Rawls’s well-ordered society erases the adversary from democratic politics.

Evidence

Besides allowing me to counter Schmitt’s argument about the inconsistency of the idea of pluralist democracy, it helps me to bring to the fore the limitations both of the theorists of ‘deliberative democracy’ and of the politics of the so-called ‘radical centre’. In Chapter 1, for instance. I examine the more recent version of Rawls’s political liberalism and show the problematic implications for a pluralist approach of his conception of a ‘weU-ordered society’ I submit that one of its main shortcomings is precisely that it tends to erase the very place of the adversary, thereby expelling any legitimate opposition from the democratic public sphere. — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 69

Categorization

• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
• XREF: connects to: Deliberative democracy eliminates pluralism to achieve consensus, leaving it unable to answer Schmitt — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 225; Rawls’s well-ordered society eliminates politics and requires coercion of dissenters — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 129; Rawls’s well-ordered society erases the adversary and expels legitimate opposition from the public sphere — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 69 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Rawls’s well-ordered society eliminates politics and requires coercion of dissenters #corroborates (0.85) — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 129