Liberalism & the Bomb (was Re: lbo-talk-digest V1 #4733)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Kenneth MacKendrick wrote:
>
>>  Habermas argues that in modernity there is a normative
>>  ground that is universal: communicative action. It is a ground that anyone
>>  could agree to - in a theoretical sense. In practice, we run awry of the
>>  normative ideal that is presupposed whenever we argue, but that's ok -
>>  until we dispute this normative ground to begin with. The disputation of
>>  the normative ground of democracy is *always* a deferral of autonomy and
>>  solidarity and a self-contradictory defense of authoritarian norms: we
>>  should do this because it was the way it was done. That's fine, but this
>>  alternative to 'autonomy and solidarity' requires that certain people are
>>  excluded from politics. Habermas's model generates an inclusive politics.
>
>And autonomy and solidarity are important because . . . they are
>traditions in a particular society.  So we must support this form of
>rational argument because it supports a way of life (democracy,
>individual autonomy, and so on) that we are used to.  I still think
>this stinks of ethnocentrism: concepts like rationality and autonomy,
>created in a specific social nexus, are elevated to necessary
>components of any "inclusive" society--and then we make profound
>philosophical judgments about the moral inferiority of any society
>that does not include these concepts.
>
>Miles

If you deviate from liberalism too radically at the same time as 
getting in the way of Empire, you can get bombed (and/or otherwise 
sanctioned), with the bombing (and/or sanctions) rationally defended 
by a Habermas.  E.g., the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.  If you help 
support Empire, however, you may deviate from liberalism as much as 
you like.  E.g., Israel & Saudi Arabia.

Yoshie