Gabriele Badano and Alasia Nuti, "Politicizing Political Liberalism: On the Containment of Illiberal and Antidemocratic Views" (Oxford UP, 2024)
01:04:07 Share

Hey there, Ryan Reynolds here. It's a new year and you know what that means. No, not the diet. Resolutions.

A way for us all to try and do a little bit better than we did last year. And my resolution, unlike big wireless, is to not be a raging a**hole and raise the price of wireless on you every chance I get. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. $45 upfront payment required, equivalent to $15 per month. New customers on first three-month plan only. Taxes and fees extra. Speeds lower above 40 gigabytes on unlimited. See mintmobile.com for details.

When you need mealtime inspiration, it's worth shopping Fries for thousands of appetizing ingredients that inspire countless mouth-watering meals. And no matter what tasty choice you make, you'll enjoy our everyday low prices. Plus, extra ways to save, like digital coupons worth over $600 each week and up to $1 off per gallon at the pump with points. So you can get big flavors and big savings. Fries, fresh for everyone. Fuel restrictions apply.

Hi everyone, this is Caleb Zakarin, one of the editors at the NewBooks Network. We've just launched discussion forums for every single episode, powered by Disqus. These forums are thoughtful, engaging spaces where you can explore ideas, ask questions, and connect with other listeners.

Thanks to Discuss, all comments will be filtered for spam and hate speech, ensuring a respectful and focused environment for serious discussions about important books. So join the conversation today at newbooksnetwork.com. We really can't wait to hear your thoughts. We think this is going to be a really amazing place for people to talk about books. Welcome to the New Books Network.

Hello everyone. Welcome to another episode of New Books Network. This is your host Morteza Hajizadeh from Critical Theory Channel. Today I'm honored to be speaking with Dr. Alasia Nuti about a book that she has published recently with Oxford University Press. The book is called Politicizing Political Liberalism and the Containment of Illiberal and Anti-Democratic Views.

And Alizia is a lecturer, is a senior lecturer at the University of York in England. Alizia, welcome to New Books Network. Yeah, thanks, Martisa. Thanks for having me. It's customary to ask our guests to very briefly introduce themselves, talk about their field of expertise, and more importantly, how the idea of the book came to them. Yeah, sure. So, as you said, I'm a senior lecturer in political theory at the University of York, and I

generally work on like two big areas. So one is on issues of historical injustice, reparations and memory, especially focusing on gender and sexuality. And the other area is on democratic backsliding from a normative perspective. So basically asking what we should do against democratic backsliding in our societies.

So the book we are going to talk about today is a co-author book with my colleague Gabriele Badano. And we started working on the topic quite a long time ago, so back in 2014. It was a bit random in a sense. So we were still PhD students back at the time working on very different projects. And we were...

quite concerned about the rise of illiberal and anti-democratic political actors in our society. At the time, we had a sort of sense that something was happening and a sort of rise will not have declined anytime soon.

Then, of course, we started working on a topic and in 2016, the world was shocked when Donald Trump was elected as US president for the first time. And in 2018, something also happened that

in Italy and we both my co-author and I are Italian so the right-wing populist party La Lega joined a government with the Five Star Movement in 2018 and that for us was a clear sign that this sort of right-wing populist wave would have stayed with us and that there was some work to be done

on what to do about it. So that's how the book came about. And we've wrote a few articles that then we revised in the book. And yeah, so it's been a kind of long time. We've been trying to grapple with these complicated questions. Yeah.

Let us start with a definition. Everybody wants to know what liberalism is, but if you have 10 different theories, you get 10 different definitions. But in the scope of your book, I am interested to know

What is liberalism and what do you mean by political liberalism? And it would be good if we also talk about the title of the book because I was a little bit confused myself. And I'm not a political theorist or political, you know, political studies. Because politicizing political liberalism, why do you want to politicize political liberalism? I got an idea after I read the book, but let's clarify it for the listeners. Yes.

