Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 7
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Wolkenstein, Fabio 2016. Membership ballots and the value of intra-party democracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, p. 1.


    Bader, Veit 2014. Crisis of political parties and representative democracies: rethinking parties in associational, experimentalist governance. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Vol. 17, Issue. 3, p. 350.


    Bader, Veit and Bonotti, Matteo 2014. Introduction: Parties, partisanship and political theory. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Vol. 17, Issue. 3, p. 253.


    Bonotti, Matteo 2014. Partisanship and public reason. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Vol. 17, Issue. 3, p. 314.


    Rosenblum, Nancy L. 2014. Partisanship and independence: the peculiar moralism of American politics. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Vol. 17, Issue. 3, p. 267.


    Harris, Pamela Beth 2012. The Politics of Judicial Public Reason: Secular Interests and Religious Rights. Philosophia, Vol. 40, Issue. 2, p. 271.


    Bonotti, Matteo 2011. Conceptualising Political Parties: A Normative Framework. Politics, Vol. 31, Issue. 1, p. 19.


    ×

Political Liberalism vs. “The Great Game of Politics”: The Politics of Political Liberalism

  • Russell Muirhead (a1) and Nancy L. Rosenblum (a2)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1537592706060105
  • Published online: 01 March 2006
Abstract

How political is Rawls's political liberalism? By calling his theory “political liberalism,” he means something, as he says, “quite different … from what the reader is likely to suppose.” In particular, he distances his theory from the hurly-burly of electoral contests and the deal-making of legislative log-rolling. By “political”, Rawls mainly intends to contrast his theory with those that rely on metaphysical foundations. But Rawls's theory is political in at least one ordinary sense: it is not meant to be only a theory. He does not intend to offer the kind of utopian account that stands across an unbridgeable gap from the sentiments, opinions, and institutions of everyday politics. On the contrary, as a “realistic utopia” his theory is a blueprint for a building that can in fact be built. What part does politics play in this picture? How much distance does Rawls put between political liberalism and “what the reader is likely to suppose”? Does politics as it is normally understood both popularly and in much democratic theory recede into the far distance? Does it disappear altogether?Russell Muirhead is Associate Professor of Government at Harvard University (muirhead@fas.harvard.edu); Nancy L Rosenblum is Senator Joseph Clark Professor of Ethics in Politics and Government at Harvard University (nrosenblum@latte.harvard.edu). The authors would like to thank Corey Brettschneider and Erin Kelly for helpful comments.

Copyright
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Perspectives on Politics
  • ISSN: 1537-5927
  • EISSN: 1541-0986
  • URL: /core/journals/perspectives-on-politics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×