More and more I’m drifting towards the notion that moderation isn’t as much about actual policies as it is about one’s (debating) style. There’s no such thing as inherently moderate policies. What’s a “moderate” foreign policy, for instance? Or a “moderate” economic policy? Most would probably define it as being “prudent” and pragmatic. Although that undoubtedly makes sense to many who consider themselves “moderates,” they seem to forget that both prudence and pragmatism are key characteristics of Burkean conservatism (i.e. Anglo-Saxon conservatism).

If there is one thing that the founding father of Anglo Saxon conservatism, the Brit Edmund Burke, was not, it’s an ideologue. He was a realist, a man who held a few basic beliefs, but who, above all, realized that just because something works in one country doesn’t mean it’ll also work everywhere else. As for the role of government, Burke understood that government often does more harm than good, and that man’s understanding of the consequences of his actions is always limited. Ambitious politicians, who wish to cure all of society’s ills, often accidentally also do away with all that is good and useful. To put it differently: unknowingly, they often throw out the baby with the bathwater.

At the same time, Burke certainly was not a friend of the monarchy (which would have been the traditional conservative position to hold in Burkean Britain), nor did he believe that there was no need to improve society. There was always work to be done, Burke argued, but a responsible government took its time and ensured the continuation of policies and customs that worked.

The above is Anglo Saxon (or Burkean) conservatism in a nutshell. Interestingly enough, however, it’s also how most moderates think about themselves. That’s because most of them don’t understand the nature of conservatism and because they confuse style with content.

You can be a Burkean conservatism yet use angry rhetoric to present your case. Moderation, on the other hand, requires one to be above the fray and find a middle ground between the (ideological) warring parties. It’s not about precise policies, but about the way one formulates them and how one approaches one’s opponents.

Whenever one mentions “moderation” or “moderates,” then, let’s keep in mind that what they’re really (should be) talking about is your style, not your beliefs.