Podcasts about political liberalism

Summary Alex speaks with Jacob Levy about the concept of a liberal party, exploring its philosophical foundations, historical context, and touch on all of these points within the context of Jacob's article "The Liberal Party Idea" (2024). References The Liberal Party Idea by Jacob Levy: Link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381323406_The_liberal_party_idea_and_American_ideology "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Liberty-John-Stuart-Mill/dp/1505851210 "The Constitution of Liberty" by Friedrich Hayek Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Constitution-Liberty-Friedrich-Hayek/dp/0226320847 "The Federalist Papers" by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Federalist-Papers-Alexander-Hamilton/dp/0486496363 "Reflections on the Revolution in France" by Edmund Burke Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Reflections-Revolution-France-Edmund-Burke/dp/0199539022 "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Democracy-America-Alexis-Tocqueville/dp/0140447601 "Two Treatises of Government" by John Locke Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Two-Treatises-Government-John-Locke/dp/1532846815 "Political Liberalism" by John Rawls Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Political-Liberalism-John-Rawls/dp/0231130899 Thanks to our patrons including: Amy Willis, Kris Rondolo, and Christopher McDonald. To become a patron, go to patreon.com/curioustask

Seeking a second term as US president in November, Donald Trump joins a roster of politicians whose declared aim is to use legal means to bend democracy to their will and in their interests. The system withstood his first term. In Venezuela, Ecuador, Turkey, and Hungary, the systems didn't, and they are undergoing stress tests in Israel, Slovakia, and Georgia. In Venezuela, Turkey and Hungary, elections still happen and parliaments, courts, and media are intact but checks and balances have been steadily eroded as one party bids for sustained majority rule. Since the turn of the millennium, 80% of cases of democratic retreat have taken this form rather than through violence. Worst of all, “illiberal democracy” is popular. Between 2016 and 2020, Trump added 11 million votes. In 2022, after 12 consecutive years in power, Hungary's ruling party extended its support. Recent polls show that a third of Americans would prefer a strong unelected leader to a weak elected one while a fifth of French under-35s are indifferent to the prospect of an end to democracy. In Democracy Despite Itself: Liberal Constitutionalism and Militant Democracy (OUP Press, 2024) Benjamin Schupmann addresses this democratic internal rot and how to defend against it. "Democratic cannibalism is a perennial problem,” he writes. “It is a question of when, not if, popular anti-democratic movements will erupt from within and try to use legal revolutionary methods to devour democracy. Democratic constitution should be designed to provide democrats with the means to defend it and themselves". Benjamin Schupmann is an Assistant Professor at Yale-NUS College in Singapore. He got his PhD at Columbia University and then taught at Duke Kunshan University and the National University of Singapore. Democracy Despite Itself is his second book. His first – Carl Schmitt's State and Constitutional Theory – was published in 2017. *The author's book recommendations are Sovereignty Across Generations: Constituent Power and Political Liberalism by Alessandro Ferrara (OUP Oxford, 2023) and Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity by Hartmut Rosa (Columbia University Press, 2013).  Tim Gwynn Jones is an economic and political-risk analyst at Medley Advisors, who also writes the twenty4two newsletter on Substack. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Seeking a second term as US president in November, Donald Trump joins a roster of politicians whose declared aim is to use legal means to bend democracy to their will and in their interests. The system withstood his first term. In Venezuela, Ecuador, Turkey, and Hungary, the systems didn't, and they are undergoing stress tests in Israel, Slovakia, and Georgia. In Venezuela, Turkey and Hungary, elections still happen and parliaments, courts, and media are intact but checks and balances have been steadily eroded as one party bids for sustained majority rule. Since the turn of the millennium, 80% of cases of democratic retreat have taken this form rather than through violence. Worst of all, “illiberal democracy” is popular. Between 2016 and 2020, Trump added 11 million votes. In 2022, after 12 consecutive years in power, Hungary's ruling party extended its support. Recent polls show that a third of Americans would prefer a strong unelected leader to a weak elected one while a fifth of French under-35s are indifferent to the prospect of an end to democracy. In Democracy Despite Itself: Liberal Constitutionalism and Militant Democracy (OUP Press, 2024) Benjamin Schupmann addresses this democratic internal rot and how to defend against it. "Democratic cannibalism is a perennial problem,” he writes. “It is a question of when, not if, popular anti-democratic movements will erupt from within and try to use legal revolutionary methods to devour democracy. Democratic constitution should be designed to provide democrats with the means to defend it and themselves". Benjamin Schupmann is an Assistant Professor at Yale-NUS College in Singapore. He got his PhD at Columbia University and then taught at Duke Kunshan University and the National University of Singapore. Democracy Despite Itself is his second book. His first – Carl Schmitt's State and Constitutional Theory – was published in 2017. *The author's book recommendations are Sovereignty Across Generations: Constituent Power and Political Liberalism by Alessandro Ferrara (OUP Oxford, 2023) and Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity by Hartmut Rosa (Columbia University Press, 2013).  Tim Gwynn Jones is an economic and political-risk analyst at Medley Advisors, who also writes the twenty4two newsletter on Substack. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Seeking a second term as US president in November, Donald Trump joins a roster of politicians whose declared aim is to use legal means to bend democracy to their will and in their interests. The system withstood his first term. In Venezuela, Ecuador, Turkey, and Hungary, the systems didn't, and they are undergoing stress tests in Israel, Slovakia, and Georgia. In Venezuela, Turkey and Hungary, elections still happen and parliaments, courts, and media are intact but checks and balances have been steadily eroded as one party bids for sustained majority rule. Since the turn of the millennium, 80% of cases of democratic retreat have taken this form rather than through violence. Worst of all, “illiberal democracy” is popular. Between 2016 and 2020, Trump added 11 million votes. In 2022, after 12 consecutive years in power, Hungary's ruling party extended its support. Recent polls show that a third of Americans would prefer a strong unelected leader to a weak elected one while a fifth of French under-35s are indifferent to the prospect of an end to democracy. In Democracy Despite Itself: Liberal Constitutionalism and Militant Democracy (OUP Press, 2024) Benjamin Schupmann addresses this democratic internal rot and how to defend against it. "Democratic cannibalism is a perennial problem,” he writes. “It is a question of when, not if, popular anti-democratic movements will erupt from within and try to use legal revolutionary methods to devour democracy. Democratic constitution should be designed to provide democrats with the means to defend it and themselves". Benjamin Schupmann is an Assistant Professor at Yale-NUS College in Singapore. He got his PhD at Columbia University and then taught at Duke Kunshan University and the National University of Singapore. Democracy Despite Itself is his second book. His first – Carl Schmitt's State and Constitutional Theory – was published in 2017. *The author's book recommendations are Sovereignty Across Generations: Constituent Power and Political Liberalism by Alessandro Ferrara (OUP Oxford, 2023) and Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity by Hartmut Rosa (Columbia University Press, 2013).  Tim Gwynn Jones is an economic and political-risk analyst at Medley Advisors, who also writes the twenty4two newsletter on Substack. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Seeking a second term as US president in November, Donald Trump joins a roster of politicians whose declared aim is to use legal means to bend democracy to their will and in their interests. The system withstood his first term. In Venezuela, Ecuador, Turkey, and Hungary, the systems didn't, and they are undergoing stress tests in Israel, Slovakia, and Georgia. In Venezuela, Turkey and Hungary, elections still happen and parliaments, courts, and media are intact but checks and balances have been steadily eroded as one party bids for sustained majority rule. Since the turn of the millennium, 80% of cases of democratic retreat have taken this form rather than through violence. Worst of all, “illiberal democracy” is popular. Between 2016 and 2020, Trump added 11 million votes. In 2022, after 12 consecutive years in power, Hungary's ruling party extended its support. Recent polls show that a third of Americans would prefer a strong unelected leader to a weak elected one while a fifth of French under-35s are indifferent to the prospect of an end to democracy. In Democracy Despite Itself: Liberal Constitutionalism and Militant Democracy (OUP Press, 2024) Benjamin Schupmann addresses this democratic internal rot and how to defend against it. "Democratic cannibalism is a perennial problem,” he writes. “It is a question of when, not if, popular anti-democratic movements will erupt from within and try to use legal revolutionary methods to devour democracy. Democratic constitution should be designed to provide democrats with the means to defend it and themselves". Benjamin Schupmann is an Assistant Professor at Yale-NUS College in Singapore. He got his PhD at Columbia University and then taught at Duke Kunshan University and the National University of Singapore. Democracy Despite Itself is his second book. His first – Carl Schmitt's State and Constitutional Theory – was published in 2017. *The author's book recommendations are Sovereignty Across Generations: Constituent Power and Political Liberalism by Alessandro Ferrara (OUP Oxford, 2023) and Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity by Hartmut Rosa (Columbia University Press, 2013).  Tim Gwynn Jones is an economic and political-risk analyst at Medley Advisors, who also writes the twenty4two newsletter on Substack. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Seeking a second term as US president in November, Donald Trump joins a roster of politicians whose declared aim is to use legal means to bend democracy to their will and in their interests. The system withstood his first term. In Venezuela, Ecuador, Turkey, and Hungary, the systems didn't, and they are undergoing stress tests in Israel, Slovakia, and Georgia. In Venezuela, Turkey and Hungary, elections still happen and parliaments, courts, and media are intact but checks and balances have been steadily eroded as one party bids for sustained majority rule. Since the turn of the millennium, 80% of cases of democratic retreat have taken this form rather than through violence. Worst of all, “illiberal democracy” is popular. Between 2016 and 2020, Trump added 11 million votes. In 2022, after 12 consecutive years in power, Hungary's ruling party extended its support. Recent polls show that a third of Americans would prefer a strong unelected leader to a weak elected one while a fifth of French under-35s are indifferent to the prospect of an end to democracy. In Democracy Despite Itself: Liberal Constitutionalism and Militant Democracy (OUP Press, 2024) Benjamin Schupmann addresses this democratic internal rot and how to defend against it. "Democratic cannibalism is a perennial problem,” he writes. “It is a question of when, not if, popular anti-democratic movements will erupt from within and try to use legal revolutionary methods to devour democracy. Democratic constitution should be designed to provide democrats with the means to defend it and themselves". Benjamin Schupmann is an Assistant Professor at Yale-NUS College in Singapore. He got his PhD at Columbia University and then taught at Duke Kunshan University and the National University of Singapore. Democracy Despite Itself is his second book. His first – Carl Schmitt's State and Constitutional Theory – was published in 2017. *The author's book recommendations are Sovereignty Across Generations: Constituent Power and Political Liberalism by Alessandro Ferrara (OUP Oxford, 2023) and Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity by Hartmut Rosa (Columbia University Press, 2013).  Tim Gwynn Jones is an economic and political-risk analyst at Medley Advisors, who also writes the twenty4two newsletter on Substack. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seeking a second term as US president in November, Donald Trump joins a roster of politicians whose declared aim is to use legal means to bend democracy to their will and in their interests. The system withstood his first term. In Venezuela, Ecuador, Turkey, and Hungary, the systems didn't, and they are undergoing stress tests in Israel, Slovakia, and Georgia. In Venezuela, Turkey and Hungary, elections still happen and parliaments, courts, and media are intact but checks and balances have been steadily eroded as one party bids for sustained majority rule. Since the turn of the millennium, 80% of cases of democratic retreat have taken this form rather than through violence. Worst of all, “illiberal democracy” is popular. Between 2016 and 2020, Trump added 11 million votes. In 2022, after 12 consecutive years in power, Hungary's ruling party extended its support. Recent polls show that a third of Americans would prefer a strong unelected leader to a weak elected one while a fifth of French under-35s are indifferent to the prospect of an end to democracy. In Democracy Despite Itself: Liberal Constitutionalism and Militant Democracy (OUP Press, 2024) Benjamin Schupmann addresses this democratic internal rot and how to defend against it. "Democratic cannibalism is a perennial problem,” he writes. “It is a question of when, not if, popular anti-democratic movements will erupt from within and try to use legal revolutionary methods to devour democracy. Democratic constitution should be designed to provide democrats with the means to defend it and themselves". Benjamin Schupmann is an Assistant Professor at Yale-NUS College in Singapore. He got his PhD at Columbia University and then taught at Duke Kunshan University and the National University of Singapore. Democracy Despite Itself is his second book. His first – Carl Schmitt's State and Constitutional Theory – was published in 2017. *The author's book recommendations are Sovereignty Across Generations: Constituent Power and Political Liberalism by Alessandro Ferrara (OUP Oxford, 2023) and Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity by Hartmut Rosa (Columbia University Press, 2013).  Tim Gwynn Jones is an economic and political-risk analyst at Medley Advisors, who also writes the twenty4two newsletter on Substack. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode we finally get down and dirty with the big dog of Anglophone political philosophy, John Rawls. We discuss his 1993 book Political Liberalism, which expands on his earlier theory of justice to develop an account of the pluralistic tolerance at the heart of a liberal society characterized by the fact of a diversity of incommensurate but reasonable worldviews. We talk about what Rawlsian theory genuinely has going for it, but also pull no punches about the serious theoretical and practical limits to this most careful and aspirationally progressive exemplar of liberal political philosophy. But hey: don't worry, we can tolerate a good liberal.This is just a short clip from the full episode, which is available to our subscribers on Patreon:patreon.com/leftofphilosophyReferences:John Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993). Music:Vintage Memories by Schematist | schematist.bandcamp.com

