What do you think?
Rate this book
The Struggle for a Decent Politics: On "Liberal" as an Adjective
A testament to what it means to be liberal by one of the most prominent political philosophers of our era
“Walzer is perhaps our foremost pilot on these rocky shoals. In his preface, he writes that this may be his last book. One hopes not.”—James Traub, New York Times
There was a time when liberalism was an ism like any other, but that time, writes Michael Walzer, is gone. “Liberal” now conveys not a specific ideology but a moral stance, so the word is best conceived not as a noun but as an adjective—one is a “liberal democrat” or a “liberal nationalist.”
Walzer itemizes the characteristics described by “liberal” in an inventory of his own deepest political and moral commitments—among other things, to the principle of equality, to the rule of law, and to a pluralism that is both political and cultural. Unabashedly asserting that liberalism comprises a universal set of values (“they must be universal,” he writes, “since they are under assault around the world”), Walzer reminds us in this inspiring book why those values are worth fighting for.
“Walzer is perhaps our foremost pilot on these rocky shoals. In his preface, he writes that this may be his last book. One hopes not.”—James Traub, New York Times
There was a time when liberalism was an ism like any other, but that time, writes Michael Walzer, is gone. “Liberal” now conveys not a specific ideology but a moral stance, so the word is best conceived not as a noun but as an adjective—one is a “liberal democrat” or a “liberal nationalist.”
Walzer itemizes the characteristics described by “liberal” in an inventory of his own deepest political and moral commitments—among other things, to the principle of equality, to the rule of law, and to a pluralism that is both political and cultural. Unabashedly asserting that liberalism comprises a universal set of values (“they must be universal,” he writes, “since they are under assault around the world”), Walzer reminds us in this inspiring book why those values are worth fighting for.
176 pages, Hardcover
Published January 17, 2023
About the author
Michael Walzer
118 books162 followersMichael Walzer is a Jewish American political philosopher and public intellectual. A professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, he is editor of the political-intellectual quarterly Dissent. He has written books and essays on a wide range of topics, including just and unjust wars, nationalism, ethnicity, economic justice, social criticism, radicalism, tolerance, and political obligation and is a contributing editor to The New Republic. To date, he has written 27 books and published over 300 articles, essays, and book reviews in Dissent, The New Republic, The New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, The New York Times, and many scholarly journals
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
June 10, 2023
Walzer’s take is interesting. I really enjoyed his definition of liberal as meaning having an open mind or being open to things. His examples hit home for me as he to is Jewish and still finds a lot of his political ideals through his Jewish learning and teachings. I thought it was definitely a beneficial read especially because he goes so into depth on each version of liberal he thinks exists
February 7, 2025
2.5
A covid-era reflection that offers some important connections, but overall feels like a man from a strong position of privilege musing about a liberal ideologies whilst failing to sufficiently engage critically with his own biases. I wholeheartedly agree with many of the points he discusses about liberal democracy relying on empathy, a balance between plurality & constraint, & open criticism. Succinctly, one thing that really bothered me then my main criticisms are, respectively:
1. If ur gonna talk about gender as a continuum then pls reflect on the amount of gendered language u use.
2. The discussion of allyship vs changes coming from within a community lacked proper nuance in my opinion, & ultimately felt absent of substance. He gives many examples of where he has marched or supported causes, in which it comes across as the pat on the back he accuses illiberal liberals of. Some of his suggestions within the feminist chapter & throughout the book come across as out of touch with the communities primarily impacted & with glaring gaps of lived experience or research. He mentions the surveys being done during the Vietnam war - he should have reflected more.
3. Researching him further, he seems to jump through hoops & logical fallacies to defend his **Zionism** & criticizes young activists as having arguments that lack substance/merit. Like dude? You are what you criticize my guy
A covid-era reflection that offers some important connections, but overall feels like a man from a strong position of privilege musing about a liberal ideologies whilst failing to sufficiently engage critically with his own biases. I wholeheartedly agree with many of the points he discusses about liberal democracy relying on empathy, a balance between plurality & constraint, & open criticism. Succinctly, one thing that really bothered me then my main criticisms are, respectively:
1. If ur gonna talk about gender as a continuum then pls reflect on the amount of gendered language u use.
2. The discussion of allyship vs changes coming from within a community lacked proper nuance in my opinion, & ultimately felt absent of substance. He gives many examples of where he has marched or supported causes, in which it comes across as the pat on the back he accuses illiberal liberals of. Some of his suggestions within the feminist chapter & throughout the book come across as out of touch with the communities primarily impacted & with glaring gaps of lived experience or research. He mentions the surveys being done during the Vietnam war - he should have reflected more.