Well, I guess that interests you, right, in the book, which is already quite an important thing. So let's start with what liberalism is. I think that it's not a coincidence that you will get very different answers depending on...

who you're going to ask that question because liberalism is a very complex and rich tradition of political thought but in the context of the book the liberal theories we are interested in and we think are particularly compelling are liberal theories that guarantee

equal basic rights and opportunities. They give a special priority to those rights and opportunities. And I also think that everyone should have an adequate level of wealth, income and other material resources to actually make use of those basic rights and opportunities. So, for example, just to give you a sense of

of what we don't mean by liberalism, the sort of like hardcore libertarians who don't have any space for some kind of distribution of material resources in their theory will not count as liberal from our perspective.

So in a sense, the liberal theories that we are interested in are very different, right? Liberal theories that might have a different sense of how society should be shaped. But they are all committed to combine freedom and equality in some way. So there is still a concern for freedom, which I guess that's what many people think.

associate liberalism with. But there is also an important concern with equality. And now political liberalism, which is, of course, the version of liberalism we focus on the book, is a particular framework that is closely associated with the political vote of John Rawls, who has

has been one of the most influential liberal philosophers of the 20th century and also with the work of other important theories like Charles Larmore. And it's political. So what makes political liberalism political is that it starts from disagreement. So instead of thinking that in our pluralistic society,

We can simply assume a way, leave a disagreement, or we can solve it in any way. It actually starts from the fact that we are going to be bound

to disagree because we are human beings and human reason will lead us to different views. Even if we are all quite well informed, in good faith, we're just going to simply disagree. So that's one sense in which political liberalism is political.

Second, it also thinks that some disagreement is perfectly fine, right? We just need to leave it as it is. But there is some type of disagreement, which is called like unreasonable disagreement, but it's problematic because it's a disagreement with society.

people who don't regard other citizens as free and equal or they think that society should not be a system of fair cooperation between free and equal citizens. So that kind of disagreement for political liberals is very problematic because it can actually threaten the stability and legitimacy of liberal institutions.

There is another sense in which political liberalism is political and it's this sort of core idea of public reason. So according to political liberalism, members of the judiciary are

elected politicians and also citizens when voting, when they have to decide about issues of constitutional essential or basic justice, they need to be motivated by and offer at least one argument that is political.

is public, meaning that it doesn't draw on any specific moral, religious doctrine. There are arguments that can be accepted by anyone who is reasonable, meaning anyone who endorses the idea of freedom of equality of all citizens and the idea of society as a fair system of cooperation. So that's what makes political liberalism political.

But as you were saying, what the book also does is to politicize even further political liberalism. And this is because we think that in a sense, the kind of traditional version of political liberalism is,

political enough or it's been in a sense quite rightly accused of not being really in sync with how politics work. But we also think that political liberalism has

as like the resources to really speak about contemporary politics. So our version of political liberalism is politicized because it kind of takes on board some of the more like realistic take on politics. So, for example, the fact that being a liberal and being a liberal citizen doesn't really come natural to people.

You need to create liberal citizens and that's a lot of political and social work involved. Also, it takes coercion as a sort of kind of mere fact of political life. So instead of really thinking that you can really persuade everyone about TVC,

value of a liberal institution, it sort of takes for granted that some people will be coerced into obeying to a political system, a liberal system that they will find unacceptable. And that's what it is, right? Yeah.

And also that some forms of disruption and violence can be a legitimate means to seek political changes. So it's a much more politicized version of political liberalism. But we think that it's a version that really speaks to politics. Yeah.

Thank you very much for explaining about political liberalism, because that was my next question. But it's great that you've talked about it. I have another question. You mentioned the idea of reasonable here. Yeah. So liberalism comes with pluralism. People of different minorities, different minorities, nationality, are entitled to certain, let's say, liberties, right?

but at the same time, it could engender or it could create...

There's a lot of grievances. And you know how liberalism is used even as a curse word these days. So my question is, do you think that this, do you think that, how do you think that, let's say, politicized political liberalism can uphold or reasonable citizens, as you mentioned, can uphold pluralism that is engendered by liberalism? Yeah.

Yes, that's a really important question. So, like, as you were saying, right, liberalism is

kind of creates disagreement. And this is because if you live in a liberal society where you have a certain kind of freedom of speech, of association, then you will start thinking even differently from other people. And so liberalism itself creates a type of disagreement, right? But that is, as I was saying before,

a disagreement that is perfectly fine with liberalism and political liberalism. This is sort of like reasonable disagreement.