In which we discuss Canada's seventh prime minister and first French-Canadian PM! We look at some caricatures that were made of the man and some of the major decisions that came up during his career! ---Support: Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/historiacanadiana); Paypal (https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/historiacanadiana); the recommended reading page (https://historiacanadiana.wordpress.com/books/) ---Contact: historiacanadiana@gmail.com; Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/CanLitHistory). --- Caricatures: Manitoba Schools Question: One and Two Transcontinental Railway Creating new provinces Reciprocity   Sources & Further Reading: Bélanger, Réal. “Laurier, Wilfrid.” The Oxford Companion to Canadian History, Oxford University Press, 2004. Bliss, Michael. Right Honourable Men: The Descent of Canadian Politics from Macdonald to Mulroney, Toronto: HarperCollins, 1994. Bowering, George. Egotists and Autocrats: The Prime Minister of Canada. Penguin, 2000. Laurier, Wilfrid. “Speech on Political Liberalism,” June 26, 1877.

The concept of religion in modern political Liberalism

OUTLINE of today's show with TIMECODESFauci & DC Mayor Bowser go door-to-door pushing vaccines and NO ONE is letting him get away with lies — ESPECIALLY one man. Fauci tries to smear them by calling them "Republicans" saying "they don't want people telling them what to do". I don't think they're Republicans given the demographics of DC. But no wanting to be told what to do by our "Masters" is an American thing 3:06Bird flu vaccine makers are preparing bird flu shots. They're ready. 15:39Bill Gates wants a global "fire department" to stop all future pandemics. It will probably look like the "firemen" from Fahrenheit 451 24:34AI develops new cancer "treatment" in only 30 days. Should we call it Dr. Chat? They claim it can also determine life expectancy. Does it take TrumpShots into consideration? 31:03Turbo testicular cancer in young athletes. From diagnosis to death in days 34:25Aneurysms, another complication of the MMR vaccine. 39:44California Hospital still letting transplant patients die if unvaccinated 42:51DeSantis holds press conference about CBDC — and OFFERS A STATE SOLUTION. But no one cares about anything he says. They only want to know about what he will do about Trump 49:17Trump goes nasty. The Underminer. Are his insinuations about DeSantis projection? 1:10:30Ukraine's Digital Transformation: a test bed for digital tyranny here and globally 1:23:2585% of Trump supporters think protesting against the arrest is a “January 6th style trap”. Even the people who led MAGA into the J6 trap are saying it's a trap this time. 1:47:44INTERVIEW Property, Liberty, & The Common Good. Alexander William Salter, awsalter.com, Economics Research Fellow with Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University, Associate Prof of Economics and associate editor of the Journal of Private Enterprise. Mr. Salter joins to talk about the current financial instability and how his two books look at the foundation of Western liberty and how to repair those failing foundations. His two books coming out this year "The Political Economy of Distributism: Property, Liberty, and the Common Good" and "The Medieval Constitution of Liberty: Foundations of Political Liberalism in the West". 2:01:54Military officer goes to war with woman who opposed on Facebook a polysexual poster in school. 2:46:09What is “woke?” Woman who wrote an anti-woke book can't define it in an interview. This is WHY I DO NOT USE THE TERM 2:52:20Orlando Drag Show: Undercover agents say they saw nothing lewd at drag show. Time to get some DIFFERENT agents 2:55:35Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here:SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation through Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silver

Alexander William Salter, awsalter.com, Economics Research Fellow with Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University, Associate Prof of Economics and associate editor of the Journal of Private Enterprise. Mr. Salter joins to talk about the current financial instability and how his two books look at the foundation of Western liberty and how to repair those failing foundations. His two books coming out this year "The Political Economy of Distributism: Property, Liberty, and the Common Good" and "The Medieval Constitution of Liberty: Foundations of Political Liberalism in the West".Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here:SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation through Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silver

Alexander William Salter, awsalter.com, Economics Research Fellow with Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University, Associate Prof of Economics and associate editor of the Journal of Private Enterprise. Mr. Salter joins to talk about the current financial instability and how his two books look at the foundation of Western liberty and how to repair those failing foundations. His two books coming out this year "The Political Economy of Distributism: Property, Liberty, and the Common Good" and "The Medieval Constitution of Liberty: Foundations of Political Liberalism in the West".Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here:SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation through Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silver

