The impermanence of pluralist liberalism

"The Permanence of the Political" by Joseph Schwartz is a scholarly book on political theory. The author, an associate professor at Temple University, is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). He calls himself a democratic socialist, but could perhaps be best described as a pluralist left-liberal. The book covers a lot of ground - perhaps too large a lot? The author takes on Hannah Arendt, Hegel's "Philosophy of Right", modern communitarianism and Marx' view of morality, with sideshows about Bill Clinton's welfare reforms, Alexander Kojève's interpretations of Hegel and much else besides!

Schwartz' main thesis can be gauged by the subtitle: "A democratic critique of the radical impulse to transcend politics". The author argues that a just, humane society must necessarily be democratic. His interpretation of democracy is pluralist. Often, the author makes a pragmatic case for pluralist democracy. Since social stratification, the division of labour or the competition for finite resources cannot be entirely abolished, society will always need a mechanism for deliberation and compromise between different social interests. This mechanism, then, is democracy. However, I think it's obvious that Schwartz' *real* argument for democracy is that he regards pluralism as something desirable in itself. For some reason, the author believes that humans can't become fully themselves except through voluntary associations in civil society. Since some kind of unitary state is nevertheless needed, the best form of government is a pluralist, liberal democracy which connects the various communities with each other and mediates between them. The (only?) shared identity of the citizens in such a diverse society will be the democratic process itself. As a left-liberal, however, Schwartz is at pains to point out that each community must also be internally democratic. He opposes communitarianism on this point, with the argument that its communities could just as well be authoritarian.

In the opinion of Schwartz, the radical tradition is too anti-pluralist. It dreams of a society where all or most conflicts have been abolished, a harmonious society where the citizens feel strong solidarity with each other, and all share a common conception of the good. This is the "radical impulse to transcend politics". Rousseau is criticized for his idea of small, virtuous republics dominated by a General Will. Marx wanted a classless society with no state or political mechanism whatsoever, something the author interprets as a utopian vision of a homogenous society. Lenin was apparently even worse, calling for a non-political "administration of things" even in his most "democratic" work, "The State and the Revolution". By contrast, Hegel supported the idea of diverse interest groups having their own, non-governmental organizations, but he also wanted a "universal class" of autocratic government bureaucrats to hold society together, which the author views as inherently anti-pluralist. Since Rousseau, Marx, Lenin and (in a sense) Hegel has influenced the radical political tradition, the tradition constantly runs the risk of being unable to consistently critique authoritarian regimes, and might end up advocating such regimes.

Reading "The Permanence of the Political", I realized how "authoritarian" I am. The only argument with which I resonated is the purely pragmatic one: since human differences are structural, a civilized mechanism for peaceful co-existence has to be sought. However, it's not prima facie clear why a pragmatic democracy must be pluralist. After all, it might be more prudent to convince the conflicting social groups that they are better off seeing themselves as parts of a greater whole. But as already mentioned, I don't think Schwartz' real argument is the pragmatic one. Rather, pluralist democracy is his normative ideal. In fact, he often comes across as somewhat naïve.

You don't have to be a Marxist to realize that Western societies are class-divided, and that democracy is a compromise between the business interests, the vast middle classes and (since about the 1940's) the workers represented by "Big Labor". Yet, the supposed socialist Schwartz is strangely silent about this. Instead of classes, he talks about "social interests", "interest groups", etc. This is doubly strange, given the fact that the author explicitly opposes too much leverage for big banks and corporations. Surely there is a very crucial difference between capital and labour on the one hand, and voluntary associations like churches, sport clubs and Bigfoot enthusiasts on the other? Why is the author so reticent when it comes to class? I think the reason is that classes imply potential class struggle, a more fundamental condition than trivial clashes between "interest groups" in general. This, in turn, leads to the question how the interests of potentially antagonistic classes can be reconciled? And once you pose the question that way, it's surely difficult to avoid seriously considering Rousseau's General Will, Hegel's corporatist state, Marx' classless society through "dictatorship of the proletariat" and Lenin's vanguard party. Each, in their own way, are attempts to solve the class question. Schwartz' proposal for more regulation of the banks and corporations simply postpones the question for another generation or so. When the modern democratic compromise starts to break down in a post-peak oil world, the "anti-political" thinkers left, right and centre will come to the fore again. Another curious trait of Schwartz' book is that he constantly refers to the civil rights movement, the women's movement and the gay movement as "mass mobilizations around identities", as if being Black in the Deep South or being woman in a man's world was a (voluntary?) "identity". Here, I'm willing to concede that the author doesn't *really* believe what he is saying, since he mentions the dirty word "oppression" in a footnote...

Schwartz' approach also has certain inconsistencies. Is it really possible to create a shared civic identity on the basis of democratic pluralism alone? Can a mere mechanism be the basis of such an identity? Should we become "democratic mechanism patriots", to coin a phrase? Even Schwartz wants to have *some* kind of uniformity. He explicitly attacks notions of community, identity and pluralism which make it harder to tackle inequalities of power and wealth distribution. He is also uneasy about postmodernism. As already pointed out, the author demands that all communities be democratic, by which he presumably means "liberal" as opposed to "conservative". Already, the pluralist diversity is becoming a bit strained! If Schwartz wants to exclude Mormons, evangelicals or conservative Muslims from the polity, he should say so - and face the consequences squarely.

I also think the author underestimates the fissiparous tendencies of pluralist liberalism. If liberalism has no positive content, it will degenerate into a free-for-all, as each "identity" will try to grab as much as it can from the public trough administered by their chosen representative, the Democratic Party, and then go its separate way. It's difficult to see how such a hollowed out liberalism can create the strong sense of united, civic spirit the author nevertheless seem to want. Perhaps the author's point is that pluralism and citizenship in a wider polity can be reconciled by a united effort to create equal rights and equal opportunities for everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation? But the moment "Black and White unite and fight", one has already transcended the pluralism-come-what-may. Besides, Schwartz constantly speaks in terms of compromise, deliberation and meditation between different communities in a pluralist setting - not the same thing as a truly *united* effort to eradicate social ills.

No, when stripped of its scholarly rhetoric, this really is the usual scramble for the crumbs between everyone who supports the Democratic Party coalition, except that the crumbs are larger than usual, since Schwartz wants to tax the big banks and corporations. How this can create a strong sense of shared citizenship, is frankly beyond me. (Incidentally, I would still support the Democrats against the Republicans, who have a similar orientation - except that the "identities" running off with the family jewels tend to be more privileged in their case! But this is pragmatism, not solutions.)

Let me also say that "The Permanence of the Political" is very uneven stylistically speaking and sounds in-house. The author may have heard of the important contributions of Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau. I, alas, have not. That being said, I admit that I liked the chapter on Rousseau, which was surprisingly well-disposed, despite Schwartz' obvious disagreements with the contentious Frenchman. In the end, I will give this book three stars (the OK rating).