And according to political liberalism, people who profoundly disagree about morality, about religion and also about what justice entails can still commit themselves to some liberal institutions because they are reasonable people.

Because they believe in the freedom of equality of all citizens, because they believe a society should be arranged as a fair system of cooperation between free and equal citizens. And of course, they're going to strongly disagree about what that means. Right.

right, in terms of principle of justice, in terms of like the distribution of resources. But they share these core commitments. And the challenge, if you want, right, of political liberalism is to say that that is going to be enough to

to make sure that liberal societies are going to be stable over time and that people, because of those core commitments, are going to still be ready to support those institutions.

However, there is the problem of unreasonable disagreement, right? There is a problem that in pluralistic society, not everyone is going to endorse those core ideas. And so the question is about what to do in that case. And I think that, interestingly, political liberalism has two different answers, one

So on the one hand, he says, look, it's not really the job of political liberalism to persuade those people about the desirability of political liberalism. And by that, it means that it's still legitimate if politicians

fundamental political decisions are taken through reasons that are not acceptable to those people. So it's not that all our political decision is to be acceptable to what Rawls calls unreasonable people, right? And in our book will be supporters of right-wing populism. However, and that's a sort of kind of, you know, it's a very peculiar way

position for a liberal because liberalism is meant to be universal, right? That's this ambition. And so saying, look, when it comes to people who are unreasonable, that's fine if they are excluded in this sense, right? So if political decisions are taken through reason that they will find unacceptable. And that's the element of coercion of being just something that we need to accept.

because we won't be able to persuade anyone. And that's fine.

However, of course, those groups might become a threat to the stability and legitimacy of a liberal institution. And of course, we are experiencing that in Europe, in the US, and other parts of the world. So political liberalism also needs to have a kind of account of what to do when these groups become more influential because

you know, this sort of really the life of liberal democracy is at stake. And I think that that's what makes the framework quite interesting. Yeah. Imagine what's possible when learning doesn't get in the way of life.

At Capella University, our game-changing FlexPath learning format lets you set your own deadlines so you can learn at a time and pace that works for you. It's an education you can tailor to your schedule. That means you don't have to put your life on hold to pursue your professional goals. Instead, enjoy learning your way and earn your degree without missing a beat. A different future is closer than you think with Capella University. Learn more at capella.edu.

Oh, it's such a clutch off-season pickup, Dave. I was worried we'd bring back the same team. I meant those blackout motorized shades. Blinds.com made it crazy affordable to replace our old blinds. Hard to install? No, it's easy. I installed these and then got some from my mom. She talked to a design consultant for free and scheduled a professional measure and install. Hall of Fame son. They're the number one online retailer of custom window coverings in the world. Blinds.com is the GOAT. Shop Blinds.com right now and get up to 40% off select styles.

In the title of your book, you have the subtitle is On the Containment of Illiberal and Anti-Democratic Views, which perfectly ties in with what we just explained. That brings me to the question of theory of containment that was developed by John Rawls.

It would be great if you could briefly explain what that theory of containment is. And he also had this idea of public reason, what he meant by that. And obviously excluded some people from maybe having authority or having a say in political decisions. That exclusion, I'm interested to know if you agree with John Rawls' idea of

of unreasonable citizens from political decisions. Yes. So I'll maybe start with that question and then just go back to the question of containment because I think that there are, yeah, like important three links. So I do agree with Rose on the point of exclusion. So Rose thinks that

when it comes to people who are unreasonable, so they don't believe in the idea of freedom and equality of all citizens and the sort of idea of society as a system of fair cooperation. And, you know, we might even get back to the question of to what extent supporters of right-wing populism will fall right into this category later on. But he believes that

it's fine if people, as you were saying, don't have a say in fundamental political decision in the sense of not needing to accept the decision that are going to be made. But I think there's lots of kind of confusion on this point. I think that

