Customer Reviews

Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I found this book to be an interesting exploration of the evolution of American political values. Sandel argues that, over time, American political values have moved away from the political philosophy embedded in the Constitution. To illustrate his thesis, Sandel uses legal instances sucha as laws and legal judgements. This book was written by a lawyer, not a political scientist, so the methodology is different than in many books of a similar nature. It's prose is well written and accessable, without being over simplified. Overall, I found it to be interesting and informative.

In "Democracy's Discotent," the brilliant political philosopher Michael Sandel provides an overview of American legal history, jurisprudence, visions of citizenship, and economic policymaking through the lens of civic republicanism.

In fact, Sandel argues, civic republicanism represents much more than a mere strand among many woven into the philosophical fabric of America's founding and perpetuation: civic republican traditions (like cultivating the virtue of citizens, seeking economic justice, and making substantive judgments on controversial moral and political issues) are at the *heart* of our republic, and were prominently so until only very recently.

Sandel traces the emergence of liberalism as the dominant American public philosophy to a cluster of recent Supreme Court decisions and market-based economic policies. In explaining how liberalism has come to define and dominate the terms of the debate in articulating an American public philosophy, Sandel is cogent and persuasive. His brand of civic republicanism is as insightful as his criticisms of Rawlsian liberalism in "Liberalism and the Limits of Justice" but with greater so-called "real world" applicability.

Sandel is a public intellectual of the first order and this is a fine book of American legal, economic, and philosophical history. Highly recommended for students of political science.

Other terrific books about the American founding and civic republicanism: "The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787" by Gordon Wood and "The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition" by J.G.A. Pocock.

Well-written. Over 300 photos of historic American theaters located in all but six US states (with 18 pages in color). Buildings featured include town hall theaters, Western boom-town opera houses, library theaters, Chautauqua halls, and Grand Opera Houses. Readers will be surprised by the variety and beauty of many theaters in remote areas.

First, if you are new to moral philosophy, you should first read Sandel's, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2009). This book is a real pleasure to read and covers the basic issues, although it's more about personal behavior rather than political philosophy.

Second, there is a very enlightening exchange between dyed-in-the-wool Rawlsian liberal Thomas Nagel and Michael Sandel in the New York Review of Books. Nagel bitterly critiques Democracy's Discontent in "Progressive But Not Liberal (NYRB May 25, 2006), and Sandel replies in The Case For Liberalism: An Exchange (NYRB October 5, 2006). I found Democracy's Discontent well worth reading, but somewhat long-winded, with several tedious exegeses on legal issues, and the main points attacked tangentially with Sandel's argument spread out over many chapters and with little attempt to deal with obvious objections to his thesis. The exchange with Nagel illuminates both his theory and its relation to contemporary liberalism.

The meat of this book was written and delivered at Northwestern University School of Law in 1989, and the book was published in 1996. Because Sandel presents his argument as a reaction to the tenor of political debate some two decades ago, some of his arguments do not sound exactly right today. "The loss of self-government," he asserts (p. 3), " and the erosion of community together define the anxiety of the age." I do not perceive these as problems in American life at all. Yes, people are much less satisfied with their government than they were in the peaceful 1950's, but that was a very special period of lull in political conflict. As for loss of community, that appears to me to be just wrong. Americans value their communities and participate in their communities, even though the nature of community has changed with a high level of female labor force participation and the Internet as a new medium of community action.

Despite this rough start, Sandel's book does clearly outline a debate within liberalism between two visions of the polity. One view is that of John Stuart Mill and John Rawls (if you haven't read Mill's On Liberty recently, do so---it is a masterpiece; if you haven't read Rawls' A Theory of Justice, consider yourself lucky---read a wiki summary and save yourself the agony of Rawls complex and prolix prose), for whom the Good Society gives individuals to live their lives as they see fit, the limits of liberty being the other guy's equal rights. In this view, there is no need for a public argument concerning the nature of the Good or the Right---each individual is given the power to decide for himself. Moreover, this liberal philosophy preaches not only to be tolerant of those who are different from oneself, but to respect the individuality of others and accord them the esteem they deserve as human beings and members of the community.
This liberal philosophy of dignity and tolerance shines brightly when confronting religious bigotry and political intolerance, and indeed helps one understand how someone seemingly different from oneself might have deep and abiding virtues that one can even learn from, and that such learning is not an affront to one's own moral principles. Sandel certainly appreciates this aspect of what he calls "procedural liberalism," but he argues that a philosophy of radical "live and let live" fragments the political community and undermines the idea that liberty depends on sharing in self-government.

According to Sandel, we need a formative politics in which political discourse develops the capacities of citizens for self-rule. The radical laissez-faire of procedural liberalism makes it impossible to use political discourse to probe fundamental morality. For instance, one of the rallying cries of choice advocates in the abortion controversy is "If you are opposed to abortion, then don't have one!" The message here is that abortion is a personal choice, and I'll make mine the way I wish, and you should do the same. But please don't tell me that I must follow your views on the matter rather than my own.

Contrary to this procedurally liberal approach to abortion, Sandel asserts, the republican tradition in liberalism requires that we debate the morality of abortion and come to some understanding through public discourse. Similarly, rather than supporting the institution of gay marriage or that of mothers with young children remaining in the labor force on the grounds "to each his own---de gustibus no est disputandem," Sandel insists that we must debate the implications of these institutions on how they will affect the fabric of our communities and the development of individual character in the future as a result of living with these institutions.

Sandel stresses that conservatives, who flatly reject the principles of Mill and Rawls, have no trouble addressing the substantive issues. "The Christian Coalition and similar groups," Sandel notes in one of his writings, "seek to clothe the naked public square with narrow, intolerant moralisms. Fundamentalists rush in where liberals fear to tread." In his republican liberalism, Sandel would not hesitate to debate the issues, not just the procedures. It is simply not true, Sandel asserts, that "rights" trump "the good," as Mill and Rawls suggest.

The problem with Sandel's position, in my mind, is that it is a caricature of the traditional liberal position. Mill defended free speech, for instance, not on the grounds of "live and let live," but rather on the grounds that this is the best way to foster innovation and creativity, as well as improving the capacity of citizens to entertain and evaluate contrasting arguments. How else could we in good conscious prohibit some kinds of speech and writing (hate speech, how to build bombs from grocery store items)? Similarly, the argument that abortion is simply a woman's absolute, inviolable right is argued by some, but not by most supporters of choice, and when it is argued, the reasons are not procedural but substantive (e.g., the slippery slope argument against prohibiting late-term abortions).

In recent years in the United States, there have been extensive debates about the progressivity of taxation, the treatment of illegal immigrants, giving psychotropic drugs to unruly children, school choice, anti-discrimination laws, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, what to do about nuclear proliferation, and a host of other issues. It should be clear that there is absolutely no way to deal such issues using a "live and let live" philosophy of tolerance. In this sense, Sandel's whole argument appears to be to be severely overstated.

This is not to deny Sandel's point that we must collectively decide on a general conception of the good life that we actively affirm and that we are willing to defend intellectually and impose by force. Live and let live does not apply to soccer hooligans, public drunks, wife beaters, hop heads, and child abusers. You can believe in "man-boy love," for instance, but if you practice it we will lock you up. My point is simply that we knew that all along, and the people who defend these proscribed practices by invoking the rules of tolerance and respect for civil liberties are just using bad arguments.
In his critique of Sandel's position, Thomas Nagel argues, "Liberalism may be a minority conviction in the world at large. To most people values are values, and political power should be used to implement them: What else is it for? But Sandel's ideal republic of comprehensive virtue would abandon a form of civic respect that has been of inestimable value, and threaten one of the indispensable grounds of political stability in our free, stormy, magnificently diverse nation. To use a phrase of Jürgen Habermas, constitutional patriotism should be enough to satisfy what Sandel calls our "hunger for a public life of larger meaning." A hunger that demands more from the state will lead us where history has shown we should not want to go." Amen.

The book arrived on time and in GREAT condition. I don't remember exactly how long it took to arrive, but I used standard shipping and got it in about a week to a week and a half. It doesn't look used at all. I actually had to re-check my order form because I thought I might have unintentionally bought a new one. All in all, I would definately use this seller again.

Had to read this book for class and thoroughly enjoyed it. I was surprised to see Sandal acknowledge that the Bill of Rights was intended to limit the federal government, not the states. Academics, historians, politicians and media have done a good job of burying this fact, and aside from constitutionalists, libertarians and Ron Paul supporters, you almost never find somebody who understands how the Bill of Rights is supposed to work in the federated republic.

Sandel presents interesting ideas in this book that hearken back to a Rousseau. To ensure the survival of the American Republic, Sandel recommends a return to community and self-government that has not been practiced in the United States for a long time.

Sandel has written an ambitious book. One must be careful, however, because his attacks on liberal ideologies and political strategies are often shortsighted. His arguments against Rawls is a rather short sighted reading of the work "A Theory of Justice." However, Sandel does, in his usually modest way, express fundamentaly the "discontent" many are facing in todays society. If there is a hope, then this book can hope to springboard new dialogues on political systems and the role of citizens within the framework of a given society. Sandel has not, in any convincing way, shown that the communitarian ethic will enchant a new political system nor answer all the cries of America's discontent.

American theatres are marvels of design and content and here to celebrate their history is AMERICAN THEATRES, a top pick for any serious college-level holding strong in film and stage history. The book profiles some forty of the finest theatres in operation around the country, covering a range of structures and styles and blending original photos by David Naylor - many published here for the first time - to contrast histories of different venues, from playhouses and opera houses to concert halls. The state-by-state listing of over 200 surviving 19th century theatres assures any serious buff will easily locate venues.

Michael J. Sandel's book, Democracy's Discontent, is a thought-provoking journey into the depths of America's democratic consciousness. Its solution of recognizing our multiplicity of identities by dispersing sovereignty seems a promising and novel alternative to counteract the degradation of democracy caused by the global economy. This book is a must-read for any students of political philosophy since it offers keen insights into the necessity of a public political dialogue. I strongly recommend Democracy's Discontent.

Sandel provides a clear and enjoyable presentation of the communitarian version of republican political philosophy. Unfortunately, rather than offer a positive method by which the tradition of civic republicanism can be revived, this book merely presents a criticism of modern liberalism.

I recommend as a companion read: Debating Democracy's Discontent: Essays on American Politics, Law, and Public Philosophy