A collection of articles and excerpts from books. Pp. 313-388 contain six excerpts from "Eichmann in Jerusalem".

Liberals often worry that inviting moral and religious argument into the public sphere runs the risk of intolerance and coercion. These essays respond to that concern by showing that substantive moral discourse is not at odds with progressive public purposes, and that a pluralist society need not shrink from engaging the moral and religious convictions that its citizens bring to public life.

What kind of hypocrite should voters choose as their next leader? The question seems utterly cynical. But, as David Runciman suggests, it is actually much more cynical to pretend that politics can ever be completely sincere. The most dangerous form of political hypocrisy is to claim to have a politics without hypocrisy. Political Hypocrisy is a timely, and timeless, book on the problems of sincerity and truth in politics, and how we can deal with them without slipping into hypocrisy ourselves. Runciman tackles the problems through lessons drawn from some of the great truth-tellers in modern political thought--Hobbes, Mandeville, Jefferson, Bentham, Sidgwick, and Orwell--and applies his ideas to different kinds of hypocritical politicians from Oliver Cromwell to Hillary Clinton. Runciman argues that we should accept hypocrisy as a fact of politics, but without resigning ourselves to it, let alone cynically embracing it. We should stop trying to eliminate every form of hypocrisy, and we should stop vainly searching for ideally authentic politicians. Instead, we should try to distinguish between harmless and harmful hypocrisies and should worry only about its most damaging varieties. Written in a lively style, this book will change how we look at political hypocrisy and how we answer some basic questions about politics: What are the limits of truthfulness in politics? And when, where, and how should we expect our politicians to be honest with us, and about what?

Whose Keeper? is a profound and creative treatise on modernity and its challenge to social science. Alan Wolfe argues that modern liberal democracies, such as the United States and Scandinavia, have broken with traditional sources of mortality and instead have relied upon economic and political frameworks to define their obligations to one another. Wolfe calls for reinvigorating a sense of community and thus a sense of obligation to the larger society. This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press’s mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact. Drawing on a backlist dating to 1893, Voices Revived makes high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship accessible once again using print-on-demand technology. This title was originally published in 1989.

French philosopher and Talmudic commentator Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995) is best known for his two major, highly original works on ethics, Totality and Infinity (1961) and Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essence (1974). Among his lesser known works is a short but remarkable essay published in 1934, "Refections on the Philosophy of Hitlerism," in which he considers German conservatism and the Nazi movement, and reflects on Western philosophy's capacity to insure itself against 'elemental evil.' Difficult Justice uses this essay as an introduction to a collection of papers on Levinas's ethical and political thought. In this volume editors Asher and Gad Horowitz bring together contributors from a variety of disciplines and backgrounds to explore how Levinas's work relates to a broad range of contemporary philosophical and political questions. In particular, they examine Levinas's challenge to liberalism 'to find another kinship for man ... absolutely opposed to oppression,' and his movement beyond liberalism to embrace 'the claim of the Other.' This thought-provoking collection will not only be invaluable to Levinas scholars, it will also be of interest to those working in the areas of Jewish studies, women's studies, and political theory. Contributors: Keith Anderson Shannon Bell Robert Bernasconi Mielle Chandler Tina Chanter Marinos Diamantides Rosalyn Diprose Enrique Dussel Oona Eisenstadt Robert Gibbs Asher Horowitz Gad Horowitz Ze'ev Levy Joseph Rosen Brian Schroeder Victoria Tahmasebi

Emmanuel Levinas conceives of our lives as fundamentally interpersonal and ethical, claiming that our responsibilities to one another should shape all of our actions. While many scholars believe that Levinas failed to develop a robust view of political ethics, Michael L. Morgan argues against understandings of Levinas's thought that find him politically wanting or even antipolitical. Morgan examines Levinas's ethical critique of the political as well as his Jewish writings—including those on Zionism and the founding of the Jewish state—which are controversial reflections of Levinas's political expression. Unlike others who dismiss Levinas as irrelevant or anarchical, Morgan is the first to give extensive treatment to Levinas as a serious social political thinker whose ethics must be understood in terms of its political implications. Morgan reveals Levinas's political commitments to liberalism and democracy as well as his revolutionary conception of human life as deeply interconnected on philosophical, political, and religious grounds.

When Michael Dukakis accused George H. W. Bush of being the "Joe Isuzu of American Politics" during the 1988 presidential campaign, he asserted in a particularly American tenor the near-ancient idea that lying and politics (and perhaps advertising, too) are inseparable, or at least intertwined. Our response to this phenomenon, writes the renowned intellectual historian Martin Jay, tends to vacillate--often impotently--between moral outrage and amoral realism. In The Virtues of Mendacity, Jay resolves to avoid this conventional framing of the debate over lying and politics by examining what has been said in support of, and opposition to, political lying from Plato and St. Augustine to Hannah Arendt and Leo Strauss. Jay proceeds to show that each philosopher's argument corresponds to a particular conception of the political realm, which decisively shapes his or her attitude toward political mendacity. He then applies this insight to a variety of contexts and questions about lying and politics. Surprisingly, he concludes by asking if lying in politics is really all that bad. The political hypocrisy that Americans in particular periodically decry may be, in Jay's view, the best alternative to the violence justified by those who claim to know the truth.

This is the first book to gather the key writings of the distinguished political theorist Norman Geras into a single volume, providing a comprehensive overview of the thinking of one of the most important Marxist philosophers in the post-war era. Among the essays included here are 'The Controversy about Marx and Justice', 'The Duty to Bring Aid', 'Primo Levi and Jean Amery: Shame' and the contentious 'Euston Manifesto', which lays down a set of central principles for the democratic left in the twenty-first century. The reader is rounded out with several posts from Geras's much-loved and widely read 'Normblog', as well as companion essays by Alan Johnson and Terry Glavin, which explore how Geras's philosophical concerns led to his more recent, trenchant critiques of the direction of left-wing politics. --