3. Researching him further, he seems to jump through hoops & logical fallacies to defend his **Zionism** & criticizes young activists as having arguments that lack substance/merit. Like dude? You are what you criticize my guy
February 1, 2023
What does—or should—it mean to be a liberal? According to political philosopher Michael Walzer, it’s best to think of the term “liberal” as an adjective—one that qualifies an independent commitment—and not as a noun, which signifies the commitment itself. In other words, if you were to describe yourself as a liberal, Walzer would respond by saying, “liberal what?”
You might, for example, describe yourself as a liberal democrat, liberal socialist, or liberal nationalist. The adjective “liberal” in all of these cases describes the quality and characteristics of your commitments. What this “liberal” qualification entails—and how this understanding of the term leads to a more decent and sustainable politics—is the subject of Walzer’s latest book.
What, then, should the term “liberal” signify, ideally? To Walzer, it seems, the term is essentially a constraint on the extremism our commitments often drift towards. For example, our commitments to democracy can quickly turn into tyrannical majority rule, just as our commitments to socialism can turn into calls for radicalized centralized planning and forced equality. A “liberal” democrat, on the other hand—while recognizing the importance of majority rule—will also stress, and be constrained by, the rights of minority groups (as outlined in the Constitution and elsewhere), as well as reject violence and promote pluralism and peaceful dissent.
In the same way, a “liberal” socialist (or social democrat or “progressive capitalist,” as they are alternatively called) will be committed to the ideal of equality while also rejecting violent revolution and totalitarian state planning, in addition to recognizing the benefits of free trade and markets while placing limits on inequality (but not eliminating it). A liberal socialist, then, recognizes trade-offs, respects competing perspectives, and avoids extremism, authoritarianism, and violence.
It’s clear that, to Walzer, the term “liberal” stands in opposition to extremism, and signifies a commitment to tolerance, peaceful debate, open-mindedness, pluralism, democracy, and incremental progress, along with a rejection of violence, dogma, and radicalism in any form. This means that you can’t be, for example, a “liberal racist”—as the terms stand in direct opposition to each other—but you can be a “liberal Democrat,” or even a “liberal Republican,” although these days, the latter is quite rare.
What would a “liberal Republican” look like, by the way? Well, they would likely maintain most of their social and economic conservative views, however they would do so within a framework that respects the Constitution, democratic institutions, pluralism, and minority rights, while recognizing the rights of opposing parties to exist, disagree, and rotate through office based on the outcomes of free elections (yes, you can stop laughing now). These are rare breeds indeed, yet they do exist (and should be commended).
Overall, this way of thinking about liberalism, I think, is well-advised, and can help differentiate the individuals on the left that in fact promote “illiberal” ways of thinking (principally through violence, dogma, censorship, and intolerance of competing views). In fact, it seems to be the case that, as an individual drifts farther to the extremes of the left, they begin to resemble in thought and action their counterparts to the far-right.
One thing to keep in mind is that, as Walzer points out, being “liberal” in his suggested sense doesn’t mean that liberals should always adopt centrist positions. Socialists, for example, can advocate for various levels of redistribution within a capitalist system, and in some cases, the redistribution schemes proposed can be fairly extreme. But they only become “illiberal” when they resort to calls for violence or the dogmatic suppression of competing views. Liberal socialists, on the other hand, would instead advocate for peaceful democratic debate while protecting civil rights—even if short-term political gains are less than what might be considered ideal. In the long-term, I don’t think anything more ambitious—especially in a pluralist society—is possible.