OUTLINE of today's show with TIMECODESFauci & DC Mayor Bowser go door-to-door pushing vaccines and NO ONE is letting him get away with lies — ESPECIALLY one man. Fauci tries to smear them by calling them "Republicans" saying "they don't want people telling them what to do". I don't think they're Republicans given the demographics of DC. But no wanting to be told what to do by our "Masters" is an American thing 3:06Bird flu vaccine makers are preparing bird flu shots. They're ready. 15:39Bill Gates wants a global "fire department" to stop all future pandemics. It will probably look like the "firemen" from Fahrenheit 451 24:34AI develops new cancer "treatment" in only 30 days. Should we call it Dr. Chat? They claim it can also determine life expectancy. Does it take TrumpShots into consideration? 31:03Turbo testicular cancer in young athletes. From diagnosis to death in days 34:25Aneurysms, another complication of the MMR vaccine. 39:44California Hospital still letting transplant patients die if unvaccinated 42:51DeSantis holds press conference about CBDC — and OFFERS A STATE SOLUTION. But no one cares about anything he says. They only want to know about what he will do about Trump 49:17Trump goes nasty. The Underminer. Are his insinuations about DeSantis projection? 1:10:30Ukraine's Digital Transformation: a test bed for digital tyranny here and globally 1:23:2585% of Trump supporters think protesting against the arrest is a “January 6th style trap”. Even the people who led MAGA into the J6 trap are saying it's a trap this time. 1:47:44INTERVIEW Property, Liberty, & The Common Good. Alexander William Salter, awsalter.com, Economics Research Fellow with Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University, Associate Prof of Economics and associate editor of the Journal of Private Enterprise. Mr. Salter joins to talk about the current financial instability and how his two books look at the foundation of Western liberty and how to repair those failing foundations. His two books coming out this year "The Political Economy of Distributism: Property, Liberty, and the Common Good" and "The Medieval Constitution of Liberty: Foundations of Political Liberalism in the West". 2:01:54Military officer goes to war with woman who opposed on Facebook a polysexual poster in school. 2:46:09What is “woke?” Woman who wrote an anti-woke book can't define it in an interview. This is WHY I DO NOT USE THE TERM 2:52:20Orlando Drag Show: Undercover agents say they saw nothing lewd at drag show. Time to get some DIFFERENT agents 2:55:35Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here:SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation through Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silver

Guest host Sigal Samuel talks with philosopher and author Martha Nussbaum about her new book, Justice for Animals. Martha discusses several different ethical, legal, and metaphysical theories for how we humans should treat other non-human animals, and offers her own distinct new approach. Host: Sigal Samuel (@SigalSamuel), Senior Reporter, Vox Guest: Martha Nussbaum, author; Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Philosophy, U. Chicago References:  Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility by Martha Nussbaum (Simon & Schuster; 2022) Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights by Steven M. Wise (Basic; 2003) Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved by Frans de Waal (Princeton; 2006) Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals by Peter Singer (1975) Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to Other Animals by Christine Korsgaard (Oxford; 2018) Political Liberalism by John Rawls (1993) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) "Ag-Gag" Laws in the United States (Animal Legal Defense Fund) Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights by Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka (Oxford; 2011)   Enjoyed this episode? Rate The Gray Area ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ and leave a review on Apple Podcasts. Subscribe for free. Be the first to hear the next episode of The Gray Area. Subscribe in your favorite podcast app. Support The Gray Area by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts This episode was made by:  Producer: Erikk Geannikis Editor: Amy Drozdowska Engineer: Patrick Boyd Editorial Director, Vox Talk: A.M. Hall Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today, Fabio talks to Rick Abel, an Emeritus Law Professor at UCLA. Rick recently published two books on the United States war on terror, which researchers at the PAL project have found particularly useful. The reason is, in these books, Rick shows how a liberal legal order can quickly be turned into an illiberal one, to fight those who are framed as “enemies of the nation”. In the episode, Fabio and Rick discuss what these processes involve and what they tell us about the ability that law and lawyers have, or lack, to protect or to undermine political liberalism

Trust plays a central role in democratic societies. If we can’t rely upon fellow community members to act in accordance with generally accepted norms, then we’re going to be in a really bad way. Social trust in the US has fallen dramatically. In the early 1970s, around half of Americans said that most people can be trusted. Today, less than a third of Americans feel that way. Similarly, political trust—our faith in political institutions and processes to function properly—has declined as well. In the 1960s, more than 70 percent of Americans said that they trusted the federal government always or most of the time. Today, that figure hovers around 17 percent. In an idealized liberal democracy, a healthy dose of skepticism toward politicians and government officials is vital for assuring fruitful outcomes. However, we must be careful so that that accountability mechanism doesn’t turn into a cynicism that corrodes democratic norms. Rampant distrust prevents us from solving problems with our neighbors and broader communities. Alternatively, trust helps to grease the wheels of democracy. This enables us to better overcome inherited differences and to arrive at more pluralistic perspectives on the problems we face. Instead, we find ourselves in an increasingly polarized age, where we seem less and less to share common realities or notions of truth. Distrust breeds polarization, and polarization begets more distrust. When we no longer hold the same media or news sources in common or we maintain a thoroughgoing distrust of media institutions, what will prevent us from further polarization? Jeffrey Howard speaks with Kevin Vallier, a political philosopher and associate professor of philosophy at Bowling Green State University, where he directs their program in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and Law. In his new book Trust in a Polarized Age (2020), Vallier advocates for public reason liberalism as a way of revitalizing social and political trust. He draws on empirical trust literature to argue a way forward for reducing polarization. He proposes that we reinvest in liberal democratic political and economic institutions: high-quality governance, procedural fairness, markets, social welfare programs, and freedom of association. Vallier believes that if we can educate ourselves on how elections and political parties take advantage of mistrust and polarization, we can protect American democracy against new authoritarian threats.  This raises some questions. What relationship is there between the scope of government and the degree of political trust in the broader society? Rather than view our political opponents as essentially evil, what might happen instead if we primarily acted as if they were misguided or ill-informed? How much more trust would be fostered if we focused locally rather than turning our eyes toward Washington DC or to the headquarters of multinational firms? What can we do to restore trust in the media? And what hope do we have of breaking the distrust-divergence feedback loop? Show Notes Trust in a Polarized Age by Kevin Vallier (2020) “Trust in a Age of Reactionaries and Revolutionaries” by Matthew Downhour (2021) “We’re Overdoing Democracy. But Why?” by Kevin Vallier (2019) “Suspending Politics to Save Democracy” by Lawrence Torcello (2020) The Spirit of the Disciplines by Dallas Willard (1996) The Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard (1998) Free to Choose: A Personal Statement by Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman (1990) Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman (2002) The Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith (1759) The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith (1776) A Theory of Justice by John Rawls (1971) Political Liberalism by John Rawls (1993) The Constitution of Liberty by F.A. Hayek (1960) Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Vol I.: Rules and Order by F. A. Hayek (1973) The Order of Public Reason by Gerald Gaus (2010)

DOCUMENTATION AND ADDITIONAL READING PART 1 (0:0 - 12:45): ────────────────── 62 Million Babies Have Been Aborted in the U.S. in the 48 Years Since Roe v. Wade: How Did Abortion Become Thinkable in American Culture? PART 2 (12:46 - 18:17): ────────────────── President Biden Wants to Codify Roe v. Wade: Abortion as the Central Sacrament of Political Liberalism in the United States PART 3 (18:18 - 23:16): ────────────────── Liberal Catholicism in the White House? What Is the Connection Between Liberal Theology and Liberal Political Views? NEW YORK TIMES (ELIZABETH DIAS) In Biden’s Catholic Faith, an Ascendant Liberal Christianity NEW YORK TIMES (ROSS DOUTHAT) Joe Biden’s Catholic Moment

