In the realm of ideas, Charles Lesch finds much to praise about The Struggle for a Decent Politics, the Jewish political philosopher Michael Walzer’s new defense, and reconceptualization, of liberalism. Walzer argues for “liberal” to be understood not as a dogma but as an attitude or disposition that all kinds of different people—with different beliefs, concerns, and affiliations—can adopt. All but some, that is:
Religious groups, however, occupy their own special category: for them, the adjective liberal often does mean “not radical.”
Walzer offers several reasons for excluding at least some committed religionists from the ranks of those who can pursue their ideals wholeheartedly, even radically, while still being considered liberal. Religions, to begin with, are often “greedy”: they ask a lot of us in terms of time and belief. They make “radical and exclusive claims on their members’ emotions and on their everyday commitments.” They might make us be somewhere on weekends—or every day, or several times a day. They might demand that we only eat certain things. They might tell us to marry our own. They might mandate different roles for men and women. They might require that we think certain things, or at least publicly affirm a certain creed.
Most damningly, they usually insist that they are right—and by extension, that those of other faiths, or differently practicing coreligionists, are wrong. Yet this is precisely how billions of people experience religious life. It’s the norm, not the exception. Walzer’s arguments would leave whole continents of humanity outside the liberal tent.
Walzer’s stance here poses a special challenge for Orthodox Jews, particularly those who are citizens, as I am, of the state of Israel. Many Orthodox Israelis, to be sure, wish to have as little to do as possible with a society governed by liberal principles, but many others wish to find their place in it.
Read more at Jewish Review of Books
More about: Liberalism, Michael Walzer, Political philosophy, Religion and politics