UNDERSTANDING MODERATION.: “ The Highest Level of Greatness is Moderation. “
There’s an explanation for the above statement.
Right now, though, it tells something about our politics. However, the democratic left sticks up its collective nose because of its undesirable image as a Democrat establishment, i.e. a ‘moderate.’UNDERSTANDING MODERATION.
Just take a glance at The Golden Mean of Aristotle. As a midpoint between two vices, most virtues, the philosopher stated, remain. In the face of recklessness on one end and cowardice on the other, for instance, bravery remains. Between fascination and apathy sits passion. For authoritarianism and anarchy – order.UNDERSTANDING MODERATION.
We have stopped recognising and admiring moderation. Wherever it occurs in society, we have come to see it as a sort of vulnerability. Consider the answer to the retirement at the beginning of last year’s NFL season of Indianapolis Colts quarterback Andrew Luck. This is only one of several recent examples.
This was amid four appearances in the Pro Bowl, and three visits to the playoffs. Moreover, he had earned two AFC South championships and almost $100 million in career earnings. How dare he get plenty, they were thinking. How dare he leave on the table $450 million. Under all costs, he needs to be motivated to succeed. Leave all that on the field out there, even his potential. And why not? Anyway, he does not have any ambitions worth exploring outside of sports!UNDERSTANDING MODERATION.
Either we want someone to burn it all down or someone to put it back up. This is only if it’s up to our exacting, optimistic standards with no exceptions. A killer of universes or a dream creator . Nothing in between.
Facilitation? Someone who acknowledges that all sides of the political continuum have substance with their grievances? It’s a vice. Either you’re an unpatriotic cuck and a white nationalist simp or xenophobic. If that seems insane, look at what happens when someone does something fair these days at any moment. UNDERSTANDING MODERATION.
And let’s not even begin with fun, or with wealth, or something like that. Better is something. Obviously, the person with the most is the happiest and the strongest, right? Without immoderate persons, will there even be reality TV? Or is pop and influencer society almost exclusively predicated on individuals? Individuals who have entirely given themselves up to the creation of complete gratification, super fame, multi-millions and utter control without a sense of self-awareness?
We say the absence of discomfort in the body and of difficulty in the mind by enjoyment. It is not an unbroken sequence of drinking and merry-making. Not the fulfilment of lusts. Not the delight of the fish and other delicacies of a lavish table that creates a good life. It is sober thinking, seeking for the reasons of any decision and evasion, and banishing certain convictions by which the mind takes control of the greatest disruptions. The best good of all is prudence. For this reason, prudence is much more valuable than other values. . UNDERSTANDING MODERATION.
The definition of preventing the hangover of understanding the fair boundaries and observing them prudently? Which is also a particular way to learn of moderation. Better than holding on for one strike too often and regretting it for the remainder of his miserable life, Andrew Luck will step away from football when he was still willing to walk away. Entrepreneurs speak condescendingly in Silicon Valley regarding individuals who sell their firms too early, as if $1B for Instagram wasn’t more money than a person might expend in a lifetime. The ones who let it ride and have ruined it all? It appears like we pretend that these individuals do not exist.
This is being subtle. It’s knowing what is sufficient. Although getting out is nice, it’s getting out. Yeah, often, even at the most important moments, it’s also about leaving a bit on the table, but in this universe, there are much worse sins. It also means that when you score, * gasp * is merciful on the other side.
To get this back to where I begin, politics, but in a non-partisan fashion, I think it is worth reading this passage from David Brooks, whichever party you belong to.
Radicals give way to the more cautious and moderate sides of their coalitions at a certain stage. In the 1770s, the rabble-rousing Samuel Adams (not to mention George Washington, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton) gave way to the more rational John Adams. Radicals like John Brown and purists like Horace Greeley give way to the democratic Abraham Lincoln in the middle of the 19th century. The Socialists and Revolutionaries who began the labour movement in the 1880s gave way to Theodore Roosevelt in the Progressive period.
What Brooks does is make a case for moderates, not exclusively for Biden, but simply for moderates. Not strident purists or populists. Just citizens who know that both parties are going to have positive suggestions. More importantly, to make progress, you need to buy-in on more than just your own hand.
Moderation would not necessarily break the gap. It doesn’t hesitate to take a stance. Really, it’s a pretty radical and hard place to keep. Aristotle described it as the toughest thing to do in the world-to find the right “feelings at the right moment, on the right occasion, against the right persons, for the right reason and in the right manner, is to feel the best amount of them, which is the mean amount, and the best amount.” He says that because feelings and acts are the artefacts of grandeur, “excess feelings and actions and deficiency”
The real task, concrete, sustainable jobs, is undertaken by individuals that are not cynical or irrational. Pragmatists, who know how to reconcile what should be achieved and what can be done, do this.
The whole American structure, in reality, is built around moderation. Nearly all the founders’ actions were structured to make it very tough to govern from an extreme or minority role. The need to negotiate and agree was a feature, not a device error. It was to stop lurching from one set of tactics to another. It was to limit the improvements made in the heat of a crisis, or in response to a pattern, by ideological swings.
There was also a rumoured conversation over breakfast between Washington and Jefferson. Why, Washington wondered, are we pouring our coffee from the cup onto the saucer? (This was how coffee used to be consumed.) Jefferson responded, to calm it. The Senate, Washington answered, was built for the same reason, with its longer term duration and smaller dimensions. To cool legislation instead of getting burnt in the House with its greater numbers, fewer districts and biennial elections by political pressure that is more intense and serious.
I’m not doing all of this to support Joe Biden obviously. In politics as well as in life, I am only making an appeal for the old yet forgotten virtue.
By lurching the opposite way with equivalent intensity, you don’t react to a lurch in one direction. Left-wing populism can not be a reaction to the threats of right-wing populism. Both are stupid and difficult in which to rule. Just because someone else runs their lives to the extreme, just because most individuals are unhealthy, doesn’t mean that you also have to be.
Moderation is essential.