To What Lengths Should Democrats Go to Save a Liberal Society? (Half the Answer #83, with Jacob Levy)

Podcast Episode · Half the Answer · May 13 · 1h 11m

Check out Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom - Intermediate groups-- voluntary associations, churches, ethnocultural groups, universities, and more--can both protect threaten individual liberty. The same is true for centralized state action against such groups. This wide-ranging book argues that, both normatively and historically, liberal political thought rests on a deep tension between a rationalist suspicion of intermediate and local group power, and a pluralism favorable toward intermediate group life, and preserving the bulk of its suspicion for the centralizing state. <p/>The book studies this tension using tools from the history of political thought, normative political philosophy, law, and social theory. In the process, it retells the history of liberal thought and practice in a way that moves from the birth of intermediacy in the High Middle Ages to the British Pluralists of the twentieth century. In particular it restores centrality to the tradition of ancient constitutionalism and to Montesquieu, arguing that social contract theory’s contributions to the development of liberal thought have been mistaken for the whole tradition. <p/>It discusses the real threats to freedom posed both by local group life and by state centralization, the ways in which those threats aggravate each other. Though the state and intermediate groups can check and balance each other in ways that protect freedom, they may also aggravate each other’s worst tendencies. Likewise, the elements of liberal thought concerned with the threats from each cannot necessarily be combined into a single satisfactory theory of freedom. While the book frequently reconstructs and defends pluralism, it ultimately argues that the tension is irreconcilable and not susceptible of harmonization or synthesis; it must be lived with, not overcome.<br> by Tomlinson Professor of Political Theory Jacob T Levy on Bookshop.org US!

Tomlinson Professor of Political Theory, Associate member of Philosophy, Coordinator of Research Group on Constitutional Studies, McGill. Posts here speak only for myself. Americo-Canadian; liberaltarian; aging geek. http://jacobtlevy.com

The court has more political power than ever—and its chief justice needs to take some responsibility.

The Supreme Court’s conservatives have spent their careers working to kill the Voting Rights Act. They just did it.

The Supreme Court has barred considering race when crafting legislative districts. But race could remain embedded in political gerrymandering, despite vehement claims to the contrary.

An executive order will convert 50,000 government employees into de facto political appointees who serve only at the president’s pleasure.