But many people are quite confused, mainly because they think that when Rawls argues that he unreasonable should be excluded by what he calls the constituency of public reason, they think that what Rawls wants to do is sort of making these people kind of sort of like almost archer.

in society, which is not the case. So unreasonable people will still have all the basic rights of all citizens. They will still allow to, for example, cast their vote, associate with like-minded people. So they will have all the basic liberal rights and opportunities guaranteed. So what about exclusion means

means is that a political decision that is taken through reasons that those people will not accept will still count as a legitimate decision because if

It's a reasonable decision, right? So if it's sort of grounded on those basic ideas that unreasonable citizens do not accept. And I think that it might be because I come from Italy, I come from a place where, for example, religion has such a power, right?

on shaping people's lives and really their basic rights. I see how it might be so compelling for some reasons not to be taken into account, to make sure that political decisions don't have to be really acceptable to people who will have very problematic views, for example, on

the rights of women and the rights of women's bodily autonomy and so on. So I see the appeal of that. But I think that what many people find disturbing is that a certain term of exclusion seems to suggest that unreasonable people are not

citizen, which is not the case. Now, when it comes to containment, it's an interesting question because roles, on the one hand, as this sort of, well, kind of a very

strong view that unreasonable people will always exist, no matter how our society are going to be arranged. So even if we lived in a super just society, right? So just think about like your vision of perfect justice. Even if a vision were realized in the society you lived in, you are going to have

some unreasonable people. As long as you're going to live in, I guess, also like liberal institutions that promote freedom of speech, freedom of association, reasonableness will be a feature of a society.

But Rawls argues that the task then is to make sure that if unreasonableness grows, then it's going to be contained. And he uses this sort of kind of militant expression, right? He says that it will need to be contained as war and disease. But that's it, right? So this is all...

rules says about containment of the unreasonable, which is quite bizarre because for someone who was thinking that even in an ideal society, you will find unreasonable people and you might need to worry about the growth of reasonableness in society, you know, not saying much about what to do is quite, in a sense,

Yeah, bizarre. So the sentence that Rawls uses about war and disease, I think that led some people to think that Rawls had in mind a kind of a militant, you know, what in the literature is called like a militant theory.

of liberal democratic defence. So the idea that under some circumstances it's justified for a liberal democratic state to infringe upon the basic rights of unreasonable people, right? So when there is a threat, a real threat to the stability of democracy,

liberal institution, it's fine to, for example, strip away the right to speech, the right to associate, ban political parties that have illiberal and anti-democratic views. What we do in the book instead is arguing that things are more complicated.

when this sort of vision suggests, especially if you are a liberal, right? So especially if you are someone who cares about those basic rights and opportunities, when your theory of containment, right, of trying to make, you know, reduce the growth of unreasonable views in society needs to be more complex in order to account for the importance of those basic rights and opportunities.

And so if I'm trying to follow up on what you just said, the level of unreasonableness increases, then according to Rawls, yeah, you can contain them through. And you're right. You use some sort of militaristic language, maybe. My question now is that if

In your view, is violence in general a legitimate approach to achieving justice, especially for the oppressed groups? Because there seems to be this liberal idea, and I use liberal in air quotes, that, for example, homelessness is violence, economic grievance is a sort of violence, but it's not really recognized by the liberal establishment. But the moment these oppressed groups rise up,

Yeah, they resort to some sort of acts of violence. It's then rejected. And then they say, well, violence is not the way to go. This is not who we are. All that kind of things. So it doesn't really recognize other forms of non-physical violence, which is violence anyhow. So do you think it's, is violence a legitimate approach to achieving justice, especially for the oppressed groups?

