New Edit -- Since this issue keeps coming up, I'll make a few points, based on my experience as a moderator.
As a moderator, the actions I take are almost always initiated by a moderator flag. That means that my moderator actions are never unilateral. There is always concurrence from at least one other person in the community when I take a moderator action.
I moderate based on what the FAQ says, on community consensus established here on meta, and on the primary mission of StackOverflow, which is to provide a high-quality resource for programmers. Based on those principles, if I agree with the flag, I take action, using my binding vote. If I have a doubt, I generally don't take action at all, and leave it for the community to decide.
While moderators should be called upon to mediate exceptional situations, many moderator flags and actions are uncontroversial and unexceptional; they have more to do with sweeping the floors than they have to do with weighty issues such as inclusionism and exclusionism. Having binding moderator votes results in a system that is simple, swift and effective. It makes it possible for the moderators to take out the trash, in a way that the ordinary user never even has to see it or be bothered by it.
That's good for everyone.
Original post follows:
This is a good idea. If I might put myself in the moderator's shoes for a moment...
As a new moderator, I might not fully understand the impact of my close votes (they close the question immediately). This changes the way that I interact with the community; I can no longer cast close votes in the same manner than I did before, because they carry more weight now. In a way, becoming a moderator has taken away my ability to interact with the community as a normal user.
The purpose of moderation is not to interact with the community as a "super" user. The purpose of moderation is to mitigate extraordinary problems or exceptional disputes, situations that cannot be handled by the system under ordinary circumstances. In my view, that means that the activities of a moderator under normal circumstances must touch the system in the same way as that of other users.
In other words, moderators should be able to take off their moderator hat, if they wish to interact with the community in a non-moderator fashion, without the undue additional influence of moderator powers.
Original text follows:
I have noticed that, since the moderator elections occurred, some moderators have been making use of their new moderator powers by unilaterally closing questions.
While I certainly assert the right for moderators to do so, I am of the opinion that, unless a question is an especially egregious case of system abuse (i.e. obvious spam), that it should be left to the community to cast its own votes, and decide for itself whether a question gets closed or not.