Marc Fleurbaey is the Research Director of the National Center for Scientific Research at the Paris School of Economics. He is the author of Fairness, Responsibility, and Welfare (2008), a co-author of Beyond GDP (with Didier Blanchet, 2013), A Theory of Fairness and Social Welfare (with François Maniquet, 2011), and the coeditor of several books, including Justice, Political Liberalism, and Utilitarianism: Themes from Harsanyi and Rawls (with Maurice Salles and John Weymark, 2008) and the Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy (with Matthew Adler, 2016). His research on normative and public economics and theories of distributive justice has focused in particular on the analysis of equality of opportunity, risk, redistributive taxation, climate policy, and on seeking solutions to famous impossibilities of social choice theory.   Our student quote is read by Rita Halabi. ResourcesMarc Fleurbaey’s bio and websiteDaniel Shaviro’s blog post about Pratt’s recent visit to the NYU Tax Policy ColloquiumDo You Believe in Democracy or in Equality — or Both?Beyond GDP: The Quest for a Measure of Social WelfareTo learn more about Zarin, read Daniel Shaviro, “The Man Who Lost Too Much: Zarin v. Commissioner and the Measurement of Taxable Consumption”, 45 Tax L. Rev. 215 (1990)The student quote comes from Peracchi v. Commissioner, 143 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 1998).

Should we think about the story of Australia's halting “recognition” of its First Peoples as an expression of the ongoing conflict between political philosophies and conceptions of what properly constitutes the common life of a people?

Antropoloģes un Oksfordas Universitātes asociētās profesores Daces Dzenovskas monogrāfija “Eiropeiskuma skola: iecietība un citas politiskā liberālisma mācības Latvijā” (School of Europeanness: Tolerance and Other Lessons in Political Liberalism in Latvia), kuru 2018. gadā publicējusi Kornela Universitātes izdevniecība, nule kā saņēmusi nozīmīgu novērtējumu - tā ieguvusi Baltijas studiju veicināšanas asociācijas galveno balvu. Par īpašu atzinību izpelnījušos grāmatu un citām pētnieces akadēmiskajām interesēm attālināti runājam raidījumā Zināmais nezināmajā ar Daci Dzenovsku. Skaidrojam, kā tas ir pētīt Austrumeiropu, strādājot un dzīvojot Lielbritānijā. "Grāmatas mērķis ir parādīt, kas ir liberālisms pēc aukstā kara mūsdienu vēsturiskajā kontekstā, kā tas izskatās, no kādām praksēm sastāv praktiski eksistējošais liberālisms. Secinājums, ka tas kā vēsturisks veidojums ir sava veida ideoloģija, kas pieprasa, lai cilvēki radikāli maina savu izpratni par indivīdu, tā attiecībām ar līdzcilvēkiem, kolektīvu," atklāj Dzenovska. "Piemēram, grāmatā ir nodaļa par valodu, kas apskata valodas ideoloģiju šajā sakarā. Ja iecietības veicinātāji strādāja ar valodas ideoloģiju un uzskatīja, ka vārdi rada pasauli, ne to reprezentē. Tie, kas nepiekrita viņu uzskatiem, atzina, ka valoda vienkārši izsaka vai reprezentē pasauli. Mēģināju skatīties, kas lietām ir apakšā, no kā tās sastāv," turpina pētniece. Dzenovska par atgādina par debatēm, ko savulaik raisīja vārds žīds, vai tas, lietots sabiedriskā telpā, ievaino cilvēku.  "Tas, ka vārds ievaino ir specifiska veida valodas ideoloģija, kas ir atšķirīga no tās, ka valoda vienkārši izsaka to, kas jau ir," norāda Dzenovska. Viņas vēlme pētījumā bijusi dziļi skatīties uz pamatpieņēmumiem, kas ir pamatā tam, ko uzskatām par liberālismu, vai tam, ko uzskatām par nacionālismu. "Gribējās aicināt sabiedrību padomāt, faktiski kritiski distancēties no politiskajām debatēm, lai palūkotos, par ko ir strīds. Kā mēs sevi pārveidojam kā cilvēki, kā sabiedrība, lai pievērstos vienam vai otram virzienam," norāda Dzenovska. Literatūru var pētīt arī no gastropoētiskā aspekta Pasakās, romānos un citos literāros darbos varoņi ne tikai risina dažādus jautājumus, bet arī mielojas ar gardiem ēdieniem un dzērieniem. Tāpēc nav pārsteigums, ja kādu īpašu zupu vai cepeti saistām ar izlasītu grāmatu. Šie ir daži no aspektiem, kurus aplūko gastropoētika, taču gastropoētikas pētījumi var sniegt arī krietni plašāku informāciju gan par nacionālās identitātes veidošanos, gan sociālām problēmām sabiedrībā. Par riekstu gaņģiem un mandeļu gaņģiem stāstīts latviešu rakstnieka Kārļa Skalbes pasakā „Kaķīša dzirnavas”, kas tapusi 20. gadsimta sākumā. Vai Kārlis Skalbe un viņa laikabiedri rada iespēju mieloties ar riekstiem un mandelēm? Rast atbildi šim jautājumam būtu detektīva cienīgs darbs, taču zināms ir tas, ka literatūru var pētīt gastropoētiskā aspektā, priekšplānā izvirzot tieši gastronomiju un ēdienu. 13 pētnieki no vairākām Latvijas un citu Eiropas valstu augstskolām uzsākuši projektu, kura ietvaros paredzēts ne vien pētīt literāros darbos atspoguļoto ēdiena dimensiju, bet arī analizēt, ko šis ēdiens stāsta par Latvijas iedzīvotāju nacionālo identitāti. Gastropoētiku un pētnieku ieceri plašāk skaidro projekta galvenā izpildītāja, Latvijas Universitātes Humanitāro zinātņu fakultātes vadošā pētniece Astra Spalvēna. "Gastropoētika ir viens no literatūras pētniecības veidiem, kas pēta ēdienu esamības veidus literāros tekstos, kā mēs redzam ēdienu gan literatūrā, gan pavārgrāmatās. Jāņem vērā arī  tas, ka ar ēdienu saprotam dažādu parādību kopumu, gan ēdiens un dzēriens, gan ēšana, gan ēdiena pagatavošana, pasniegšana, ēdienreizes. Ēdiens kā pārsedzošs termins," skaidro Astra Spalvēna. "Tekstu klāsts ir plašs, bet nav daudz literāru tekstu par ēdienu. Dzejā reti kad par ēdienu ir runa, tajos gadījumos, kad tā ir, tas patiešām kļūst interesanti," norāda pētniece. Protams, ka ēdienus literatūrā varētu analizēt arī no sociālantropoloģiskā viedokļa, piemēram, vai riekstus un mandeles savā ikdienā mēs saistām ar pārticību, jo riekstu un mandeļu gaņģi Kārļa Skalbes „Kaķīša dzirnavās” stāsta par turību un labu dzīvi. Vai, piemēram, moments no Marsela Prusta romānu cikla „Zudušo laiku meklējot” par madlēnas cepumiņiem rosina arī mums tos pagaršot. Astra Spalvēna min, ka kopā ar pētnieku komandu ir vērts arī padomāt, kā konkrētā projekta rezultāti varētu radīt sociālu ietekmi ilgtermiņā. Projekta galarezultāts būs kolektīva monogrāfija, un tuvāko trīs gadu laikā gan Latvijas Universitātes mājas lapā, gan sociālo tīklu platformās noteikti vēl uzzināsim par pētnieku atziņām gastropoētikā.  

Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls are perhaps the two most renowned and influential figures in social and political philosophy of the second half of the twentieth century. In the 1990s, they had a famous exchange in the Journal of Philosophy. Quarreling over the merits of each other's accounts of the shape and meaning of democracy and legitimacy in a contemporary society, they also revealed how great thinkers working in different traditions read—and misread—one another's work. James Gordon Finlayson, reader in philosophy and director of the Centre for Social and Political Thought at the University of Sussex, examines and contextualizes The Habermas-Rawls Debate (Columbia University Press, 2019). He traces their dispute from its inception in their earliest works to the 1995 exchange and its aftermath, as well as its legacy in contemporary debates. Finlayson discusses Rawls's Political Liberalism and Habermas's Between Facts and Norms, considering them as the essential background to the dispute and using them to lay out their different conceptions of justice, politics, democratic legitimacy, individual rights, and the normative authority of law. He gives a detailed analysis and assessment of their contributions, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their different approaches to political theory, conceptions of democracy, and accounts of religion and public reason, and he reflects on the ongoing significance of the debate. The Habermas-Rawls Debate is an authoritative account of the crucial intersection of two major political theorists and an explication of why their dispute continues to matter. Ryan Tripp is part-time and full-time adjunct history faculty for Los Medanos Community College as well as the College of Online and Continuing Education at Southern New Hampshire University.

Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls are perhaps the two most renowned and influential figures in social and political philosophy of the second half of the twentieth century. In the 1990s, they had a famous exchange in the Journal of Philosophy. Quarreling over the merits of each other’s accounts of the shape and meaning of democracy and legitimacy in a contemporary society, they also revealed how great thinkers working in different traditions read—and misread—one another’s work. James Gordon Finlayson, reader in philosophy and director of the Centre for Social and Political Thought at the University of Sussex, examines and contextualizes The Habermas-Rawls Debate (Columbia University Press, 2019). He traces their dispute from its inception in their earliest works to the 1995 exchange and its aftermath, as well as its legacy in contemporary debates. Finlayson discusses Rawls’s Political Liberalism and Habermas’s Between Facts and Norms, considering them as the essential background to the dispute and using them to lay out their different conceptions of justice, politics, democratic legitimacy, individual rights, and the normative authority of law. He gives a detailed analysis and assessment of their contributions, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their different approaches to political theory, conceptions of democracy, and accounts of religion and public reason, and he reflects on the ongoing significance of the debate. The Habermas-Rawls Debate is an authoritative account of the crucial intersection of two major political theorists and an explication of why their dispute continues to matter. Ryan Tripp is part-time and full-time adjunct history faculty for Los Medanos Community College as well as the College of Online and Continuing Education at Southern New Hampshire University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls are perhaps the two most renowned and influential figures in social and political philosophy of the second half of the twentieth century. In the 1990s, they had a famous exchange in the Journal of Philosophy. Quarreling over the merits of each other’s accounts of the shape and meaning of democracy and legitimacy in a contemporary society, they also revealed how great thinkers working in different traditions read—and misread—one another’s work. James Gordon Finlayson, reader in philosophy and director of the Centre for Social and Political Thought at the University of Sussex, examines and contextualizes The Habermas-Rawls Debate (Columbia University Press, 2019). He traces their dispute from its inception in their earliest works to the 1995 exchange and its aftermath, as well as its legacy in contemporary debates. Finlayson discusses Rawls’s Political Liberalism and Habermas’s Between Facts and Norms, considering them as the essential background to the dispute and using them to lay out their different conceptions of justice, politics, democratic legitimacy, individual rights, and the normative authority of law. He gives a detailed analysis and assessment of their contributions, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their different approaches to political theory, conceptions of democracy, and accounts of religion and public reason, and he reflects on the ongoing significance of the debate. The Habermas-Rawls Debate is an authoritative account of the crucial intersection of two major political theorists and an explication of why their dispute continues to matter. Ryan Tripp is part-time and full-time adjunct history faculty for Los Medanos Community College as well as the College of Online and Continuing Education at Southern New Hampshire University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls are perhaps the two most renowned and influential figures in social and political philosophy of the second half of the twentieth century. In the 1990s, they had a famous exchange in the Journal of Philosophy. Quarreling over the merits of each other’s accounts of the shape and meaning of democracy and legitimacy in a contemporary society, they also revealed how great thinkers working in different traditions read—and misread—one another’s work. James Gordon Finlayson, reader in philosophy and director of the Centre for Social and Political Thought at the University of Sussex, examines and contextualizes The Habermas-Rawls Debate (Columbia University Press, 2019). He traces their dispute from its inception in their earliest works to the 1995 exchange and its aftermath, as well as its legacy in contemporary debates. Finlayson discusses Rawls’s Political Liberalism and Habermas’s Between Facts and Norms, considering them as the essential background to the dispute and using them to lay out their different conceptions of justice, politics, democratic legitimacy, individual rights, and the normative authority of law. He gives a detailed analysis and assessment of their contributions, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their different approaches to political theory, conceptions of democracy, and accounts of religion and public reason, and he reflects on the ongoing significance of the debate. The Habermas-Rawls Debate is an authoritative account of the crucial intersection of two major political theorists and an explication of why their dispute continues to matter. Ryan Tripp is part-time and full-time adjunct history faculty for Los Medanos Community College as well as the College of Online and Continuing Education at Southern New Hampshire University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls are perhaps the two most renowned and influential figures in social and political philosophy of the second half of the twentieth century. In the 1990s, they had a famous exchange in the Journal of Philosophy. Quarreling over the merits of each other’s accounts of the shape and meaning of democracy and legitimacy in a contemporary society, they also revealed how great thinkers working in different traditions read—and misread—one another’s work. James Gordon Finlayson, reader in philosophy and director of the Centre for Social and Political Thought at the University of Sussex, examines and contextualizes The Habermas-Rawls Debate (Columbia University Press, 2019). He traces their dispute from its inception in their earliest works to the 1995 exchange and its aftermath, as well as its legacy in contemporary debates. Finlayson discusses Rawls’s Political Liberalism and Habermas’s Between Facts and Norms, considering them as the essential background to the dispute and using them to lay out their different conceptions of justice, politics, democratic legitimacy, individual rights, and the normative authority of law. He gives a detailed analysis and assessment of their contributions, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their different approaches to political theory, conceptions of democracy, and accounts of religion and public reason, and he reflects on the ongoing significance of the debate. The Habermas-Rawls Debate is an authoritative account of the crucial intersection of two major political theorists and an explication of why their dispute continues to matter. Ryan Tripp is part-time and full-time adjunct history faculty for Los Medanos Community College as well as the College of Online and Continuing Education at Southern New Hampshire University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls are perhaps the two most renowned and influential figures in social and political philosophy of the second half of the twentieth century. In the 1990s, they had a famous exchange in the Journal of Philosophy. Quarreling over the merits of each other’s accounts of the shape and meaning of democracy and legitimacy in a contemporary society, they also revealed how great thinkers working in different traditions read—and misread—one another’s work. James Gordon Finlayson, reader in philosophy and director of the Centre for Social and Political Thought at the University of Sussex, examines and contextualizes The Habermas-Rawls Debate (Columbia University Press, 2019). He traces their dispute from its inception in their earliest works to the 1995 exchange and its aftermath, as well as its legacy in contemporary debates. Finlayson discusses Rawls’s Political Liberalism and Habermas’s Between Facts and Norms, considering them as the essential background to the dispute and using them to lay out their different conceptions of justice, politics, democratic legitimacy, individual rights, and the normative authority of law. He gives a detailed analysis and assessment of their contributions, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their different approaches to political theory, conceptions of democracy, and accounts of religion and public reason, and he reflects on the ongoing significance of the debate. The Habermas-Rawls Debate is an authoritative account of the crucial intersection of two major political theorists and an explication of why their dispute continues to matter. Ryan Tripp is part-time and full-time adjunct history faculty for Los Medanos Community College as well as the College of Online and Continuing Education at Southern New Hampshire University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls are perhaps the two most renowned and