SANDEL VERSUS DAGGER REVISITING A FAILED CASE OF LIBERAL CO-OPTATION

Abstract

This paper explores a highly engaging, contemporary academic debate that went on between
Michael J. Sandel and Richard Dagger over the extent to which Republicanism and Liberalism
are compatible. This debate originated with Sandel making a bold claim that contemporary
Liberalism, despite enjoying a hegemonic status in the public philosophy1
of liberal
democracies, especially the American, where it displaced the more viable, historical alternative
of Republicanism, is marked by a deep seated philosophical contradiction that has, in turn, come
to manifest in practical politics as well. Dagger subsequently countered Sandel’s thesis and
claimed to the contrary that the two philosophies share enough commonalities for it be just to
pose them as rivals, as Sandel does. Based on a hermeneutic analysis of either scholars views,
it is found that Dagger’s approach tantamounts to an ingenous but ultimately unsuccesful
attempt to co-opt Sandel’s Republicanism into the Liberal fold for the latter, as this study would
show, tends to stands on a relatively more firmer footing. And, an unintended consequence of
the co-optation bid was to reinforce Sandel’s arguments.