One source of criticism regarding Walzer’s conception of liberalism is the dangers of excessive toleration. Critics would be correct to point out that, oftentimes, the primary beneficiaries of liberal toleration are illiberal actors that are keen on taking down the very system that allows them to flourish. To put it another way, we can ask the following question: How are we to balance free speech and democratic rule with illiberal movements that seek to harm minorities or weaken democratic institutions themselves?
True to form, Walzer recommends a liberal compromise by suggesting, for example, that we encourage free speech but not as an absolute right (hate speech and bigotry excluded), and that we respect majority rule but not when it comes to attacking individual rights or democratic institutions themselves. The balance can be tricky, and Walzer never pretends otherwise, but being a liberal also means learning to live with ambiguity and compromise in the face of difficult trade-offs. There is simply no other way, at least not without sacrificing the values you’re supposed to be protecting.
Which brings us to, I think, Walzer’s ultimate point: namely, that constant vigilance against illiberal forces is simply the price we have to pay for a peaceful, working democracy, if we want to preserve it. And I can’t imagine that we would be better off without it.
You might, for example, describe yourself as a liberal democrat, liberal socialist, or liberal nationalist. The adjective “liberal” in all of these cases describes the quality and characteristics of your commitments. What this “liberal” qualification entails—and how this understanding of the term leads to a more decent and sustainable politics—is the subject of Walzer’s latest book.
What, then, should the term “liberal” signify, ideally? To Walzer, it seems, the term is essentially a constraint on the extremism our commitments often drift towards. For example, our commitments to democracy can quickly turn into tyrannical majority rule, just as our commitments to socialism can turn into calls for radicalized centralized planning and forced equality. A “liberal” democrat, on the other hand—while recognizing the importance of majority rule—will also stress, and be constrained by, the rights of minority groups (as outlined in the Constitution and elsewhere), as well as reject violence and promote pluralism and peaceful dissent.
In the same way, a “liberal” socialist (or social democrat or “progressive capitalist,” as they are alternatively called) will be committed to the ideal of equality while also rejecting violent revolution and totalitarian state planning, in addition to recognizing the benefits of free trade and markets while placing limits on inequality (but not eliminating it). A liberal socialist, then, recognizes trade-offs, respects competing perspectives, and avoids extremism, authoritarianism, and violence.
It’s clear that, to Walzer, the term “liberal” stands in opposition to extremism, and signifies a commitment to tolerance, peaceful debate, open-mindedness, pluralism, democracy, and incremental progress, along with a rejection of violence, dogma, and radicalism in any form. This means that you can’t be, for example, a “liberal racist”—as the terms stand in direct opposition to each other—but you can be a “liberal Democrat,” or even a “liberal Republican,” although these days, the latter is quite rare.
What would a “liberal Republican” look like, by the way? Well, they would likely maintain most of their social and economic conservative views, however they would do so within a framework that respects the Constitution, democratic institutions, pluralism, and minority rights, while recognizing the rights of opposing parties to exist, disagree, and rotate through office based on the outcomes of free elections (yes, you can stop laughing now). These are rare breeds indeed, yet they do exist (and should be commended).
Overall, this way of thinking about liberalism, I think, is well-advised, and can help differentiate the individuals on the left that in fact promote “illiberal” ways of thinking (principally through violence, dogma, censorship, and intolerance of competing views). In fact, it seems to be the case that, as an individual drifts farther to the extremes of the left, they begin to resemble in thought and action their counterparts to the far-right.
One thing to keep in mind is that, as Walzer points out, being “liberal” in his suggested sense doesn’t mean that liberals should always adopt centrist positions. Socialists, for example, can advocate for various levels of redistribution within a capitalist system, and in some cases, the redistribution schemes proposed can be fairly extreme. But they only become “illiberal” when they resort to calls for violence or the dogmatic suppression of competing views. Liberal socialists, on the other hand, would instead advocate for peaceful democratic debate while protecting civil rights—even if short-term political gains are less than what might be considered ideal. In the long-term, I don’t think anything more ambitious—especially in a pluralist society—is possible.
