The Morality of Moderation

Abraham Lincoln showed how moderation can be moral.

Tough political decisions, like the ones Democrats face now on immigration with the Laken Riley Act, often form big questions around morality and pragmatism. Critics of the moderate approach often claim that moderates stand for nothing. One of the most famous tweets on political social media states:

Just got back from the centrist rally. Amazing turnout. Thousands of people holding hands and chanting “Better things aren’t possible.”

The sentiment, that moderation is abdication of moral responsibility, is not just common on Twitter and Bluesky. As our conversation with Stanford’s Robb Willer on an episode of The Depolarizers last year illustrated,

people associated with moderate positions on political issues are seen as less moral and less morally motivated. He notes that in their research, voters see moderate stances and ask, “how can you be moderate on an issue like abortion? You must go one way or another. There's not really a reason to be in the middle.”

But instead, as we discussed with Yair Zivan on The Depolarizers, centrism and deep commitment to progress are highly compatible,

Zivan points out that centrists need a vision beyond just engaging in local elections; they must articulate to voters how centrists winning elections will cultivate a healthy society, and they must rally behind distinct principles, values, and the embrace of nuance in the process. It’s a provocative sentiment: rather than simply housing refugees from the far left and the far right, Zivan calls on centrists to articulate and adhere to their own values. Centrists in America commit to liberal democracy, tolerance, progress and incrementalism, and they defend their values fiercely against radicals who seek to destroy our system.

Centrists understand that in order to make progress - to have the impact implied by your moral standing - you must be committed first and foremost to the values of liberal democracy, which in itself beholds a respect for tension and nuance among perspectives.

The idea that centrism is necessarily immoral or amoral is belied by one of America’s greatest Presidents. As John Avlon exhibited in his biography Lincoln And The Fight For Peace, Abraham Lincoln was a “soulful centrist,” who believed “public opinion is everything” when making social change.

Avlon notes of Lincoln that, “He did not demonize people he disagreed with, understanding that empathy is a pathway to persuasion. He was uncommonly honest and tried to depolarize bitter debates by using humor, logic, and scripture. Balancing moral courage with moderation, Lincoln believed that decency could be the most practical form of politics.”

Lincoln and the 1860 Nomination

While history remembers Lincoln’s success, it does not always recall the pragmatism in his politics. Lincoln won the Republican nomination in 1860 because he was at the center of the Republican Party - abolitionists thought he was too moderate, but they acknowledged that he had not participated in the anti-immigrant racism of the Know Nothing Party. And the most conservative Republicans preferred Lincoln to William Seward, who was more closely aligned with abolitionists. In her biography of Lincoln and his cabinet, Doris Kearns Goodwin writes in Team of Rivals that Seward’s anti-slavery rhetoric was seen as too extreme, and it could worry delegates in swing states who believed Lincoln would have a better chance to win border states.

She writes, “Lincoln succeeded because he was the most acceptable candidate to a majority. He had not alienated key constituencies and had a reputation as someone who could unite the party rather than divide it.”

Lincoln And The Emancipation Proclamation

The most important speech Lincoln made was the Emancipation Proclamation, ending slavery in the seceding states (the 13th Amendment two years later ended slavery in the entire nation). Notably, Lincoln justified this out of military, not moral necessity. And while abolitionists grew weary of what they saw as unnecessary delays, historians have determined Lincoln correctly understood the electorate to ensure the proclamation met broad public support and was a durable shift.

In his 1876 speech, abolitionist Frederick Douglass stated, "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent.” However, Douglass then acknowledged, “but measuring him by the sentiment of his country – a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.”

One observer at the time noted, “The Proclamation was issued at a moment when the exigencies of the war justified its issue as a military necessity, and when, as a concurrent fact, the public mind was first prepared to receive it, and to give to the measure the requisite support.”

Exactly as Lincoln had planned.

Moderation Is Morality

Lincoln’s incremental approach to the end of slavery initially drew opposition from abolitionists. But, eventually, they saw Lincoln as a visionary, calling him “the greatest statesman that ever presided over the destinies of this Republic.”

Moderation is not simply, “holding hands and chanting ‘better things aren’t possible.’” Instead, moderation is the burden of believing deeply in progress, but wanting to see long-term, permanent progress rather than jumping ahead and getting too far in front of voters. Progressives irresponsibly move too fast, and their short-term progress is often overturned. As we anticipate seeing progress on issues like immigration and climate rolled back under Trump, Lincoln’s lesson becomes clear: Progressives and Joe Biden believed they had achieved a permanent shift in public opinion because of Trump’s overreach. But the reality was that voters responded just as negatively to progressive overreach on immigration and crime, leading to Trump’s return to office.

Progressives would do well to learn from Lincoln’s approach to public opinion: “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.” When Democrats got out of line with ideas like abolishing ICE and decriminalizing border crossings, they set the stage for backlash. The result is tough votes on issues like the Laken Riley Act.

Moderation does not come from a lack of desire for progress; it comes from the wisdom to understand that progress without roots in public opinion will quickly be swept away.