Central to the inclusion-moderation hypothesis is the idea that when given the opportunity to participate in pluralist, democratic processes, political actors will, through some combination of experience, constraint, and learning, come to see the logic of continued participation. As a result, they will also become more moderate as they embrace democratic norms and practices. As argued in Chapter 1, this basic idea has a long history in a wide range of scholarly literature. But the lack of empirical evidence and a clearly specified mechanism for change seems discouraging for the inclusion-moderation hypothesis. Groups facing similar institutional constraints and incentives, for example, may not all become more moderate. Even more, how can we resolve the paradox of democracy, that is, identify when a group is feigning moderation and when it has become truly committed to democratic and pluralist practices? In this chapter, I present a framework for explaining why similar actors participating in similar processes will not necessarily become moderate, or moderate in the same way. Contrary to much of the literature, the institutional constraints of political openings are not a sufficient mechanism to produce moderation. And contrary to the literature on political learning, the accumulation of experiences does not tell us why some actors become moderate and others, gaining the same experience, do not. While I do not dispute the importance of these mechanisms, I focus on identifying changing boundaries of justifiable action and their implications for moderation.