One source of criticism regarding Walzer’s conception of liberalism is the dangers of excessive toleration. Critics would be correct to point out that, oftentimes, the primary beneficiaries of liberal toleration are illiberal actors that are keen on taking down the very system that allows them to flourish. To put it another way, we can ask the following question: How are we to balance free speech and democratic rule with illiberal movements that seek to harm minorities or weaken democratic institutions themselves?
True to form, Walzer recommends a liberal compromise by suggesting, for example, that we encourage free speech but not as an absolute right (hate speech and bigotry excluded), and that we respect majority rule but not when it comes to attacking individual rights or democratic institutions themselves. The balance can be tricky, and Walzer never pretends otherwise, but being a liberal also means learning to live with ambiguity and compromise in the face of difficult trade-offs. There is simply no other way, at least not without sacrificing the values you’re supposed to be protecting.
Which brings us to, I think, Walzer’s ultimate point: namely, that constant vigilance against illiberal forces is simply the price we have to pay for a peaceful, working democracy, if we want to preserve it. And I can’t imagine that we would be better off without it.
November 21, 2023
There's a certain kind of book that prominent scholars write at the end of their careers that seeks to reflect upon and encapsulate a lifetime of work. I often find these to be very worthwhile, and Walzer's reflections on liberalism in this book is a great example.
In this book, MW argues that it makes more sense to think of liberal as an adjective that modifies other political commitments as opposed to a single ideology. I like this, as liberal is notorious hard to define; until recently both Democrats and Republicans were liberal in a basic sense, although Democrats identified as such and Republicans usually rejected the label (or defined it as something different). So MW walks through various political commitments/labels and describes what how they change with the label "liberal" before them. I'll just review a few below.
A liberal democrat is someone who combines the principle of majority rule with restraining liberal ideas like rule of law, minority rights, and proceduralism. This is what separates a liberal democrat from a populist, who believes that the will of "the people" (usually defined as a majority of some kind) should predominate.
A liberal socialist is someone who believes in a highly regulated economy that still leaves some capitalist elements, a welfare state, and a broad commitment to social as well as legal equality, but who is not doctrinaire like a full-on Marxist. They reject the idea of a vanguard of history that claims the right to direct the rest of society toward a single goal. They still believe in democratic accountability, individual rights, and pluralism.
A liberal communitarian values community life and group identity; they critique much liberal thought for being atomistic, overly focused on meritocracy and competition, and failing to realize that things like family, community, and church make for a happy life as much if not more than liberty. Walzer himself has been called a communitarian. But communitarianism has a tendency toward dominating and controlling the individual, especially individuals who might not fit the mold of the community (religious dissenters and skeptics, LGBT people, general eccentrics, and so on). A liberal communitarian values and tries to bolster community but accepts that individuals have a right to criticize and ultimately leave communities that they find oppressive or stifling.
The main theme of the book is that the adjective "liberal" checks the potential for each of these monikers/ideologies to become tyrannical or excessive. The liberal part injects humility about human knowledge, skepticism about innate goodness balanced with a belief that human beings can be reasonable, a belief in progress as an ongoing project rather than a teleology, an encouragement of pluralism in culture and everyday life, a strident defense of the individual's rights and dignity, and an understanding of the need for balance and restraint in govt. The book is short, punchy, and well-illustrated with anecdotes. I did disagree w a few things. Walzer, for example, believes that liberal imperialism isn't really a thing. I would say it very much is a historical trend, in which imperialist powers like Great Britain assumed the right to reform and control other "immature" societies in the name of bringing them into the modern world. I think the Iraq War has more than a whiff of liberal imperialism to it. But small critiques aside, this is a very good book that reflects the depth of Walzer's career as one of the leading philosophers of our time.
In this book, MW argues that it makes more sense to think of liberal as an adjective that modifies other political commitments as opposed to a single ideology. I like this, as liberal is notorious hard to define; until recently both Democrats and Republicans were liberal in a basic sense, although Democrats identified as such and Republicans usually rejected the label (or defined it as something different). So MW walks through various political commitments/labels and describes what how they change with the label "liberal" before them. I'll just review a few below.
A liberal democrat is someone who combines the principle of majority rule with restraining liberal ideas like rule of law, minority rights, and proceduralism. This is what separates a liberal democrat from a populist, who believes that the will of "the people" (usually defined as a majority of some kind) should predominate.
