracy. Finally, the chapter shows how many widely hailed forms of political change have resulted from moderates and radicals complementing each other’s virtues while counterbalancing their vices; why politics needs moderates now as much as ever; and how to better harness their virtues.
And here are a few advance endorsements:
“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
“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
“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
“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
I hope some of you decide to check it out and consider assigning it in some of your courses!
Recent Comments