Michael Walzer is a well-known and highly regarded political philosopher. In this essay, which I read this morning in my back yard, he comes perilously close to espousing conservatism. Then, as if realizing what he had said, and how it would affect his standing among his fellow progressives (gasp!), he writes:
My basic claim is that all these kinds of difference are themselves good and represent a central part of what goodness is in social and political life. But I worry that this may sound like a conservative argument.
Why would he worry about this, unless he is afraid of labels? His views are what they are, whether they're called progressive or conservative. The fact is, his emphasis on the importance of intermediate institutions (those between the individual and the state) puts him squarely in the conservative camp. Perhaps he should rethink his antipathy to conservatism. Come home, Michael. It's time.