Yeah, that's a really good question. I think you're right. So what very often you will see by people who describe themselves as liberal when a protest takes place and a protest, they see in a sense that the legitimacy of in terms of the cause is political.

you will see like people like, uh, distancing themselves from the means of the protest if they are disruptive and violent. So like, uh, I remember, um, when, uh, George Floyd was murdered and, uh, most of like the Black Lives Matter protests were peaceful, but there were some episodes of disruption and violence. I remember like, uh, uh,

politicians like Biden who very quickly will just say that they supported the causes, right? They supported the sort of cry for more racial justice. But

But they were also very, very quick at distancing themselves from any act of disruption and violence, even claiming that this sort of act somehow will make the protest less legitimate. And I think that's a typical move of people who will describe themselves as liberal. So what we argue is that in the book is that

a politicized version of political liberalism really takes seriously those gradiences, right, of oppressed groups. And,

And also we'll argue that if groups are oppressed, if they suffer from what we call severe injustice, then they are entitled to use disruption and violence to seek political change. Of course, we also think that there are some constraints on that disruption and violence, but

But we think that it's really unreasonable, right, just to use a rules term, to expect groups who are oppressed in society to,

to kind of give up means that can be effective to promote political change. And that's another issue, another aspect that makes, I think, political liberalism appealing. So the fact that interpersonal justification for public reason, which also includes using what people

people will regard as like civil more deliberative peaceful means to achieve political change is always conditional on reciprocity so it's only when you can be assured that other citizens in society will you know

reciprocate, will be bound by civility, will, in a sense, make political decisions through public reason, then you have a duty to reciprocate. But if you are a member of a group that is systematically oppressed,

you don't have any reason to think that your fellow citizens are in the sense reasonable, right? So that they want to peel the society that is a fair system of cooperation for people like you. So Rawls quite poignantly points out that political liberalism is not an ethics for saints.

It's an ethics for human beings. And so we don't, we, you know, when something is too costly for us, it's too demanding, but there is no duty to comply. And if you are oppressed, then it becomes too costly for you to follow civility and public reason.

Because that might well mean that your demands won't be heard, right? Because you need to engage in disruption and violence even to be able to be heard by your fellow citizens, by politicians, public officers, and so on. And so giving up on those means when you suffer from civil injustice is just too demanding. It's not what political liberalism asks you to do. And that's, again, I think another...

you know, kind of distinctive features of the framework and how we, of course, like we do a lot of like interpretation in the book of the framework, but kind of sets it apart from also other liberal frameworks. And there is another thing in the book that I'm interested to know more about. The duty of pressure. Yes. What is meant by that? Yes. So in the book, we kind of, we kind of,

come up with different duties of containment that apply to different political actors. The duty of pressure is a duty that falls on ordinary citizens and it asks them to put pressure on unreasonable people they know to try to steer them away from unreasonableness.

So we argue that that's a duty that applies under some circumstances. So when democracy, you live in a sort of condition of the consolidation of democracy, which basically means that you still live in a democratic society, but there is a risk that this society, you know, won't be democratic in the medium term. Yeah.

So, for example, if you live in a society where people become less attached to the idea of democracy, they think, you know, they find appealing the idea of a strong leader in control of the country. Or you live in a society where...

illiberal and anti-democratic political parties and actors are invited to join coalition governments. So all of these are signs that should, as is common citizen, should worry you.

and think that you need to do something about it. So the way in which we imagine the duty of oppression to work is really asking common citizens to, in a sense, tap into the knowledge they might have of unreasonable people they know because they might be their friends, some family members, some colleagues at work, and try to engage with them

in order to make them doubt about their unreasonableness and make them see things in, you know, under a different light. So we argue that, um, uh,

common citizens can even use some rhetorical tactics to do so. But it's especially important, right, to stress how we think that this sort of encounter can work because common citizens are the ones, the best place to know how to, you know, engage with people they know.

They have a sort of personal knowledge that others want. And we don't even think that this is sort of like, you know, a kind of change in the way in which people think that can happen in one encounter. So we imagine like different common citizens pressing, putting pressure on same unreasonable people, like from different corners. And it's that sort of noise, right?

that might do the trick, right? Might persuade unreasonable people that, yeah, their views are wrong. So on that note, I might offend some people by saying this, but I consider, for example, a lot of populist right-wing groups to be unreasonable in some cases.

So this duty of pressure can be co-opted by them as well. That's a technique that they can also use pressure liberal citizens or reasonable citizens into believing into buying into their beliefs, right? Yeah, no, absolutely. I mean, I think, again, you know, this is a sort of book, you know,

a political theory book, but it's a book about how politics work. And in a sense, right-wing populists and other liberal and anti-democratic political actors use strategies that are quite compelling and effective

So sometimes, I mean, depending on the strategy, right, but sometimes it's not really the problem are not the strategies. The problems are the ideas behind it. And so, you know, it's a fine for what we call like reasonable citizens to do.

kind of use those same strategies but to a different end and that was again it's another way in which this book is political right another way in which it makes political liberalism a politicized more politicized framework and again on the question of duty when it comes to defending democratic institutions and that's i guess something that

It's quite urgent even these days. We see the rise of white-wing politicians, some extreme fascist politicians in Europe, in America. When it comes to those democratic institutions, whose duty is it to defend them? Is it the citizens? Is it governments? And if it's the states...

And governments, can they resort to, is it justifiable for governments or states to resort to repressive methods, even violent methods, to defend democratic institutions?

Yes. So, I mean, I will say that the duty applies to both, right? So when it comes to the rise of illiberal and anti-democratic groups, like so many political actors, like including the state and including like common citizens, have a duty to try to stop that rise.

Now, what we do, what we are particularly interested in the book are cases where the state, in some important sense, has already been captured by illiberal and anti-democratic political actors.

Lots of the literature on liberal democratic self-defense, which means how liberal and democratic societies can react against the rise of illiberal and anti-democratic political actors in a way that is compatible with their liberal and democratic values. I really focused on the state.

as the main agent of what we would call containment. And we kind of think that that's misguided in two ways. So first of all, the state can cover all bases. But also, we are experiencing situations where the state is already being captured by those political actors. So can you really expect the US state under Trump

to contain right-wing populism? I don't think so, right? So if all your weapons are on the hand of the state, well, you're going to be in trouble, right? So you really need to call upon different political actors. But when it comes to the state, we generally think that... So the problem is not so much that...

like liberal democratic states can never use repressive measures to react against the rise of illiberal and anti-democratic groups. Sometimes the issue is that if there is a real threat, but a real threat to the stability of democracy,

a liberal institution, it might be already too late to use those measures, right? A classical case in the literature is like the rise of the Nazi regime in Germany. But we think that the problem is not the use of those measures per se, it's that in order to be justified as a liberal state to use those measures, you need to have done something before.

So precisely because as a liberal state, right, you care so much about basic rights and opportunities, you can infringe those rights only if you tried something else previously before that real threat really materializes and all those measures are failed, right? So as a sort of like last resort, you can infringe on people's rights. But you need to do something before.

And that before is, of course, states in a sense do that work of containment through education, through redistribution of policies, through commemoration, that kind of remind of people the values that a society should be based on.

But we also think that there are other measures that non-state actors should undertake before we get to the point of a real trap to stability, to materialize. And that's what the book really focuses on and tries to theorize. There is another question I have. You talk about

partisans, partisan politics to bring about change. But sometimes these acts of partisanship could be illiberal or anti-democratic by nature. But I think you look at it from a very interesting angle, which is that the creative abilities of these partisan politics. What are some examples? What do you mean by those creative abilities of these people to bring about a change? And do you think

the changes they bring about or the acts are in concert, in harmony with John Rawls' idea of public reason? Yes. So we still believe, and I think there's something important to stress, that political parties have a key role to play nowadays. Even if we live in societies that are going through a crisis in many ways,

respects, right, of political parties as we used to know them. We still think that in our complex democratic societies, political parties are key players.

And so the question is about how to reinvigorate political parties rather than getting rid of them. So in the book, we focus a lot on, as you were saying, like the creative abilities of parties. And by that, we mean that political parties with their machine and power can

have the ability to create visions for societies that can inspire and mobilize people. Of course, parties are not, they don't do that in isolation with other actors in society, right? For example, like social movement and like civil society.