influential figures in social and political philosophy of the second half of the twentieth century. In the 1990s, they had a famous exchange in the Journal of Philosophy. Quarreling over the merits of each other’s accounts of the shape and meaning of democracy and legitimacy in a contemporary society, they also revealed how great thinkers working in different traditions read—and misread—one another’s work. James Gordon Finlayson, reader in philosophy and director of the Centre for Social and Political Thought at the University of Sussex, examines and contextualizes The Habermas-Rawls Debate (Columbia University Press, 2019). He traces their dispute from its inception in their earliest works to the 1995 exchange and its aftermath, as well as its legacy in contemporary debates. Finlayson discusses Rawls’s Political Liberalism and Habermas’s Between Facts and Norms, considering them as the essential background to the dispute and using them to lay out their different conceptions of justice, politics, democratic legitimacy, individual rights, and the normative authority of law. He gives a detailed analysis and assessment of their contributions, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their different approaches to political theory, conceptions of democracy, and accounts of religion and public reason, and he reflects on the ongoing significance of the debate. The Habermas-Rawls Debate is an authoritative account of the crucial intersection of two major political theorists and an explication of why their dispute continues to matter. Ryan Tripp is part-time and full-time adjunct history faculty for Los Medanos Community College as well as the College of Online and Continuing Education at Southern New Hampshire University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    Listen, support, and interact: https://linktr.ee/theentrylevelleft     01:27: Beyond Rawls: An Analysis of the Concept of Political Liberalism by SP Young, ISBN-10: 0761822410   03:00: “Understanding liberals vs the left” by Elizabeth Bruenig: https://goo.gl/ffhCBx   04:23: “The Difference Between Liberalism and Leftism” by Nathan J. Robinson, Editor in Chief of Current Affairs: https://goo.gl/DtckCC   06:00: Classical Liberal roots and how it relates to our modern parties   07:40: Morals vs. Manners and superficial vs. systemic changes   07:50: Liberalism in Theory and Practice by Jacobin Magazine: https://goo.gl/1Mfm99   11:00: What it Means to Be on the Left by Peter Frase, Jacobin Magazine: https://goo.gl/SHKDFR   11:45: Can liberalism realize its own ideals?   21:26: Why is the liberal welfare state not sufficient?   28:10: How would leftists address social issues as compared to liberals?   37:15: Is liberalism equipped to deal with the rise of Trump and the far right?   38:00: “Why People Vote For Those Who Work Against Their Best Interests” Lecture by Mark Blyth: https://goo.gl/Cb6Ni2   42:25: Obama to Trump Swing Voters: https://goo.gl/1bG2mr     Music produced by @southpointe__ on Instagram.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of John Rawls to political and moral philosophy. Yet Rawls’s work is commonly read as fundamentally divided between “early” and “late” periods, which are marked mainly by the publication of his two major books, A Theory of Justice (1971) and Political Liberalism (1993). The most common account of Rawls’s intellectual trajectory has it that the later Rawls came to regard the project of A Theory of Justice as deeply flawed. That is, Political Liberalism is often read as an attempt to dial back or even renounce the project of A Theory of Justice. In fact, Political Liberalism is commonly taken to represent a drastic lowering of the ambitions for political philosophy as such. In his book, Why Political Liberalism? On John Rawls’s Political Turn (Oxford University Press, 2010), Paul Weithman meticulously develops and defends a non-standard account of Rawls’s turn from the view proposed in A Theory of Justice to that of Political Liberalism. According to Weithman, both works are centrally focused on the very same problem, namely, how a stably just society is possible among creatures like us. Weithman argues that Rawls’s “turn” involves not a change of topic, or a lowering of ambition, but a change in how Rawls understood the nature of social stability. If Weithman is correct, the standard understanding of Rawls’s philosophy must change significantly. Perhaps more importantly, if Weithman is right, many of the most common criticisms of Rawls more obviously miss their mark. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It is difficult to overstate the importance of John Rawls to political and moral philosophy. Yet Rawls’s work is commonly read as fundamentally divided between “early” and “late” periods, which are marked mainly by the publication of his two major books, A Theory of Justice (1971) and Political Liberalism (1993). The most common account of Rawls’s intellectual trajectory has it that the later Rawls came to regard the project of A Theory of Justice as deeply flawed. That is, Political Liberalism is often read as an attempt to dial back or even renounce the project of A Theory of Justice. In fact, Political Liberalism is commonly taken to represent a drastic lowering of the ambitions for political philosophy as such. In his book, Why Political Liberalism? On John Rawls’s Political Turn (Oxford University Press, 2010), Paul Weithman meticulously develops and defends a non-standard account of Rawls’s turn from the view proposed in A Theory of Justice to that of Political Liberalism. According to Weithman, both works are centrally focused on the very same problem, namely, how a stably just society is possible among creatures like us. Weithman argues that Rawls’s “turn” involves not a change of topic, or a lowering of ambition, but a change in how Rawls understood the nature of social stability. If Weithman is correct, the standard understanding of Rawls’s philosophy must change significantly. Perhaps more importantly, if Weithman is right, many of the most common criticisms of Rawls more obviously miss their mark. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It is difficult to overstate the importance of John Rawls to political and moral philosophy. Yet Rawls’s work is commonly read as fundamentally divided between “early” and “late” periods, which are marked mainly by the publication of his two major books, A Theory of Justice (1971) and Political Liberalism (1993). The most common account of Rawls’s intellectual trajectory has it that the later Rawls came to regard the project of A Theory of Justice as deeply flawed. That is, Political Liberalism is often read as an attempt to dial back or even renounce the project of A Theory of Justice. In fact, Political Liberalism is commonly taken to represent a drastic lowering of the ambitions for political philosophy as such. In his book, Why Political Liberalism? On John Rawls’s Political Turn (Oxford University Press, 2010), Paul Weithman meticulously develops and defends a non-standard account of Rawls’s turn from the view proposed in A Theory of Justice to that of Political Liberalism. According to Weithman, both works are centrally focused on the very same problem, namely, how a stably just society is possible among creatures like us. Weithman argues that Rawls’s “turn” involves not a change of topic, or a lowering of ambition, but a change in how Rawls understood the nature of social stability. If Weithman is correct, the standard understanding of Rawls’s philosophy must change significantly. Perhaps more importantly, if Weithman is right, many of the most common criticisms of Rawls more obviously miss their mark. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It is difficult to overstate the importance of John Rawls to political and moral philosophy. Yet Rawls's work is commonly read as fundamentally divided between “early” and “late” periods, which are marked mainly by the publication of his two major books, A Theory of Justice (1971) and Political Liberalism (1993). The most common account of Rawls's intellectual trajectory has it that the later Rawls came to regard the project of A Theory of Justice as deeply flawed. That is, Political Liberalism is often read as an attempt to dial back or even renounce the project of A Theory of Justice. In fact, Political Liberalism is commonly taken to represent a drastic lowering of the ambitions for political philosophy as such. In his book, Why Political Liberalism? On John Rawls's Political Turn (Oxford University Press, 2010), Paul Weithman meticulously develops and defends a non-standard account of Rawls's turn from the view proposed in A Theory of Justice to that of Political Liberalism. According to Weithman, both works are centrally focused on the very same problem, namely, how a stably just society is possible among creatures like us. Weithman argues that Rawls's “turn” involves not a change of topic, or a lowering of ambition, but a change in how Rawls understood the nature of social stability. If Weithman is correct, the standard understanding of Rawls's philosophy must change significantly. Perhaps more importantly, if Weithman is right, many of the most common criticisms of Rawls more obviously miss their mark.

