{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018518518518518517, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.757352941176471, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Engaging with Extremists

This article argues that traditional models of liberalism that define democracy as the creation of a public liberal consensus are not an appropriate basis for political engagement with contemporary extremist groups. It proposes an alternative way of defining the goals of liberal politics based on the concepts of `agonistic respect', `deliberative democracy' and `discourse ethics'. Agonistic respect and deliberative democracy create political space for extremist groups. At the same time, the principles of discourse ethics contain the potential harm caused by extremist ideas and practices. This article applies these theoretical arguments to three practical problems. What are the limits of tolerating illiberal groups? Are extremist groups legitimate participants in public debates about foreign policy? How should a liberal state build a wide-ranging consensus about national security?