A liberal socialist is someone who believes in a highly regulated economy that still leaves some capitalist elements, a welfare state, and a broad commitment to social as well as legal equality, but who is not doctrinaire like a full-on Marxist. They reject the idea of a vanguard of history that claims the right to direct the rest of society toward a single goal. They still believe in democratic accountability, individual rights, and pluralism.
A liberal communitarian values community life and group identity; they critique much liberal thought for being atomistic, overly focused on meritocracy and competition, and failing to realize that things like family, community, and church make for a happy life as much if not more than liberty. Walzer himself has been called a communitarian. But communitarianism has a tendency toward dominating and controlling the individual, especially individuals who might not fit the mold of the community (religious dissenters and skeptics, LGBT people, general eccentrics, and so on). A liberal communitarian values and tries to bolster community but accepts that individuals have a right to criticize and ultimately leave communities that they find oppressive or stifling.
The main theme of the book is that the adjective "liberal" checks the potential for each of these monikers/ideologies to become tyrannical or excessive. The liberal part injects humility about human knowledge, skepticism about innate goodness balanced with a belief that human beings can be reasonable, a belief in progress as an ongoing project rather than a teleology, an encouragement of pluralism in culture and everyday life, a strident defense of the individual's rights and dignity, and an understanding of the need for balance and restraint in govt. The book is short, punchy, and well-illustrated with anecdotes. I did disagree w a few things. Walzer, for example, believes that liberal imperialism isn't really a thing. I would say it very much is a historical trend, in which imperialist powers like Great Britain assumed the right to reform and control other "immature" societies in the name of bringing them into the modern world. I think the Iraq War has more than a whiff of liberal imperialism to it. But small critiques aside, this is a very good book that reflects the depth of Walzer's career as one of the leading philosophers of our time.
October 7, 2025
This is a creative work by Walzer in which he explores what various political concepts are like if the word "liberal" is used to modify it. The liberal modification is from a liberal moral outlook, namely, open mindedness, tolerant, generous, allows ambiguity and offers coexistence.He does not just make it a theoretical exercise but offers many examples in history or from today to illustrate his discussion.
The book begins with liberal modification to democracy, i.e. liberal democracy. In this application, a liberal democracy is to watch out for tyranny of the majority. A liberal democratic state is designed to prevent violation of individual rights in the name of majority rule. It also guard against an unhinged populism.
Next there is liberal socialist. A liberal socialism emphasizes on upholding equality for people's, organisations and parties, and allow living in disagreement and compromise. Coercive power of the government is to be reviewed by congressional and judicial branches.
Nationalists value their own national interest first while liberal nationalists respect other nations to do the same for their countries. They recognise the legitimacy of other countries interests. Liberal nationalists also recognise minorities within their own nations and afford them the same citizenship. It seems liberal nationalism would lead to internationalism.
Communitarianism describes the close connection of a group with strong commitment to a community such as religion, politics, and culture. Liberal communitarianism offers a plurality of such communities to coexist and people's free participation in a multiple of such communities. It also offer freedom from participation and the degree of involvement in any communities.
Liberal feminism strives to promote woman's rights using the right level of state power against multiculturalism that may tolerate patriarchal cultures that have misogynistic practices. In that section, interesting discussion on cases of state intervention of cruel cultural practices against woman such as honour killing, genital mutilation and forced marriages. Walzer shows possible tension between feminism and multiculturalism.
The discussion on liberal professors and intellectuals addresses not only free speech in the academia, but also on accepting a plurality of schools of thought and methodology to avoid partisan academic perspectives. It also addresses the political neutrality of the academia.
The book is not only original in its conception. Walzer provides many personal stories and cases to illustrate his ideas. It is an enjoyable read for its originality and imagination.
The book begins with liberal modification to democracy, i.e. liberal democracy. In this application, a liberal democracy is to watch out for tyranny of the majority. A liberal democratic state is designed to prevent violation of individual rights in the name of majority rule. It also guard against an unhinged populism.
