When I was young, I used to despise moderation as a political philosophy. Now that I’m older, I’m more nostalgic about it. I wish there were a time when the middle course was the best. I’m weary of bickering. But I think we’ve always been beset by extreme problems — we just ignored how bad things were because we individually weren’t affected (e.g. the white moderate bishops in MLK’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”). I don’t know of any time when moderation would have solved any world problem.

But moderation / moderate philosophy (including politicians who argue for moderation) and moderate people aren’t the same thing. People may choose to be moderate for a number of different reasons; they can’t be as easily typified as can the philosophy itself. And we can’t afford to ignore their thinking, simply because we disagree with it.

The first job of anyone left of center is to convince folks at the center that specific reforms (e.g. the cost of healthcare insurance) are necessary and practical (that was King’s real purpose in his open letter; he knew he couldn’t win over the bishops themselves). Then we can go out and do battle with the enemy.

If we as (leftists / liberals / progressives / radicals / communists / socialists / syndicalists….) can’t make a convincing case for any particular cause we advocate, then we should either spend more time making our case persuasive to moderates, or we should postpone advocacy for that cause until we do.

I’m not suggesting that as progressives (et al.) we should hide our colors or compromise our standards. But we should respond with empathy to those who disagree with us. Otherwise we’re just preaching to the choir. Inside of many moderates is a good heart. Let’s help them put their good will into action.

Truth is on our side, but that includes the sub-truth that decent people who disagree with us will not change their minds simply because we shout a little louder.