Why Moderates are the Key to Upholding Freedom for All

How Culture War Extremists Destroy Freedom

Since the 2010s, left-wing cancel culture has been a major frustration in many contexts. Left-wing de-platforming started as a way to contain ‘hateful’ opinions, but it soon became clear that it was a way to contain any opinions that might be inconvenient for the postmodern-critical left and its revolutionary agenda. Even people with sincerely held opinions, who only wanted to make the social justice movement do better, or point out its blind spots, were de-platformed without much consideration. 

In reaction to the widespread frustration caused by left-wing cancel culture, some people turned to the right, who were pretending to care about free speech at that point. But soon after, it became clear that the right was no better on free speech. By 2022, the agenda of book bans, drag bans, and the war on supposedly ‘woke corporations’ like Disney was in full swing. Just like the postmodern-critical left, the New Right has a clear sense of an agenda, as outlined by speakers in their conferences like NatCon and CPAC, as well as documents like the infamous ‘Project 2025’, and it will do anything in its power to shut down those who are in its way, in the implementation of said agenda.

I think the most important lesson of the past decade is that being pro-freedom and being somewhat moderate are more closely correlated than most people used to think. For example, some political tests have authoritarian-libertarian as a separate axis to the left-right axis, meaning that, at least in the world of that test, one could be far-left or far-right and still be libertarian. Meanwhile, in the real world, I have yet to meet anyone who is far-left or far-right, and yet still respects everyone’s freedom. The far-left likes to say things like ‘liberals go to the gulags too’ and are trying to rehabilitate violently illiberal revolutionaries all the time, and the far-right is never far from trying to impose their religious fundamentalism on people’s medical freedom. 

The truth is, when you believe in a strident way that your way is the only correct way, and more importantly, you also believe that the way society currently is fundamentally represents evil, and fundamentally needs changing, but most people don’t agree with the kind of change you want to impose, it’s very difficult to remain respectful of other people’s freedom. On the other hand, if you are a moderate, you are almost by definition open to listening to views on all sides, and consider all points of view without too much a-priori ideological judgement. This means that you are much more likely to respect others’ free speech and freedom of conscience. As I’ve said for a long time, freedom doesn’t exist in a vacuum. 

I previously said that free speech depends on the existence of moderates. I not only still stand by this, I think it should be taken further: freedom itself depends on the existence of moderates in abundance, in any given society. It is moderates that have the most reason to support and respect freedom. If society becomes polarized by extremist ideologies in both directions, neither side would have much incentive to support freedom, and freedom would naturally be eroded, and eventually wither away completely. Making the case for moderatism is part and partial of making the case for freedom, period.