Interlude

Summary

After reading the previous letters, Lauren and Rob remained unconvinced about the benefits of moderation. Here is a short note I received from them that I take the liberty of reproducing here in full.

You wrote about moderation as an alternative to ideology and antidote to fanaticism. We know now what moderates are against, but the question remains: what do they stand for? Do they have a real and coherent vision of what a good society might look like, or are they simply against any radical ideas and plans broadly defined? Do their agendas have any fixed points or lodestars? Or it is rather the case that they change constantly and have no such fixed points? If so, can then moderation be viewed as a real virtue rather than a merely circumstantial strategy?