What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Not Moderation?: Letters to Young Radicals
Moderation is often presented as a simple virtue for lukewarm and indecisive minds, searching for a fuzzy center between the extremes. Not surprisingly, many politicians do not want to be labelled 'moderates' for fear of losing elections. Why Not Moderation? challenges this conventional image and shows that moderation is a complex virtue with a rich tradition and unexplored radical sides. Through a series of imaginary letters between a passionate moderate and two young radicals, the book outlines the distinctive political vision undergirding moderation and makes a case for why we need this virtue today in America. Drawing on clearly written and compelling sources, Craiutu offers an opportunity to rethink moderation and participate in the important public debate on what kind of society we want to live in. His book reminds us that we cannot afford to bargain away the liberal civilization and open society we have inherited from our forefathers.
260 pages, Hardcover
Published October 12, 2023
8 people are currently reading
105 people want to read
About the author
Aurelian Craiutu
22 books3 followersassistant professor
department of political science
department of political science
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
April 18, 2023
"Why Not Moderation? Letters to Young Radicals" is my second book in a row from an Indiana-based author. In this case, Aurelian Craiutu is a political scientist and Professor of Political Science at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana. His publications include Liberalism under Siege (2003), A Virtue for Courageous Minds (2012), and Faces of Moderation (2017). Professor Craiutu has also written book reviews and essays for non-academic publications such as Los Angeles Review of Books, Aeon, and the Daily Beast.
"Why Not Moderation?" is an upcoming Cambridge University Press release that creates a dialogue of sorts about what it means to be a "moderate." From its title alone, it should be abundantly clear that Craiutu is intent on challenging the conventional image of moderation and presents it as a complex virtue with a rich tradition and unexplored radical sides.
"Why Not Moderation?" starts off with an awareness that in current society being a moderate is often presented as a simple, even wishy-washy, virtue for lukewarm and indecisive minds looking to find that middle-ground between the passionate extremes. In the current political scene, being seen as a "moderate" is often an undesirable and we've come to shun those who reach across the aisle.
Using the approach of a series of imaginary letters between a passionate moderate and two young radicals, a liberal and a conservative, Craiutu outlines the distinctive political vision undergirding moderation and makes a case, a strong case, for why there is a need for this virtue today in America.
As someone who largely identifies as a moderate, I found myself immersed enthusiastically in "Why Not Moderation?" even if I never completely surrendered myself to the "letter" approach of the book that felt like more of a gimmick to me (and one that seems a little too prevalent these days). Despite my basic structural concerns, Craiutu's clearly written dialogues are compelling, incredibly well resourced, richly human, and universal in their themes. It's difficult to imagine anyone reading "Why Not Moderation?" and not identifying with its themes. We are, quite literally, surrounded by the themes in "Why Not Moderation?"
With "Why Not Moderation?," Craiutu presents us with an opportunity to rethink and rediscover moderation and to engage in the important public debate on the kind of society in which we want to live and participate. "Why Not Moderation?" offers that we cannot afford to bargain away the liberal civilization and open society inherited from our forefathers. The book offers both extensive research and historical perspectives needed to connect the dots on this discussion. This dialogue is both undeniably academic in nature, those seeking a touchy-feely dialogue will be disappointed, and an accessible one with language that is for the most part easily understood by those with lesser academic backgrounds.
"Why Not Moderation?" was a relatively slow read for me as there was so much to absorb and I didn't want to breeze through it. "Why Not Moderation?," in fact, affirmed very much why I embrace my own journey as a moderate and why I shy away from radically liberal or radically conservative positions. In engaging in an academic discourse, "Why Not Moderation?" helped me gain a more personal and social understanding of myself, my journey, my beliefs, and my actions in daily life. I'd dare say I became a bit more peaceful toward who I am and how I choose to express myself in society.
An invaluable resource that is desperately needed in current America, "Why Not Moderation?" creates a passionate, well-researched discussion on moderation and the better world it can help to create.
"Why Not Moderation?" is an upcoming Cambridge University Press release that creates a dialogue of sorts about what it means to be a "moderate." From its title alone, it should be abundantly clear that Craiutu is intent on challenging the conventional image of moderation and presents it as a complex virtue with a rich tradition and unexplored radical sides.
"Why Not Moderation?" starts off with an awareness that in current society being a moderate is often presented as a simple, even wishy-washy, virtue for lukewarm and indecisive minds looking to find that middle-ground between the passionate extremes. In the current political scene, being seen as a "moderate" is often an undesirable and we've come to shun those who reach across the aisle.
Using the approach of a series of imaginary letters between a passionate moderate and two young radicals, a liberal and a conservative, Craiutu outlines the distinctive political vision undergirding moderation and makes a case, a strong case, for why there is a need for this virtue today in America.
