TNR POT-SHOTS

The New Republic goes after Derrida and Habermas on the grounds that their recent attempt to encourage a common European foreign policy is inconsistent with their previous philosophical positions:

And it seems to us a rather decisive rejection of [Habermas's] democratic theory that he now proposes a European security policy that limits "discourse": "In the framework of the future European constitution, there ought not to be and cannot be any separatism." For Habermas, it is easy to see how his anti-Americanism swallowed his doctrine. For Derrida, perhaps this is all some sort of post-structural joke. Or, maybe, it just proves that their theories were of limited practical value in the first place.

Derrida has never been my kettle of fish, but the charge against Habermas is weird. Granted, there is no extended argument here, and, if I'm not mistaken, so far TNR is the first American press outlet to even pick up on the Derrida and Habermas essay, so some congratulations are in order. In addition, there does seem to be a kind of inconsistency here: if you support "discourse," how can you be against "separatism" with respect to foreign policy?

It seems to me that Habermas would have an easy response: an understanding that dialogue is important is not incosistent with the claim that some kinds of unity should be encouraged. Discourse is not synonymous with geographical decentralization of all political functions. Some kinds of basic constitutional freedoms are not subject to discursive rejection, even if they may be changed in some ways through appropriation in various communities. TNR might just have well asked why common rejection of the death penalty -- also mentioned by Derrida and Habermas -- is something that counts as a foundational European commitment. To argue that foreign policy requires unity is a pretty banal statement, actually.