Search

By the end of World War II, nationalism had been thoroughly discredited. Critics charged that national self-interest had prevented democratic governments from cooperating to end the Great Depression, and that [...]

Bryan Garsten's essay suggests that liberal polities should be understood as offering "refuge" from overweening public power. While there are sound arguments to support this approach, it downplays the affirmative exercise of public power in the liberal state and leads to policy proposals—such as a more generous stance toward refugees—that may not make sense when taking into account both the right of political communities to put the needs of their members first and the considerations that have led to rising doubts throughout Western democracies about accepting large numbers of refugees at this time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For the partisans of liberal democracy, these are trying times. The triumphalism of the years after the collapse of communism has given way to deep concern. The belief that history [...]

In this reply to my critics, I begin by clearing away some misunderstandings: I do not reject autonomy and critical self-reflection as possible bases for political judgment and action; I do not dissent from the standard view that some civic education should be mandatory; and I claim neither that each citizen need possess civic virtue nor that there is a one-size-fits-all conception of pro-civic traits within a liberal society. I do endorse the idea of a "civic core"--beliefs, skills and traits of character that ideally every citizen would possess. I then distinguish civic from philosophic education, characterize liberal civic virtues as instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, and clarify the relation between these virtues and the idea of limited government that lies at the heart of liberalism. I defend my account of civic education against the claims that it cannot justify citizens' resistance to unjust or immoral government policies and that it safeguards neither the basic needs nor the meaningful exit rights of children. I conclude by distinguishing between parental influence over children, on the one hand, and brainwashing on the other; the latter warrants external intervention, while the former does not.

Asserts that young people today are less knowledgeable and engaged in civic life than parents and grandparents. Blames schools for failing to transmit civic knowledge to students. Discusses why civic knowledge matters in a democratic society. Describes characteristics of an effective approach to civic education. (PKP)

In this article, the author comments on the tension between patriotism and free inquiry, and appeals for a patriotism that allows people to think well of their country without suspending critical judgment. Patriotism does not imply automatic assent to the specific views and policies of the leaders of the regime to which one is loyal. To be topical for a moment: it is perfectly possible to disagree with President Bush about the best response to 11 September without ceasing to be a patriot, if the dissent is motivated by sincere disagreement about the course of action best calculated to promote the long-term interests of the United States. On the other hand, dissent motivated principally by the desire to attain domestic political power or (for that matter) the desire to weaken the United States in world affairs could hardly be described as patriotic. He also opines that higher education is compatible (in the looser sense) with patriotism only to the extent that the truths pursued through higher education are compatible with the propositions that undergird patriotism, and with a sensible understanding of what it is reasonable to expect from politics at its best. Individuals can determine the force of this general thesis by ascending to particulars, exploring, first, the content of academic truth.