In this episode, Raymond Geuss critiques the idea that we should always look to what the general consensus is when deciding which political policies to adopt. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Professor Susan Mendus (York) gives a talk for the Science and Religious Conflict Conference 2010. Dr Nick Southwood (Oxford) is the commentator.

John Rawls, 1921-2002, was the most influential figure among American philosophers. His first, and main, work, A Theory of Justice (1971), made him famous. It aimed to resolve the seemingly competing claims of freedom and equality.Two additional books, Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples, rounded out his liberal political philosophy.His view was to maximize utility, although utilitarianism does not take into consideration the differences of individuals. He used a thought experiment he called the original position. It eliminated certain features, e.g. biases, allowing the person to deliberate behind a veil of ignorance. He knows only that he has the capacity to create a life plan, and he has the capacity to develop a sense of justice. Thus, each will deliberate in order to design a social structure that will secure him maximal advantage.Rawls derives two principles of justice from the original position. The first is equal basic liberties for all citizens. The second answers how these gains are distributed among people without property rights. Everything is up for distribution. This second principle ensures that those with comparable talents and motivation face roughly similar life chances and that inequalities in society work to the benefit of the least advantaged. This is a topic of much debate.Lecture 9 of 10 from David Gordon's The History of Politcal Philosophy: From Plato to Rothbard.

Danish philosopher and theologian Soren Kierkegaard observed, “Once you label me, you negate me.” Today we will remember the victims of the shooting at the Unitarian Universalist congregation in Knoxville, Tennessee, the question of what happened there, and clarify how religious liberalism differs from political liberalism.

Commentary on the Sermon "On Liberals and Labels"