Pete Wehner on Confident Pluralism

Screen Shot 2016-05-02 at 1.58.55 PM

A number of people have observed to me that the current political season is giving us lots of illustrations of the need for a more confident pluralism that allows for us to engage in genuine disagreement without abusing each other.  Pete Wehner, a contributing opinion writer for the New York Times makes the connection explicit in a piece out today in Commentary.  Here’s a taste:

Professor Inazu’s book explores, in an honest and realistic way, how we can live together peaceably despite our deep differences. He concedes we lack agreement about the purpose of our country, the nature of the common good, and the meaning of human flourishing. But this is hardly the first time. . . .

Disagreeing with others, even passionately disagreeing with others, without rhetorically vaporizing them is actually part of what it means to live as citizens in a republic. (Once upon a time this was part of civics education.) The choice is co-existence with some degree of mutual respect — or the politics of resentment and disaffection, the politics of hate and de-humanization.

You can read the whole piece on Commentary‘s website.  I’m grateful to Pete for engaging with the book, and for bringing its ideas to bear on the current election season.