ABSTRACT
Habermasian theory is associated with societal consensus-building through rational arguments made in good faith. It is an understatement that for the past few years, political deliberation has been characterized by hostility between groups, personal attacks, and what seem to be irreconcilable differences between factions. Even beyond the normal fare of political campaigns, the electorate seems so divided as to exclude any possible common ground between groups. Under these circumstances, can we still talk about deliberation in Habermas’s sense? Can politics be based on the back and forth of rational arguments if different groups share nothing in common and even resort to violence against each other? Barbara Fultner will consider these issues and whether we can salvage rational argumentative exchanges in politics given how the tribal citizens seem to be.