As someone who largely identifies as a moderate, I found myself immersed enthusiastically in "Why Not Moderation?" even if I never completely surrendered myself to the "letter" approach of the book that felt like more of a gimmick to me (and one that seems a little too prevalent these days). Despite my basic structural concerns, Craiutu's clearly written dialogues are compelling, incredibly well resourced, richly human, and universal in their themes. It's difficult to imagine anyone reading "Why Not Moderation?" and not identifying with its themes. We are, quite literally, surrounded by the themes in "Why Not Moderation?"
With "Why Not Moderation?," Craiutu presents us with an opportunity to rethink and rediscover moderation and to engage in the important public debate on the kind of society in which we want to live and participate. "Why Not Moderation?" offers that we cannot afford to bargain away the liberal civilization and open society inherited from our forefathers. The book offers both extensive research and historical perspectives needed to connect the dots on this discussion. This dialogue is both undeniably academic in nature, those seeking a touchy-feely dialogue will be disappointed, and an accessible one with language that is for the most part easily understood by those with lesser academic backgrounds.
"Why Not Moderation?" was a relatively slow read for me as there was so much to absorb and I didn't want to breeze through it. "Why Not Moderation?," in fact, affirmed very much why I embrace my own journey as a moderate and why I shy away from radically liberal or radically conservative positions. In engaging in an academic discourse, "Why Not Moderation?" helped me gain a more personal and social understanding of myself, my journey, my beliefs, and my actions in daily life. I'd dare say I became a bit more peaceful toward who I am and how I choose to express myself in society.
An invaluable resource that is desperately needed in current America, "Why Not Moderation?" creates a passionate, well-researched discussion on moderation and the better world it can help to create.
July 6, 2023
Why Not Moderation?: Letters to Young Radicals by Aurelian Craiutu is an uneven and unimaginatively set-up "debate/discussion" in letter form between left and right strawmen positioned to be easy foils for the points the author wants to make.
I have many broad areas of agreement with what he is trying to say here but also some very definitive disagreements. Many things are conflated in one part of the book then treated as separate in another. Are we talking about moderation as a position? Why is moderation so often used almost interchangeably with compromise? For instance, I am now and will always be a leftist. I also know that for any kind of democracy to work there has to be give and take, some compromise. That doesn't mean I take a stand for moderation, it means I argue my "radical" viewpoint and work with "radicals" with other perspectives to find agreeable compromises. To set up as a given the idea that there are two positions in opposition and therefore a moderate position is somewhere between them is asinine. Yes, we are a de facto two party system so, at least on the national level, most things come down to those two parties. I prefer to work to eliminate the two-party system rather than "moderately" just accept it and create my little faux philosophical position based on it as a given.
I am probably not being completely fair in my assessment because I find the author's attempts at manipulation offensive and his authorial voice both smug and self-righteous. Rather than explain his ideas, he spends the first part of the book trying to make it sound like any disagreement with his position comes from some mistaken and radical position, whether from the left or the right. We just don't get it or aren't smart enough to accept what he says because, you know, men (almost exclusively men) from ancient times until a century or more ago had good, for their time, ideas, and Craiutu is making it simple enough for us mere mortals to grasp.
It is based on many very good thinkers, but ideas are meant to be taken and developed as time goes on, not taken as static and the current world made to fit. It is like the people who apply the constitution based on what the founding fathers thought because their ideas about a world with slavery, no universal suffrage, etc should be taken as gospel, not used as a starting point from which to evolve. Craiutu has failed to evolve and uses cheap debate team tactics to set up his fake debate.
Middle rating because there are good ideas in the book (usually in quotes of others, not in the author's own thought) and because there will be others who won't find his authorial voice to be like nails on a chalkboard. That said, I won't recommend it to anyone I know, there are plenty of books that actually work on the important issues, not use the issues to pat himself on the back for being so radically moderate.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
I have many broad areas of agreement with what he is trying to say here but also some very definitive disagreements. Many things are conflated in one part of the book then treated as separate in another. Are we talking about moderation as a position? Why is moderation so often used almost interchangeably with compromise? For instance, I am now and will always be a leftist. I also know that for any kind of democracy to work there has to be give and take, some compromise. That doesn't mean I take a stand for moderation, it means I argue my "radical" viewpoint and work with "radicals" with other perspectives to find agreeable compromises. To set up as a given the idea that there are two positions in opposition and therefore a moderate position is somewhere between them is asinine. Yes, we are a de facto two party system so, at least on the national level, most things come down to those two parties. I prefer to work to eliminate the two-party system rather than "moderately" just accept it and create my little faux philosophical position based on it as a given.