But, you know, also in the past, they've been able to construct ideas of how society should be shaped. That was really inspiring for people and people will kind of rally around it, like by politically motivated by those visions. And by stressing this sort of kind

kind of power of parties. We are also kind of... So what we exactly argue in the book, to give you some examples, is that political parties are a better reasonable force. So this sort of call to arms is to, you know, it applies to reasonable political parties. So, yeah, not the right-wing populist actors. Now,

need to construct political platforms that are inspiring and can hope to diminish the support of illiberal and anti-democratic actors. For example, because they take into consideration some of the legitimate grievances that some supporters of these parties may have. And

And we call to arms like reasonable parties of all stripes, both more progressive left-wing parties, but also some more conservative partisan and political parties who are conservative, but they're still liberal in our sense of what being liberal means. So we are trying to kind of, you know,

the importance of the role that political parties play in the fight against illiberal and democratic political actors, in particular the fight against right-wing populism, and also trying to show how

There are ways in which political parties have tried to react to the rise of right-wing populism that are inconsistent with Rawls' idea of public reason. So one common strategy is that many parties, like also think about some socialist parties in Europe, have adopted is what we call becoming unreasonable in a slide. So trying to co-opt

some of the messages of those like right-wing populist actors. So, for example, some socialist parties have endorsed quite of anti-immigration politics, so

sort of like trying to promote a vision of socialism, right, in one only country to kind of intercept that fear of migration that many supporters of right-wing populist parties have had.

And that sort of technique is problematic in our account because it's still kind of spread around the ideas about migrants that are very morally problematic.

So there are things that partisans have tried to do which are morally problematic and might also be not effective. But at the same time, doing nothing is also problematic, right? So if reasonable political parties keep campaigning on the political platforms that they've been campaigning on for years, that will still be morally problematic because these political parties

platforms clearly are not appealing anymore, right? People are not so convinced by those visions of society anymore. So something else needs to be created. So that sort of what we call a reasonable paralysis is also morally problematic because it's not reacting against the rise of illiberal and anti-democratic political actors.

And one of the most interesting parts of the book to me was the section that you talk about municipalities. And the reason is that I have this book, Claiming the City, which has stories about municipalities around the world. I haven't read the whole book, but I've read bits and pieces to the countries that I was more interested in. And I always found that idea quite, first of all, practical. And it has a brilliant history of resistance against rioting.

white wing white leaders or or even fascists yes and I guess given what the recent election results in the United States and now some people are worried some people aren't but anyhow the I'm wondering what is the role of municipalities how can they be a source a source for preserving democratic institutions and resisting these dictatorial demands of central governments yeah

It would be great if you could tell us first what you mean by those municipalities and then talk about their role. Absolutely. So we use the term municipalities in quite broad sense. So by municipalities, we mean any subnational administrative unit which has some power of self-government, some kind of jurisdiction.

So the term municipality really includes units like cities, towns,

but also larger units like states, counties, regions and so on. And this is to capture, of course, the diversity and the complexity of different contexts. So in different contexts, the most powerful municipalities may be cities, in other contexts, federal contexts, there might be states and so on. So

So we really think that municipalities have a key role to play, right? As you were saying, there is a really important history of municipalities, including cities, really reacting against progressive political movements.

So in the book, we argue that municipalities have two duties. One is a more kind of oppositional, if you want, duty. So it's a duty basically not to cooperate with decisions taken by central governments when those decisions violate the basic rights and opportunities of some people.

And the second duty is a more creative duty. It's what we call a duty of political liberal prefiguration. And this really taps into the resources of prefigurative politics. So we...

think that municipalities need to take initiatives that really showcase the desiderability and the possibility of living in a true liberal, a truly liberal democratic society that is structured around the values of pluralism, respect and toleration. And municipalities, even small units like in some towns, have been

have done an amazing job at running initiatives that really bring together people from different religions, different cultures, and making them doing things together to show that really they can cooperate as equals. And by showing that that's possible at a local level, the idea is that you can...

make people realize that you will be so amazing to live in a society over by the same values. So, like, municipalities, I was saying, like, they've been, like, key actors. And,

And also when it comes to more oppositional politics, right? So think about the role of sanctuary cities, right? During the first US presidency of Donald Trump. So they were crucial, right? In trying to uphold the basic rights of migrants against the central government that was really trying to thwart the right to

But also thinking about an European context in Italy, like cities, cities have been really at the forefront of the resistance against right wing populism. So back in 2018,

and in 2019 when Matteo Salvini who is the leader of the right-wing populist party La Lega he was in government and he passed two security degrees that

were violating, seriously violating the rights of asylum seekers. So many Italian mayors reacted against those degrees, arguing that they would not have implemented those degrees and really challenging the authority of the Italian government by stating that they would not have responded to any liberal and anti-democratic government, but they're

true loyalty was towards liberal and democratic values, right, towards the constitution, not to the central government, which is, again, like a very, very strong stance to take. But also, more recently, in 2023, the right-wing populist government of Giorgia Meloni, um,

ordered cities to stop the registration of both parents on the birth certificates of kids having same sex parents.

