December 2019

There are two distinct ways to be politically moderate: on purpose and by accident.

Intentional moderates are trimmers, deliberately choosing a position mid-way between the extremes of right and left.

Accidental moderates end up in the middle, on average, because they make up their own minds about each question, and the far right and far left are roughly equally wrong.

There are two ways to be politically moderate: on purpose and by accident. Intentional moderates are trimmers, picking a spot mid-way between the extremes. Accidental moderates land in the middle on average because they judge each question themselves, and the extremes are equally wrong.

There are two ways to be politically moderate: on purpose, like a trimmer splitting the difference, or by accident, by judging each question yourself when both extremes are roughly equally wrong.

You can distinguish intentional from accidental moderates by the distribution of their opinions.

If the far left opinion on some matter is 0 and the far right opinion 100, an intentional moderate's opinion on every question will be near 50.

Whereas an accidental moderate's opinions will be scattered over a broad range, but will, like those of the intentional moderate, average to about 50.

You can tell them apart by the distribution of their opinions. If far left is 0 and far right 100, the intentional moderate lands near 50 on everything; the accidental moderate scatters widely but still averages 50.

You can distinguish the two by the spread of their opinions: an intentional moderate sits near 50 on everything, while an accidental moderate scatters widely but still averages to 50.

Intentional moderates are similar to those on the far left and the far right in that their opinions are, in a sense, not their own.

The defining quality of an ideologue, whether on the left or the right, is to acquire one's opinions in bulk.

You don't get to pick and choose.

Your opinions about taxation can be predicted from your opinions about sex.

And although intentional moderates might seem to be the opposite of ideologues, their beliefs (though in their case the word "positions" might be more accurate) are also acquired in bulk.

If the median opinion shifts to the right or left, the intentional moderate must shift with it.

Otherwise they stop being moderate.

Intentional moderates resemble the extremes: their opinions aren't really their own. An ideologue buys opinions in bulk — your views on taxation predict your views on sex.

The trimmer seems the opposite, but buys his positions in bulk too. If the median shifts, he must shift with it, or stop being moderate.

Like ideologues, intentional moderates don't really own their opinions: the ideologue acquires them in bulk, and the trimmer must track the shifting median or stop being moderate.

Accidental moderates, on the other hand, not only choose their own answers, but choose their own questions.

They may not care at all about questions that the left and right both think are terribly important.

So you can only even measure the politics of an accidental moderate from the intersection of the questions they care about and those the left and right care about, and this can sometimes be vanishingly small.

It is not merely a manipulative rhetorical trick to say "if you're not with us, you're against us," but often simply false.

Accidental moderates choose not just their answers but their questions. Caring little for what left and right treat as vital, they can be measured only where the two overlap — sometimes vanishingly small.

It is not merely a manipulative rhetorical trick to say "if you're not with us, you're against us," but often simply false.

Accidental moderates choose not only their own answers but their own questions, so their measurable politics can shrink to almost nothing.

Moderates are sometimes derided as cowards, particularly by the extreme left.

But while it may be accurate to call intentional moderates cowards, openly being an accidental moderate requires the most courage of all, because you get attacked from both right and left, and you don't have the comfort of being an orthodox member of a large group to sustain you.

Moderates are derided as cowards. But openly being an accidental moderate takes the most courage: attacked from both sides, with no group to sustain you.

Calling moderates cowards may fit the intentional kind, but openly being an accidental moderate takes the most courage, since you get attacked from both sides with no group behind you.

Nearly all the most impressive people I know are accidental moderates.

If I knew a lot of professional athletes, or people in the entertainment business, that might be different.

Being on the far left or far right doesn't affect how fast you run or how well you sing.

But someone who works with ideas has to be independent-minded to do it well.

Or more precisely, you have to be independent-minded about the ideas you work with.

You could be mindlessly doctrinaire in your politics and still be a good mathematician.

In the 20th century, a lot of very smart people were Marxists — just no one who was smart about the subjects Marxism involves.

But if the ideas you use in your work intersect with the politics of your time, you have two choices: be an accidental moderate, or be mediocre.

Nearly all the most impressive people I know are accidental moderates. Athletes and entertainers might differ; ideology doesn't change how fast you run or sing.

But working with ideas demands independent-mindedness about them. You can be doctrinaire in politics and still be a good mathematician — plenty were Marxists, just none smart about what Marxism involves. Where your ideas meet politics, you have two choices: accidental moderate, or mediocre.

Nearly all the impressive people I know are accidental moderates, because anyone working with ideas must be independent-minded about them — otherwise, where ideas meet politics, you're mediocre.

Notes

[1] It's possible in theory for one side to be entirely right and the other to be entirely wrong. Indeed, ideologues must always believe this is the case. But historically it rarely has been.

[2] For some reason the far right tend to ignore moderates rather than despise them as backsliders. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it means that the far right is less ideological than the far left. Or perhaps that they are more confident, or more resigned, or simply more disorganized. I just don't know.

[3] Having heretical opinions doesn't mean you have to express them openly. It may be easier to have them [blocked] if you don't.

Thanks to Austen Allred, Trevor Blackwell, Patrick Collison, Jessica Livingston, Amjad Masad, Ryan Petersen, and Harj Taggar for reading drafts of this.

In theory one side could be entirely right, but historically it rarely has been.

The far right ignores moderates rather than despising them as backsliders — maybe it's less ideological, or just more disorganized.

Heretical opinions don't have to be expressed openly; it may be easier to have them [blocked] if you don't.

Notes: one side could in theory be wholly right, but rarely has been; the far right ignores moderates rather than despising them; and heretical opinions are easier to hold if you don't voice them.