I am probably not being completely fair in my assessment because I find the author's attempts at manipulation offensive and his authorial voice both smug and self-righteous. Rather than explain his ideas, he spends the first part of the book trying to make it sound like any disagreement with his position comes from some mistaken and radical position, whether from the left or the right. We just don't get it or aren't smart enough to accept what he says because, you know, men (almost exclusively men) from ancient times until a century or more ago had good, for their time, ideas, and Craiutu is making it simple enough for us mere mortals to grasp.
It is based on many very good thinkers, but ideas are meant to be taken and developed as time goes on, not taken as static and the current world made to fit. It is like the people who apply the constitution based on what the founding fathers thought because their ideas about a world with slavery, no universal suffrage, etc should be taken as gospel, not used as a starting point from which to evolve. Craiutu has failed to evolve and uses cheap debate team tactics to set up his fake debate.
Middle rating because there are good ideas in the book (usually in quotes of others, not in the author's own thought) and because there will be others who won't find his authorial voice to be like nails on a chalkboard. That said, I won't recommend it to anyone I know, there are plenty of books that actually work on the important issues, not use the issues to pat himself on the back for being so radically moderate.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
August 10, 2023
I read this book as a pre-release e-book obtained through NetGalley, provided by the publisher.
In today’s divided, hyper-politicized world, it is refreshing to see a voice of moderation! Indeed, when you cannot describe your favorite color or favorite brand of coffee without it seemingly devolve into a discussion about partisan politics, moderates and moderates are even more important. Although polls show that the majority of Americans take a moderate stance, to be distinguished from a centrist stance, political moderation is rarely seen. When it is, it’s often ridiculed as “both sider-ism” by those who see every political debate as an existential crisis. Without a strong focus, distilled into slogans that fit on bumper stickers, the divide gets stronger, the words get stronger, and we risk our peaceful society. The truth is that people are not so different. This exhausted middle, refusing to take either “team red” or “team blue”, is without a political home or platform.
Moderation is an old, recognized virtue with a rich history. It is not merely indecisiveness, lukewarm, timid, or holding a kind of moral relavism. Moderates are not “the opposing position” in disguise. Recognition of the dangers of factionalism too has a long history. Until we learn to compromise we will remain in a state of permanent chaos. That is, until too many get too exhausted from the chaos, and just turn everything over to an authoritarian leader. Indeed, what we have to lose here is our democratic institutions and constitutional freedoms.
In some parts, I found some different descriptions or definitions of things in different parts of the book, which made things a bit confusing and some of it seemed somewhat disjointed. The style of using letters, and a conversation with two putative students with opposing partisan viewpoints was sometimes hard to follow. Although I have a large vocabulary, I had to look words up. This book is written for those who have a very large vocabulary.
I agree with the author for the most part. However, there are times when history is on your side. Free speech has its limits. It’s fine to voice your opinion. It’s not fine to make terroristic threats. It’s not fine to lie under oath.
In today’s divided, hyper-politicized world, it is refreshing to see a voice of moderation! Indeed, when you cannot describe your favorite color or favorite brand of coffee without it seemingly devolve into a discussion about partisan politics, moderates and moderates are even more important. Although polls show that the majority of Americans take a moderate stance, to be distinguished from a centrist stance, political moderation is rarely seen. When it is, it’s often ridiculed as “both sider-ism” by those who see every political debate as an existential crisis. Without a strong focus, distilled into slogans that fit on bumper stickers, the divide gets stronger, the words get stronger, and we risk our peaceful society. The truth is that people are not so different. This exhausted middle, refusing to take either “team red” or “team blue”, is without a political home or platform.
Moderation is an old, recognized virtue with a rich history. It is not merely indecisiveness, lukewarm, timid, or holding a kind of moral relavism. Moderates are not “the opposing position” in disguise. Recognition of the dangers of factionalism too has a long history. Until we learn to compromise we will remain in a state of permanent chaos. That is, until too many get too exhausted from the chaos, and just turn everything over to an authoritarian leader. Indeed, what we have to lose here is our democratic institutions and constitutional freedoms.
In some parts, I found some different descriptions or definitions of things in different parts of the book, which made things a bit confusing and some of it seemed somewhat disjointed. The style of using letters, and a conversation with two putative students with opposing partisan viewpoints was sometimes hard to follow. Although I have a large vocabulary, I had to look words up. This book is written for those who have a very large vocabulary.
I agree with the author for the most part. However, there are times when history is on your side. Free speech has its limits. It’s fine to voice your opinion. It’s not fine to make terroristic threats. It’s not fine to lie under oath.
February 17, 2024
Livro fabuloso.
Want to read
May 11, 2025its a long story but i bought this book completely by accident and now i feel like i have to read it 🙃
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews