Debating Democracy's Discontent
Essays on American Politics, Law, and Public Philosophy
Allen, Anita L. Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship
Regan, Milton C. JrProfessor of Law, both at the Georgetown University Law Center
Print publication date: 1998 (this edition)
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2003
Print ISBN-13: 978-0-19-829496-2







doi:10.1093/0198294964.003.0005

William A. Galston
Abstract: A public philosophy is rooted in, and addressed to, a particular public in a specific historical situation. One of the most important tasks before us is to restore the public’s confidence in government as the instrument of their purposes rather than as what it now appears–an alien, intrusive, unresponsive power. While few question the appropriateness of the recognition of long-denied rights, some public intellectuals are now expressing doubts about the general “culture of rights” to which it has given rise. A liberal democracy should be prepared to allow wide though not unlimited scope for diverse group practices, with the understanding that membership in certain groups may involve the voluntary renunciation of certain otherwise enforceable individual rights. If we go farther, if we press too hard on moral ideals such as liberal autonomy, democratic individuality, or direct participation in public affairs, if we require subgroups to reorganize their internal affairs in accordance with liberal democratic principles, we run the risk of exacerbating the conflicts we set out to abate.

Keywords: alien, confidence, conflicts, culture, diverse, Government, ideals, particular, rights, subgroups,

You have access to the abstract for this item.     You have access to the full text for this item.



 










Quick Search Form

 
scroll up fast
scroll up
 
scroll down
scroll down fast
I Reviving Civic Virtue
II Toward an American Public Philosophy
III Liberal Republicanism
IV Living With Difference
V Law, Morals, and Private Lives
VI Self-Government and Democratic Discontent
VII A Reply to His Critics