Faces of Moderation Quotes

“One of the best means of preserving the balance of political community and promoting the necessary social and political changes is by keeping the dialogue open with all the political actors who accept the basic rules of the game and are committed to preserving the basic values of the society. This ... explains why many of the thinkers studied in this book, from [Raymond] Aron and [Norberto] Bobbio to [Adam] Michnik, successfully practiced the art of dialogue across the aisle and refused to see the world in black-and-white contrasts. If they adopted the role of committed or engaged spectators, they also maintained a certain degree of detachment and skepticism in their attitudes and political judgments. Their invitation to dialogue and their willingness to speak to their critics illustrated their courage and determination not to look for 'safe spaces' and lukewarm solutions. Instead, they saw themselves as mediators whose duty was to open a line of communication with their opponents who disagreed with them. The dialogue they staged was at times difficult and frustrating, and their belief in the (real or symbolic) power of discussion was an open act of defiance against the crusading spirit of their age, marked by political sectarianism, monologue, and ideological intransigence. Aron and the other moderates studied here were convinced that we can improve ourselves not so much by seeking a fictitious harmony with our critics as by engaging in an open debate with them, as long as we all remain committed to civility and rational critique. In this regard, they all acted as true disciples of Montaigne, who once acknowledged that 'no premise shocks me, no belief hurts me, no matter how opposite they may be. ... When I am contradicted it arouses my attention not my wrath.' This is exactly how Aron and other moderates felt and behaved. They were open to being challenged and did not shy away from correcting others when they thought fit. Yet, in so doing, they did not simply seek to refute or defeat their opponents' arguments, being aware that the truth is almost never the monopoly of a single camp or group.”
― Aurelian Craiutu, Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes

“Reaching out to individuals of different ideological persuasions and starting a dialogue with them demanded then (and still requires today) a particular form of courage and fortitude that not everyone has. It also presupposes a particular style of discourse that avoids making reproaches and tirades against alleged 'scoundrels' and traitors with whom no dialogue is conceivable. 'I learned to respect other people's ideas,' [Norberto] Bobbio confessed, 'to pause before the secret of every conscience, to understand before arguing, and to argue before condemning.' He had always been a person 'more interested in dialogue than conflict' and loathed extremist or intransigent positions on all sides.”
― Aurelian Craiutu, Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes

“[Adam] Michnik's openness to dialogue was neither a concession of defeat nor an expression of political opportunism on his part. It had its roots in a few fundamental beliefs that he never surrendered during his long public career and which have defined his political moderation to this day. The first one, connected to his modesty and humility, admits that we must always resist the temptation to believe in the righteousness of our views and ought to hold in check any form of moral egotism and arrogance that might creep in our views, however legitimate they might (appear to) be at some point. 'The angel who demands heroism not only of himself but of others,' Michnik cautioned, 'who perceives the world with a Manichaean simplicity and despises those who have a different concept of obligations toward others - this angel, loving heaven as he may, has already started on the path that leads to hell.' He was repeating an old favorite trope of Pascal, who warned us that those who pretend to behave like angels risk becoming fanatic beasts in the end.”
― Aurelian Craiutu, Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes

“With regard to religious belief, [Adam] Michnik admitted that 'only those forms of religious belief that are "anti-values," that lead to fanaticism and intolerance, are objectionable' and should therefore be opposed. 'I would nevertheless be afraid to live in a world without conservative institutions and values,' he confessed, speaking like a true moderate. 'A world devoid of tradition would be nonsensical and anarchic. The human world should be constructed from a permanent conflict between conservatism and contestation; if either is absent from a society, pluralism is destroyed.”
― Aurelian Craiutu, Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes

“The person of dialogue attempts to transform the enemy into an opponent and the opponent into a partner. An opponent is for him one who presents challenge, who wants and asks to be understood. The person of dialogue believes that dialogue is the only way to be understood by others. So he makes an effort to look at the world through his opponent's viewpoint, to 'change hats with him' and to 'step into his shoes.' ... He does not shy away from defending his own arguments and is not afraid of the truth, but, invariably, he puts respect for human dignity first. ... Each partner accept that the dignity of the other is of immensurable value. This presupposes the ability to strike a compromise, whenever possible, the readiness to admit that one is not is possession of the sole and complete [truth], and the willingness to accept somebody else's reasoning and to change one's own attitudes. (Quoted from Adam Michnik, In Search of Lost Meaning.)”
― Aurelian Craiutu, Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes

“Democracy, [Adam] Michnik explained, 'is neither black nor red. Democracy is gray. It is established only with difficulty, and its quality and flavor can be recognized best when it loses under the pressure of advancing red or black radical ideas. Democracy is not infallible because in all debates all are equal. That is why it lends itself to manipulation, and may be helpless against corruption. That is why, frequently, it chooses banality over excellence, shrewdness over nobility, empty promise over true competence. Democracy is a continuous articulation of particular interests, a diligent search for compromise among them, a marketplace of emotions, hatreds, and hopes; it is eternal imperfection, a mixture of sinfulness, saintliness, and monkey business.”
― Aurelian Craiutu, Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes

“The genius of the movement led by Lech Walesa lay in its having imagined and implemented a bold agenda that eschewed violence and direct confrontation with the communist authorities. Indeed, it mattered a lot that the Polish opposition was entirely committed to using only nonviolent means and pursing a policy of openness, truthfulness, meticulous factual precision, genuine autonomy of action, and trust. ... As a result, one of the fundamental principles was that KOR members refused to lie in the struggle with the authorities and were determined to stick to the truth without compromise.”
― Aurelian Craiutu, Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes

“There are no meaningless moments or deeds in history,' [Tomasz] Burek wrote in an influential text ('On the Razor's Edge') published in 1968, 'history happens at every moment, [and] is determined in every gesture of every individual life. This sense that we live ... on the razor's edge, totally and ruthlessly, believing that everything about us is always the result of human choice and the drive to humanity within each person - this is not theology or historical determinism but a realistic approach.”
― Aurelian Craiutu, Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes

“I would ask myself who was really right?' [Norberto] Bobbio recalled. 'I was always assailed by doubts. ... I was always doubtful when there was a decision to be taken. I am an indecisive person, even in small things in life. I love to debate the pros and cons, rather than come to a conclusion.”
― Aurelian Craiutu, Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes

“By seeking to remake all the existing traditions and institutions deemed to be flawed beyond reform, totalitarian democracy came in full collision with its liberal rival and became, in [Jacob] Talmon's words, 'an exclusive doctrine represented by a vanguard of the enlightened who justified themselves in the use of coercion against those who refused to be free and virtuous.' Liberal democracy, he argued, proceeds differently. It acknowledges uncertainty, imperfection, and limited knowledge and works with the assumption that individuals may not be coerced into following a predetermined path and that they are capable of reaching a state of order and prosperity through a gradual process of trial and error.”
― Aurelian Craiutu, Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes

“[Isaiah] Berlin was aware that when people feel lost in the complicated labyrinth of life, with its unsolvable tensions and paradoxes, they attempt to save themselves by trying to simplify and reduce reality to a few manageable patterns and clear ideas. Yet, they can never change the fact that life is a mixture of complexity and perplexity, and the more possibilities we are confronted with, the more perplexed and challenged we are likely to be.”
― Aurelian Craiutu, Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes

“As [Isaiah] Berlin wrote to George Kennan in 1951, 'What we violently reject is ... the very idea that there are circumstances in which one has a right to get at, and shape the characters and souls of other men for purposes which these men, if they realized what we were doing, might reject.' The respect for individual liberty goes hand in hand with the recognition of human dignity as a fundamental principle and is incompatible with treating human beings as sheer material to be conditioned and shaped at will.”
― Aurelian Craiutu, Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes

“It was assumed that entire societies could be transformed and changed in a relatively short span of time if only enough people were prepared to accept and follow the principles and priorities set by a vanguard in possession of those timeless standards. The only things that remained to be done, [Isaiah] Berlin wryly noted, was to eliminate all obstacles (human and material) to progress before the process of building the radiant future could begin in earnest. This could be done in one step through violence or gradually through persuasion, threats, reeducation, disenfranchisement, dispossession of property, relocation, coercion, blackmail, denunciation, and, if necessary, terror.”
― Aurelian Craiutu, Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes

“Moderation may be particularly relevant in a post-Cold War age such as ours because it enables us to deal with the antinomies and tensions at the heart of our contemporary societies and allows us to defend the pluralism of ideas, principles, and interests against its enemies. ... Moderation should be regarded as an eclectic virtue transcending the conventional categories of our political vocabulary.”
― Aurelian Craiutu, Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes