Many people, including the author, seem to misunderstand what "moderate" means in a political sense. I think the problem is that, in language, a "moderate person" implies someone who is calm, thinks things through, and doesn't jump to conclusions. But saying you're moderate politically doesn't mean that at all. It just means that you believe whatever happens to be between what the media/society defines as the "left" and the "right." There isn't a "universal political spectrum," where some views are objectively extreme.
Generally speaking, if your objection to something consists only of the belief that it's "extreme," you should reevaluate it rationally. A great example is Marx. People tend to just say "IT'S NONSENSE BECAUSE STALIN!", when in reality a lot of what he wrote is very accurate. Neither Stalin nor Mao were remotely socialist or communist (which mean completely different things) in the sense Marx described, and it's entirely possible to learn from what he wrote while at the same time knowing he was right about some things (like class conflict) and wrong about others. I'm not a Marxist, but I realize that it's really stupid to think someone is extreme/wrong because it's portrayed that way by the media. You'll find that many actual economists take his work seriously.
The above paragraph went on longer than I planned, but the point is that you shouldn't think things are extreme or wrong unless you have a good reason.
(I loved the article, so don't take this as an insult/attack.)