Next there is liberal socialist. A liberal socialism emphasizes on upholding equality for people's, organisations and parties, and allow living in disagreement and compromise. Coercive power of the government is to be reviewed by congressional and judicial branches.
Nationalists value their own national interest first while liberal nationalists respect other nations to do the same for their countries. They recognise the legitimacy of other countries interests. Liberal nationalists also recognise minorities within their own nations and afford them the same citizenship. It seems liberal nationalism would lead to internationalism.
Communitarianism describes the close connection of a group with strong commitment to a community such as religion, politics, and culture. Liberal communitarianism offers a plurality of such communities to coexist and people's free participation in a multiple of such communities. It also offer freedom from participation and the degree of involvement in any communities.
Liberal feminism strives to promote woman's rights using the right level of state power against multiculturalism that may tolerate patriarchal cultures that have misogynistic practices. In that section, interesting discussion on cases of state intervention of cruel cultural practices against woman such as honour killing, genital mutilation and forced marriages. Walzer shows possible tension between feminism and multiculturalism.
The discussion on liberal professors and intellectuals addresses not only free speech in the academia, but also on accepting a plurality of schools of thought and methodology to avoid partisan academic perspectives. It also addresses the political neutrality of the academia.
The book is not only original in its conception. Walzer provides many personal stories and cases to illustrate his ideas. It is an enjoyable read for its originality and imagination.
October 19, 2026
Michael Walzer sets the context for this book right away. Written at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, and he anticipates this being his final book; as such he takes care to define himself and his concerns, the main being that "liberal" can and should be a modifier, and what it looks like when it modifies: Democrat, Socialist, Nationalist, Internationalist, Communitarian, Feminist, Academic, and finally Jew. (Walzer is former editor of Dissent magazine, and an author of the series The Jewish Political Tradition.)
First and foremost, I appreciated his treatment of the subject. For decades, it seems, Americans on every side of the ideological spectrum have treated the word as a bad one, having a built-in shameful component (think of Phil Ochs's "Love Me, I'm a Liberal", or any more recent election), and often paired with the word "intellectual" to bring both categories down a notch. Walzer does a great job in defending it and the the liberal tradition in politics. And as he notes, illiberal people can live comfortably in a liberal society, but not the other way around--and their rights should not extend to the ability to force others to live like them.
Second, each chapter sent my mind in a new direction, and added books to my reading list, thinking about everything from education to policing. The section on Liberal Socialism brought to mind a recent chapter meeting of the DSA, and a vote on whether to endorse a local candidate who had already accepted the endorsement of the local police. Walzer helped me define what bothered me about the vote (they chose to not endorse). As much as I am in agreement with Socialism, the vote itself was evidence of an illiberal tendency--a hard line--that shows this group will not work with others that don't toe that line. And I think it limits their political effectiveness and viability.
Walzer has his own blind spots, I think, probably mostly around people he perceives as anti-Semitic. And I quibble with a stylistic choice of his, to capitalize "White" in reference to race. since there is is less of a shared and distinct culture with ‘white’ skin than with African Americans. Finally, he excuses his limited source material; he references only that which he had at home in his study, making me wonder if he is cut off from the internet or from academic journals. I suppose it would have been a very different book had he researched more, but I missed seeing sources. But, as a liberal reader, I can quibble with some of his choices and still recommend this.
First and foremost, I appreciated his treatment of the subject. For decades, it seems, Americans on every side of the ideological spectrum have treated the word as a bad one, having a built-in shameful component (think of Phil Ochs's "Love Me, I'm a Liberal", or any more recent election), and often paired with the word "intellectual" to bring both categories down a notch. Walzer does a great job in defending it and the the liberal tradition in politics. And as he notes, illiberal people can live comfortably in a liberal society, but not the other way around--and their rights should not extend to the ability to force others to live like them.
Second, each chapter sent my mind in a new direction, and added books to my reading list, thinking about everything from education to policing. The section on Liberal Socialism brought to mind a recent chapter meeting of the DSA, and a vote on whether to endorse a local candidate who had already accepted the endorsement of the local police. Walzer helped me define what bothered me about the vote (they chose to not endorse). As much as I am in agreement with Socialism, the vote itself was evidence of an illiberal tendency--a hard line--that shows this group will not work with others that don't toe that line. And I think it limits their political effectiveness and viability.
