Michael Mitchell: Archive

"Everything in moderation" is an "extreme" statement. It's an unbelievably embarrassing contradiction in merely three words.

It means that it is proper to take moderation "to the extreme" and nothing else, which means "everything in moderation, except moderation." The word "except" contradicts the word "everything," making this statement false.

If there's a single thesis most of my work follows -- the one idea I hope to communicate above all else -- it's that the truth is in the meanings of the words we use and in order to become better individuals capable of building a better society we need to consciously and ruthlessly re-examine them.

For the sake of destroying this blatantly false principle, let's examine the word "moderation."

As an adjective, it refers to quantity. It means an average or lesser amount of anything, be it how much money is in your bank account, how much talent you possess at juggling or how much you really loved your second wife. As a verb, which is the context relevant here, it means to restrain, to control or to reduce the amount of anything.

Now let me show you how brazenly this word has been abused.

Most everyone on earth at least pays lip service to following the principle of "everything in moderation." It's a staple of Eastern philosophy. But if it were rephrased as "control everything," how many of us do you think would still agree with it? Both phrasings mean the same! Yet somehow we think it's naive to try to control everything but think it's enlightened to moderate everything.

The absurdity of this widespread belief is right there in the meaning of the words involved. There are no philosophical tricks with "big words." There are no levels of abstraction beyond average human understanding. It is right in front of our eyes, yet we still don't see it.

How is this possible? The concept of "moderation" has been stolen and then abused by its thieves. It is being used by those who haven't earned it and applied to contexts it doesn't belong in.

If you think "moderation" applies to "everything," then you're guilty of concept theft. It can only apply to things that can be quantified and controlled. And then, when you inevitably apply it to things that can't be quantified and controlled, you're guilty of concept abuse. One simply can't moderate the sunrise or the weather or poverty or the nature of consciousness or political ideologies. The principle "everything in moderation" includes all of these things and more.

Okay. So far, the statement "everything in moderation" has been proven twice false. It's a contradiction because it excludes itself and it's impossible to follow because not everything can be moderated. Let's see if we can destroy it some more.

What if we amended the statement to somehow include only things that can be moderated? Obviously, being a responsible adult who survives for any significant length of time requires the maturity to regulate his or her wants and desires. A few non-controversial examples would be refraining from eating too much sugar or getting too drunk or having more kids than one can afford. Everyone has their own limits, of course, but no one denies overindulgence is unhealthy and self-destructive.

This fact doesn't save the principle of moderation, however. Some things that can be moderated, should not be moderated. Can we really be too rich and successful or too healthy or too intelligent or too politically free? I didn't drink enough deadly poison today, should I have just a little? I was too kind to my wife today, should I insult her or smack her around a bit? I haven't been eating enough cute puppies, should I add more dog to my diet?

Even if we could save this principle from its current formulation, it's still idiotic. Consistently practicing "moderate all that can be moderated" would be tantamount to suicide.

Obviously, I don't believe in moderation as a philosophical principle. Even though I've proved it false in three different ways, I still don't think I've done enough. I want to completely obliterate it as a popular idea in the culture. I want to change as many minds as possible. So I'm going to finish by exposing its proponents and followers -- which is most everyone who has ever lived -- as frauds and hypocrites.

It's one of the biggest political issues in modern times and certainly one of the most talked about and allegedly baffling problems we face in America. It's not racism or poverty or unemployment or income inequality or terrorism. It's partisanship. And -- brace yourself -- it doesn't exist.

We may not be a nation of republicans or democrats or independents, but we are a nation of moderates. It's unanimous, undisputed! We don't want too much conservatism nor too much liberalism. We don't want too much capitalism nor too much socialism. We don't want too much regulation nor too much freedom. We think the key to success is balancing between "extremes," but if we think both sides are wrong, then what makes us think that the middle is right?

It's because we believe in moderating whatever we believe in, which means we truly believe in nothing. Remember, the concept of "moderation" doesn't apply to things we can't control or quantify. Sure, we run around self-righteously parroting deep philosophical shit like we've memorized all the answers from the back of a textbook, but all ideas and beliefs are meaningless when not "taken to the extreme." Belief is an either-or proposition. There's no such thing as a moderate capitalist or a moderate socialist or a moderate atheist or a moderate hypocrite. If you believe in anything moderately, then you don't believe in it at all.

Moderation is for weak-minded sheep who don't have the courage of their shepherds' convictions.

This fraud and hypocrisy made possible by the abuse of the concept of "moderation" doesn't only apply to ideas and beliefs, it also applies to actions. We are what we do, even if we only do it "a little" or "not too much." The concept of "moderation" may properly apply to our actions, but it doesn't negate them or change their nature.

There's no such thing as a moderate rapist, a moderate thief or a moderate child molester. If you hate Mexicans because they're Mexicans, you're a racist whether you like black people or not. If you "quit" smoking but still have one when you're "stressed out," you may not be in danger of adverse health effects anymore, but you're still a smoker. If you stabbed your husband to death, you can't plead it was accidental because you only stabbed him once.

Moderation is for deluded rationalizers who can't face the consequences of their morally reprehensible actions.

I'll finish by shining a bright light on the brazenness of this conceptual attack for any innocent who wishes to stop being a victim.

When someone preaches or promotes moderation in moral or political beliefs, he is expecting us to doubt and question our beliefs, but not to apply that same scrutiny to the idea of moderation itself. He's saying the only idea we should take seriously is that it's dangerous to take any idea seriously. When he self-righteously reminds us: "Everything in moderation." He excludes his own principle. When he vehemently warns us: "We must not go to extremes!" He is brazenly doing just that.

"Everything in moderation" means not "going to extremes" but "everything in moderation" is "going to extremes!"

Don't fall for it.