I think part of me thinks that political moderatism seems like a wise philosophy. Moderatism would seem to be the safe option, safe from any extremes in ideas.
I think when it comes to social issues, I may be more moderate than many conservatives, but when it comes to economics, I’m pretty far right. Here are a few reasons why:
1) The government, when it comes to power, doesn’t understand moderation. The nature of government is to grab more power. We see this throughout history, as government grows and grows. Government understands moderation the same way a crack addict does. And, I guess, it’s not an all-or-nothing thing; it’s not like we choose between anarchy and communism, but it’s just, when it comes to governmental power, and especially in economics, I prefer as little control as possible. And, with libertarian ideas, it’s easy to give more clearly defined boundaries (i.e. focused on protecting people from others).
2) When it comes to moderation between government control and liberty, and things go wrong, people tend to blame the liberty side. When it comes to governmental controls that don’t work, people typically push for more funding or more laws to make the original set of laws work.
So, I suppose many of us use moderation in our political philosophy to some degree, but I tend not to use moderation itself as my driving political philosophy.