facilitates, of which it is also a product”.^72 In this case, the reiterative minimalism
reflects an internationalist solidarity against totalitarianism. That is, it embodies a
shared politics of injustice, a common sense of what, tyranny, is being reacted to.
Walzer does not require all Czechs to agree with him that his preference, social
democracy would be the best model to replace totalitarianism, in order to be in
solidarity with them.
Moral minimalism, while reflecting this reflexive process, crucially also draws
on thicker, possibly foundationalist moral conceptions. “Minimal morality is very
important, both for the sake of criticism and for the sake of solidarity. But it can’t
substitute for or replace the defense of thickly conceived values.”^73 “If we did not
have our own parade, we could not march vicariously in Prague. We would have no
understanding at all of “Truth” or “Justice”.^74 Walzer, a Jewish American social
democrat, does not feel that, in expressing solidarity with the Prague marchers, he
can go further in terms of describing or imposing the shape of the state after the fall
of the totalitarian regime. But nor can he avoid that expression of solidarity. He
rejects, at the other extreme, the cynical judgement that he should not be
concerned about a far-off country of which he knows little. Why is this
disengagement equally impossible? Walzer does not spell it out, but it is clear from
his body of work that it is impossible precisely because of the values he holds as a
thinker in the Jewish political tradition, as an American citizen, as a social democrat,
that is, the universalising identities that make up his humanity, and contextualise a
certain kind of humanitarian concern for the suffering of others. These identities
may suggest limits and boundaries for a set of institutionalised responsibilities
within the context of citizenship, but that is not the same thing as marking the limits
of his concern. The scope of his moral concern is defined by his moral minimalism,
but “[minimalism] leaves room for thickness elsewhere; indeed, it presupposes
thickness elsewhere”.^75
72
73 Ibid.
74 Ibid., 16-17.
75 Ibid., 19.
Ibid.