Interesting piece, but quite unfair to Rawls’s actual views. It seems to be more about the misinterpretation and misuse of his ideas by elites. Rawls disliked the term “neutrality” (he mentions it only once, in order to explain the limited kind of neutrality that is compatible with his theory). …
So, ironically, the article threw Rawls under the bus.
"Pre-Trump liberalism didn't cause or provoke a far-right backlash." No, but @hillaryclinton.bsky.social and the 30+ yr establishment Dem Party, including its Consultant/Pollster Industrial Complex, and the funders who paid their exorbitant fees, absolutely did. newrepublic.com/article/1992...
Excellent thread! I had a similar reaction, but you put the point much more carefully than I would have.
+1, I am hardly a Rawlsian but the whole point of Rawls is to develop a theory of liberalism based on rock solid 1st principles. He thought the state should be neutral on "comprehensive doctrines" (i.e. religions) but not about liberalism itself.
I find myself with even greater appreciation of Rawls today and I do not think he would be neutral about MAGA.
no, nor do i, & the liberals i'm critiquing here aren't neutral about maga but even being neutral wrt 'comprehensive moral doctrines' i don't think is possible & i think the attempt to do so has left us weaker
In fact, his theory is based on 2 fundamental ideals: citizens as free & equal, and society as a fair system of social cooperation. Liberalism is *not* “neutral” with respect to those ideals. It was his revulsion at *fascism* (WW2) that motivated his project ….
Rawls’s goal was to show that a just liberal egalitarian society was feasible — it was not a hopeless project. And it aimed to show that all who share the fundamental ideals can share this vision. We don’t all have to be Millian utilitarians (or Kantians, etc.) — which is hopelessly unrealistic.
Of course, Rawls thought people should justify their commitment to the fundamental ideals in terms of their broader worldviews (religious, philosophical, etc.). But the ideals themselves are not “neutral” — they must be championed and defended against movements opposed to them.
For a recent book that argues for the potency of Rawls’s political philosophy in opposing illiberal and anti-democratic movements, see Badano and Nuti (2024) _Politicizing Political Liberalism_ (OUP).
In Political Liberalism Rawls writes: “A cause of the fall of Weimar’s constitutional regime was that none of the traditional elites of Germany supported its constitution or were willing to cooperate to make it work. They no longer believed a decent liberal parliamentary regime was possible.” (lix)
Rawls’s overarching project is to refute the despair or cynical resignation that people might have about realizing robust liberal egalitarian justice. That strikes me as a very timely goal given the current state of the world!
hard agree. Hands off Big John.
I think it’s fair to note that the thrust of the piece is less about Rawls egalitarian ideas and more about political liberalism’s embrace of his other, distinct ideas about neutrality
the article basically does say "the elites forgot this other equally important stuff Rawls said, and that was bad"