So in Italy, as you may know, the legislation around same-sex couples is really old-fashioned, just to say the least. And this sort of practice of registration by cities was a kind of way in which the offspring of same-sex couples could have their rights guaranteed. So at some point in 2023, the

the Giorgio Meloni government ordered cities and towns to stop that registration. And many mayors, again, reacted saying that they would have kept going on with the practice no matter what. So cities have been key political actors. And I think that that sort of role should be recognized much more

but also theorized, right? Because if we leave the sort of actors untheorized, we will basically miss great opportunities to think about what to do with the rise of illiberalism and anti-democratic political movements. And I'd like to kind of bring it all to an end by asking a final question about this theory of politicized political liberalism.

So it's early days of 2025, but in terms of politics, in terms of conflicts around the world, what's happening in the Middle East, agreements and disagreements with it, and all those divisive politics. Yes. And how it has kind of divided the people even in the Western countries, economic grievances, etc.

rise of populism, all the things we touched upon during this interview. How can this theory of politicized political liberalism help people in pushing back against these anti-democratic governments or extremists

in this day and age? Yes. So, yeah, that's a really important question to wrap up our conversation, I think. So we are, of course, still a political theorist, right? So we don't want

You know, we're not in a sense ambitious to provide a blueprint that can be adopted anywhere. But what we want to say is that political liberalism is a theory that can really show the urgency of pushing back against illiberal and anti-democratic ideas.

tendencies in our societies, arguing that this is really a duty that different actors in societies have and offering some guidance about what these actors should and should not do in order to try to achieve this goal. But more generally, political liberalism, at least in the way in which we try to reinterpret the framework in the book, becomes an assertive

So a liberalism that in our age is confident in claiming that liberalism, or at least a version of liberal theory, is desirable, right? It's something that we should strive for. And so in an age, in a sense, where it seems that liberalism is in crisis, right?

and is attacked by different forms. Political liberalism is a version of liberalism that takes into account many grievances that are legitimate grievances that people have, while at the same time being kind of assertive and confident about the

superiority of liberal values. So I think that this is what political liberalism and hopefully also our book can offer to our age. Just one very final question. I know that this book has recently been published and it takes a number of years to write another book, but I'm interested to know if there's any other project you're currently thinking about, something in progress that we might expect sometime soon?

Yes. So in terms of this kind of work, my co-author and I are now focusing on the role of social media in democratic backsliding. We are still a bit at the beginning of this project, but we are kind of interested in both how many people

for the democratization of social media don't really take into consideration issues of democratic backsliding. And so how democratization of social media in some sense is my backfire. Um,

And also, we are kind of interested in the question of uncertainty because, you know, empirically speaking, there seems to be a link between social media and polarization and the rise of illiberal and anti-democratic political movements and parties. But the sort of link is...

it is not really clear the sort of relation of causation, right? And so our question is under conditions of uncertainty, what should we do, right? With some, you know, an actor that is so important like social media. But of course, like this is

a co-author project so I have a project of my own as a sole author and I'm currently going back to my work on historical injustice and I'm working on a project that looks at the role of the dead in

in political struggles, in particular struggles that have to do with sexual and gender emancipation. So I'm interested basically in whether it is legitimate to invoke the debt in those struggles. So, you know, a kind of research that is more in line with my

other area of research interest, which is about basically the importance of history for the present. Thank you very, very much. Really enjoyed this conversation with you and hope to be able to speak with you soon again on New Books Network about your future works. Thank you very much for speaking with us about your book. Thank you. It was a great conversation. So thanks for having me.