Issues gathers thematic collections of essays, reflections, interviews, and reports exploring contemporary challenges to democracy, human rights, political culture, and public life from diverse international perspectives.
Issues gathers thematic collections of essays, reflections, interviews, and reports exploring contemporary challenges to democracy, human rights, political culture, and public life from diverse international perspectives.
Christian Lammert (Freie Universität Berlin) contends that the Federalist–Anti-Federalist debate over union, power, and liberty offers Europe a valuable lens for confronting its own dilemma: how to build enough common capacity to act decisively without sacrificing democratic accountability and local self-government.
Dale Mineshima-Lowe (Parami University) argues that the United States’ founding experiences can shed light on where the EU needs to focus its energies to strengthen its political union.
Dirk Jörke (TU Darmstadt) argues that since The (U.S.) Constitution led to a loss of democracy, primarily because of the size of the new political space, Federalist’s ideas should not be regarded as a blueprint for democratizing the European Union.
Michael Weinman (Indiana University) Michael Weinman examines contemporary critiques of the United States Senate as an antidemocratic vestige of the slaveholding character of the Early American Republic and imagines how Publius would reply, based on the arguments of Federalist Nos. 62-63.
Eva Marlene Hausteiner (University of Erlangen-Nürnberg) argues that far from serving as a historical safeguard against empire, U.S. federalism has been entangled with colonial and imperial practices since the nation’s founding—a finding that should give pause to those who assume federal structures, including a prospective European framework, are inherently immune to imperial drift.
The essays gathered here ask what the American experience — more particularly the debates between federalists and anti-federalists — can teach about the costs, limits, and possibilities of building a union, and whether those lessons travel to Europe at all.
Irit Dekel reflects on how the book’s subtitle, Confronting the Retreat of Democracy from the Radical Center, poses the potent tensions that are crucial for attempting to solve the problems at hand, suggesting that through his concept of the “radical center,” Goldfarb and the people who create this space create it consciously and arguing that it is radical to confront the retreat of democracy from a center that is plural and open.
Jeffrey C. Isaac suggests that this “paradoxical idea” (paradoxical, for: how can “radicalism” be “centrist?”) is best defended by Goldfarb himself, but that the answer goes something like this: however polarized the situation, and however righteous the cause, there is never a single way to act or to be. And so, there is always a need for there to be a space for thinking beyond oneself and one’s commitments, and for real dialogue—listening as well as speaking—as a constitutive feature of ethically justified action.
Siobhan Kattago notes that while “radical center” may sound like a contradiction in terms, the center that he envisions is radical because its roots can withstand the abyss of raging anger promoted by strongmen and clever algorithms, insofar as it is also an ethical space that grounds how we orient ourselves to one another and to the world. In this way, the radical center is similar to Krzysztof Czyzewski’s understanding of Sejny, as a small center of the world.
Irit Dekel is guest editor of an ongoing symposium on Jeffrey Goldfarb’s latest book on the retreat of democracy.