Walzer has his own blind spots, I think, probably mostly around people he perceives as anti-Semitic. And I quibble with a stylistic choice of his, to capitalize "White" in reference to race. since there is is less of a shared and distinct culture with ‘white’ skin than with African Americans. Finally, he excuses his limited source material; he references only that which he had at home in his study, making me wonder if he is cut off from the internet or from academic journals. I suppose it would have been a very different book had he researched more, but I missed seeing sources. But, as a liberal reader, I can quibble with some of his choices and still recommend this.
December 4, 2024
“Illiberal Jews and illiberal members of any other religion can also live comfortably in a secular state, even if they don’t help to sustain it. They have only give up the commitment that everyone else must live as they do. By contrast liberal Jews cannot live comfortably in a state ruled by illiberal Jews, or as in Iran today by illiberal Muslims, where they would be subject to religious coercion. This is a common asymmetry. Liberal socialists cannot live comfortably in a state ruled by illiberal socialists, but illiberal socialists can live comfortably, can argue and organize freely in a state ruled by liberal socialists. They have only to make their peace with the right of all the other groups to argue and organize. Perhaps the religious case is different. Perhaps the concessions demanded from orthodox or fundamentalist men and women are more drastic than those required from the irreligious. Still the point is general. The liberal secular state has been remarkably hospitable to people of every religious and ideological sort. Not yet obviously to people of every ethnic and racial sort.”
I found this to be one of the more helpful of his arguments. The use of liberalism is what he’s getting at. And the use of the modern secular era, compared to some kind of premodern libertarian anarchy of local economic freedom.
Many states around the world are still living through what we consider to be our past, and so we see it as our duty to save the savages from themselves and all. Walzer’s point here is an important one to remember today. Religion is less of the actual problem for the modern liberal states policing the primitive more theocratic looking ones. If we’re supposed to be the ones protecting religious freedom then it must be about something, else.
Walzer is more palatable to most because he doesn’t get into economics or how it’s really poor people. He sticks to taking one step in the right direction. Like let’s at least realize holy wars are really racial wars. That’s enough for one lifetime. Then maybe it would also be great to realize at some future point that it’s an economic poverty thing first and foremost. But then we’re forced to question capitalism itself…not just “liberalism”, “democracy” and “populism”.
I found this to be one of the more helpful of his arguments. The use of liberalism is what he’s getting at. And the use of the modern secular era, compared to some kind of premodern libertarian anarchy of local economic freedom.
Many states around the world are still living through what we consider to be our past, and so we see it as our duty to save the savages from themselves and all. Walzer’s point here is an important one to remember today. Religion is less of the actual problem for the modern liberal states policing the primitive more theocratic looking ones. If we’re supposed to be the ones protecting religious freedom then it must be about something, else.
Walzer is more palatable to most because he doesn’t get into economics or how it’s really poor people. He sticks to taking one step in the right direction. Like let’s at least realize holy wars are really racial wars. That’s enough for one lifetime. Then maybe it would also be great to realize at some future point that it’s an economic poverty thing first and foremost. But then we’re forced to question capitalism itself…not just “liberalism”, “democracy” and “populism”.
Want to Read
March 13, 2023"After a lifetime of reflection, Walzer, an 87-year-old political philosopher, concludes that “liberal” is more important as a modifier of other substantive commitments than as a stand-alone noun. The word embodies moral sensibilities, values and disciplines that are compatible with a variety of creeds — and essential to making our politics “decent.” KEY = DECENT POLITICS
"The adjective “liberal,” he writes, “determines not who we are but how we are who we are.”
Liberals “aspire to be open-minded, generous and tolerant” (even if, as Walzer notes, we don’t always pull this off). They can “live with ambiguity,” are “not dogmatic,” are “not fanatics,” can “recognize moral limits,” and “oppose every kind of bigotry and cruelty.”
To qualify as liberal, a regime and philosophy must be “not despotic, not repressive, not cruel — constrained by individual rights.” The adjective encourages “pluralism, skepticism and irony.”
