Liberal democracy’s us-them frontier is internal and non-permanent
Evidence
To conceive liberal-democcatic politics in such a way is to acknowledge Schmitt’s insight into the distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’. because this struggle over the consticution of the people always takes place within a conHictual field, and implies the existence of competing forces. Indeed, there is no hegemonic articulation without the determination of a frontier, the definition of a ‘them’. But in the case of liberal-democratic politics this frontier is an internal one, and the ‘them’ is not a permanent outsider. We can begin to realize, therefore, why such a regime requires pluralism. — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 257
Categorization
- DEFINE: Directly answers the reader’s core test: the pluralist ‘we’ is conceivable because the frontier is internal and the them is not a permanent outsider.
- XREF: Connects to the reader’s prior work on agonistic pluralism and Schmitt’s friend/enemy distinction — this is the passage that domesticates Schmitt’s enemy into an internal adversary. — connects to: Liberal rights discourse and democratic frontiers sustain each other reciprocally — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 54; Pluralism inside the demos contradicts the homogeneity democracy requires — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 234; Democratic liberal values sometimes fail to erode entrenched intolerance — Cristian Tileagă, The Nature of Prejudice: Society,…, 104
Broader Connections
- Liberal rights discourse and democratic frontiers sustain each other reciprocally
#expands(0.80) — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 54 - Democratic liberal values sometimes fail to erode entrenched intolerance
#qualifies(0.73) — Cristian Tileagă, The Nature of Prejudice, 104 - Pluralism inside the demos contradicts the homogeneity democracy requires
#qualifies(0.72) — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 234