The not-so-moderate price of “moderation” — VOICES for REASON

“What we need is a moderate approach—we can’t afford to go to extremes.”

How many times have you heard that from Washington, and in how many contexts? We need to be “moderate” in our response to the financial crisis—we don’t want to strangle businesses completely with regulation, but we need to yank back their leashes a little. We need to be “moderate” in our response to North Korea—we don’t want to subject our citizens to a nuclear attack, but we can’t be too firm about it or we’ll jeopardize negotiations. We need to be “moderate” about free speech on the airwaves—we like the idea that people should have the right to speak their mind, but only if they don’t offend anyone or hold an unpopular opinion. This list could continue ad infinitum if one follows today’s news.

I was reading Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed, and came across a brilliant statement by Ayn Rand on her views regarding what a “moderate” means:

When people call themselves moderates, ask yourself: “Moderate—about what?” Since the basic question today is freedom versus statism, or individual rights versus government controls, to be a moderate is to advocate a moderate amount of statism, a moderate amount of injustice, a moderate amount of infringement of individual rights. Surely, nobody would call that a virtue.

When government officials advocate for “moderation”, they are really advocating for measures that are anti-freedom, anti-individualism and anti-capitalism.

Every time we take one of those “moderate” steps, we’re paying a not-so-moderate long-term price—the erosion of our individual rights.

For a deeper analysis of “moderation” versus “extremism,” check out Ayn Rand’s essay “’Extremism,’ or The Art of Smearing,” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

(Note: This doesn’t mean Rand thought one could immediately fast forward from today’s semi-socialist state to a fully free society. In an interview about “Objectivism versus Conservatism”, also in Objectively Speaking, she said: “Objectivists do not argue that we can get out of today’s mess overnight. I have always said that a process of decontrol is required. The ultimate goal is complete free enterprise, but it has to be achieved gradually. To achieve it overnight, by fiat, would be (a) impossible, and (b) dictatorial. One cannot solve social questions that way.”)