Standing against brutality is the highest calling of all who embrace the word liberal. It’s why we need more of them."BY E.J. Dionne Jr on 12 Mar 2023 in Wash Post;
"The adjective “liberal,” he writes, “determines not who we are but how we are who we are.”
Liberals “aspire to be open-minded, generous and tolerant” (even if, as Walzer notes, we don’t always pull this off). They can “live with ambiguity,” are “not dogmatic,” are “not fanatics,” can “recognize moral limits,” and “oppose every kind of bigotry and cruelty.”
To qualify as liberal, a regime and philosophy must be “not despotic, not repressive, not cruel — constrained by individual rights.” The adjective encourages “pluralism, skepticism and irony.”
Standing against brutality is the highest calling of all who embrace the word liberal. It’s why we need more of them."BY E.J. Dionne Jr on 12 Mar 2023 in Wash Post;
May 10, 2023
I can get on board with nearly everything that Mr. Walzer says here. His vision of what it means to be liberal and how a liberal government should work largely concide with my own ideas, but he tells us nothing about how we should bring this vision about, and he barely acknowledges the many ways that the people who advocate for ideas like his have failed to put them into practice, often doing the opposite. Nothing in this book is going to persuade illiberal people to change their ways. Nothing here is going to do anything to actually bring us back into a more decent politics from the indecent mess that we find ourselves in today. So in the end this book is just empty cant.
June 26, 2023
Michael Walzer acknowledges, right in the Preface, that The Struggle for a Decent Politics: On "Liberal as an Adjective is a work produced during the Covid shutdown. Strangely it has that feeling -- musings of an intellectual temporairly cooped up in his own home. Walzer presents a strong case for "liberal" thinking in today's society and uses solid examples to defend his position, but there is a serious lack of passion in the positions he takes. I'm going to just write it off as Covid lethargy but I would sure like to read Walzer's same pro-liberal thesis again written without the constraints of home confinement.
May 19, 2023
Dr. Walzer seems to really want "we" as adjective, so that it may describe Trotsky's "the world more attractive". He makes a funny analogy comparing Dewey to Aristotle presumably the connection would be Dewey's scientific humanism? Dr.Walzer also has an eccentric interpretation of Shakespeare, he refers to Jack Cade but I think he means John Cade but he really means Richard of York which is highly ironic and undercutting. He also seems to think the insolence of office is something other than suicidal dilemma (he also claims to be a libertarian which is weird in itself)
May 24, 2023
Enjoyable book. It’s from one of those old liberal Jewish professors of the dying breed. Walzer the author catalogues a few prominent versions of liberal personas in the American sense of the term in contemporary society. It’s calm, dispassionate, and based on a lifetime of reflection and experience. You may enjoy it if you are a liberal person, know one, or would like to be one.
November 23, 2025
This book lives in that interesting space between fact and reflection, and it instantly brought me back to college poli-sci seminars where the goal wasn’t to win an argument but to understand one. Walzer invites you into his reasoning with a kind of generosity, and I loved the chance to walk through someone else’s political logic and feel my own thinking expand alongside it
October 17, 2023
An accessible and enlightening read for anyone engaged with America’s politics, especially those who consider themselves “conservative”. You may be more “liberal” than you realize. Read these 150 pages if you dare.
October 27, 2023
No surprises if you've read Walzer's other work, but worth reading. Great credo. With some evidence and logic, he could work it up into an actual argument. If I hadn't already agreed with him, he wouldn't have been persuasive.
November 23, 2023
This book is a turgid read. In exploring what it means to be a liberal Walzer focuses on using liberal as an adjective such as liberal socialist, liberal nationalist or liberal democrat. The distinctions escape me.
March 4, 2023
A brief but challenging assessment of a way for those not ashamed to be liberal to go forward in our divisive time.
March 21, 2023
Refreshingly depolarizing for these times.
May 22, 2023
I quit about 50 pages in. Just another old man who's convinced himself that, "No, it's the children who are wrong."
January 12, 2025
A short and knowledge-intensive read.
November 14, 2025
gave me new ways to approach empathy
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews