Schuck, the Simeon E. Baldwin Professor of Law, points out that the term "moderate" is often used "for people who seem to have milquetoast views or people who are trying to split the difference. I don't think that's what a moderate like myself is doing at all. I conceive of moderation as a quality of mind and temperament, including a very pragmatic streak, one that is suspicious of grand theory and understands that multiple conflicting values are, and ought to be, at stake, one that is empirically grounded, one that hesitates to dismiss fellow citizens' opinions, and one that is prepared to reassess views on the basis of new information."
Schuck is concerned that the ideologies of the left and the right have left a "chasm" in civil debate. He identifies the predominance of liberal ideology on law school campuses as an example. "It is harmful," he says, "because we're not forced to hone our views as carefully as we should against contrary positions."
In Schuck's response to this problem, we can see the militant moderate in action. He admits that there is no easy remedy. He rejects the conservative call for "a kind of affirmative action program on ideological grounds," while resisting the liberal's acceptance of the situation. "We simply have to use what resources we now possess to introduce more viewpoint diversity into our community," he suggests. "Do I think that we ought to try to encourage more debate among faculty members and recruit faculty members who meet all of the intellectual qualifications and academic criteria that we generally apply but who are also of different ideological viewpoints? Yes, I think we should." This sort of small-step solution is consistent with Schuck's pragmatism, which he defines as, "constantly looking for marginal improvements in the way we solve particular problems and expecting that those improvements will compromise conflicting values."
Schuck picked the subjects in his book with an eye toward where he could best bridge the ideological chasm. "If I think a debate has become too smug and too self-assured and is missing an important perspective that I can provide, yes I write about it," he says.
Schuck admits that his own militant moderate approach could be called an ideology, even if it's an ideology that relentlessly questions its own assumptions. "I think being self-conscious about one's ideological style is of some value at this point in time," says Schuck.
Furthermore, it's an ideology that allows for change. One of the essays in his book argues for major changes in affirmative action, by banning it in the public sector but allowing it in the private sector--an approach that defies both conventional liberal and conservative ideologies. Schuck explains that he supported affirmative action when it was first enacted, but that over time he has applied the methods of a militant moderate to evaluate the program. "I now have come to a very different view of the matter, but one that I think is based on experience, and on understanding how these programs actually work, and also on a better understanding of American society."