Radical Moderatism

Radical Moderatism (also radical moderateism or radical moderation) is a political and philosophical approach that argues that in a highly polarized environment, adopting a centrist or moderate position can itself be a radical act. It combines elements of moderation (restraint, compromise, balance) with elements of radicalism (critique of extremes, structural reform, and bold vision).

Overview

Radical moderatism holds that when the political or social spectrum is dominated by extremes, the center or moderate position may be displaced or marginalized. In such contexts, adopting moderation—defined as a commitment to democratic norms, institutional balance, and principled compromise—can require deliberate effort and courage, and thus be considered radical in effect. Unlike traditional centrism, it emphasizes that moderation is not mere indecision or pragmatism but an active stance against extremism.

Principles

Writings on radical moderatism often highlight several key themes:

• Moderation as virtue – commitment to pluralism, rule of law, and balance, not just compromise for convenience.
• Critique of polarization – identifying dangers of extremes across the political spectrum.
• Institutional balance – focus on checks and balances, separation of powers, and constitutional safeguards.
• Civic pluralism and dialogue – encouraging respectful disagreement and cross-ideological engagement.
• Structural reform – recognition that sustaining moderation may require electoral or institutional reform.
• Moral humility – emphasis on fallibility, adaptation, and openness to correction.

Historical antecedents

While radical moderatism as a named doctrine is not widely used in academic literature, related ideas can be traced historically:

• The golden mean in Aristotle and the middle way in various philosophical and religious traditions.
• The "radical moderates" or monarchiens of the French Revolution, who advocated constitutional monarchy and gradual reform rather than radical upheaval.^[1]
• Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay on Michel de Montaigne, which has been interpreted as promoting a form of radical moderation through sustained critical questioning.^[2]

In modern discourse

The phrase "radical moderate" has been used by contemporary commentators to describe the idea that resisting polarization and defending democratic norms requires boldness. For example, one essay argued that "being a moderate is a radical stance" in an era of increasing extremism.^[3] Political science has also studied "radical flank effects," showing that the presence of more extreme factions can increase support for moderate ones.^[4]

Criticism

Critics argue that radical moderatism risks:

• Appearing indecisive or insufficiently bold in addressing crises such as climate change or inequality.
• Serving as a cover for maintaining the status quo.
• Struggling to define what counts as “moderate” when political baselines shift.
• Falling into relativism by centering positions regardless of their ethical merits.

Related concepts

• Centrism
• Political moderation
• Radicalism
• Polarization (politics)
• Middle Way
• Democratic norms