The End of the Era of Reasoned Debate

Americans have a long history of being drawn into wars under dubious pretenses. In 1898, even when naval experts deemed a tense explosion accidental, the “yellow press” accused Spain of sinking the USS Maine, creating a war atmosphere. Similarly, the George W. Bush administration justified the Iraq invasion by linking Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and accusing him of developing weapons of mass destruction—claims later disproven.

Donald Trump set a new precedent in waging war on Iran. For the first time, he started a war without fake media coverage or seeking public opinion, because the American people’s views did not matter to him. Neither congressional leaders, intellectuals, nor civil society were consulted before the attack on Iran.

As Trump told The New York Times in January, his power as commander-in-chief rests “on my own morality and my own conscience.” He added, “The only thing that can stop me is myself.”

Renowned philosopher and profound analyst of civic dialogue, Jürgen Habermas, was unable to comment on the war against Iran. He died on March 14 at the age of 96, two weeks after the attacks initiated by the US and Israel. Nevertheless, this conflict highlighted his lifelong concern for the future of liberal democracy, which he analyzed and sought to preserve. According to Habermas, the essence of democracy lies in “dialogue,” that is, continuous discourse based on reason and values.

He introduced the concept of the “public sphere,” a space where citizens gather to make decisions. Communicative action transforms language into a force of cooperation. He wrote, “All political power arises from the communicative power of citizens. In an ideal democracy, all questions and contributions come through debate and negotiation, and conclusions are drawn accordingly.”

Habermas’s long and productive life cannot be called a tragedy, but the tributes following his death reflected the deteriorating state of democracy. In November, in Munich, he expressed sorrow over the disruptions to American democracy caused by Trump’s unchecked expansion of executive power.

When you hold dissenting views today, your social media feeds are filled only with ideas that confirm your own beliefs but do not challenge them, making democratic debate impossible.

The authoritarian turn in America cast a shadow over the end of Habermas’s life, who always saw his existence as politically defensible. His life had descended so far into darkness that the only option was to rise above it.

Born in Germany in 1929, he grew up during the Nazi era. He was a member of the Hitler Youth, and his father was an officer in the German army during World War II. He witnessed the establishment of a solid democracy in West Germany and the reconstruction of a free Europe.

This outcome was not guaranteed, but Habermas made significant contributions as a theoretician and sharp orator. He began his career in the 1950s in West Germany, a time when Nazi influence still dominated educational fields.

In cooperation with the Nazi regime’s legacy, he stood against Martin Heidegger’s influence and was mentored by Theodor Adorno, founder of the Frankfurt School and a social critic exiled during the Nazi era. Habermas led the second generation and spent his entire career at Frankfurt University.

Although Adorno lost hope in modern civilization after the Holocaust, Habermas searched for the core of freedom within Western intellectual tradition. This quest began with his acclaimed 1962 book, “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere,” his most celebrated work.

Habermas traced the modern concept of public opinion to 18th-century European coffee houses, salons, and journals, which offered ordinary citizens the chance to debate and comment on rulers’ decisions.

This milieu laid the groundwork for the French Revolution and inspired political motivation. The public sphere promised an end to oppression so ideas would advance solely through public reasoning, not by any other means.

However, Habermas acknowledged that liberal democratic ideals were never fully realized — neither in the 18th-century public sphere, which was limited to a privileged male class, nor in the 20th century, when public opinion became passive and subject to propaganda. He stated, “The world generated by communication media is only the surface of the public sphere.”

He was not alone in skepticism; leftist thinkers viewed liberalism as merely a capitalist façade, but Habermas believed in liberal utopian possibilities.

Although a deliberative democracy has never fully existed, every good society must base itself on its principles. In his 1992 book, “Between Facts and Norms,” he wrote, “The legitimacy of law ultimately depends on the communicative order.”

Citizens must engage in rational debate, express independent opinions, and seek solutions grounded in mutual understanding.

Habermas rightly called Trump authoritarian, but social media has transformed him into a “strongman”—ignorant, irrational, unsure of what to do, and indifferent to consequences.

In Habermas’s theory, the limits of dialogue were not only philosophical. His intellect engaged with sociology, linguistics, psychology, and cultural studies. Despite the complexity, he called his work a living example of “discourse ethics,” characterized by honest and continuous intellectual exchange.

He believed language commits people to democratic reasoning. In his 1981 “Theory of Communicative Action,” he considered language essential not merely for expressing truth or falsehood but for enabling good dialogue.

Speech acts succeed only when listeners accept them based on plausible reasons or grounds. Speakers must present clear and convincing arguments.

He concluded that “motivation” is the fundamental basis of language; the goal of human language is mutual understanding.

Language is also employed in commands and threats, but according to Habermas, agreement based on rewards or punishments is not genuine consent; rather, it is surrender.

Public debate is authentic only when no participant is excluded, no ideas are forbidden, and no one is pressured. Such conditions are rare in today’s politics, but we can always move toward or away from the ideal.

By mid-20th century, when he wrote “Structural Transformation,” one major barrier to public debate was technological. Radio, television, and large magazines limited participation by creating unidirectional communication flows.

However, technological progress in his later years reversed some problems. The internet and social media opened the marketplace of ideas. A single streamer could become official for millions, while news channels and magazines fought for survival.

When political ruthlessness combines with insensitivity, it becomes clear that the era of rational debate—that of Jürgen Habermas—is over.

The internet was initially regarded as a blessing, with many believing it would strengthen democracy. But why does today’s abundance of ideas threaten democracy?

Habermas examined this question in his 2023 book, “The New Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere and Reflective Politics.” He wrote, “Printing made everyone a reader; today’s digitalization makes everyone a writer.”

Without serious engagement, public dialogue is impossible. Genuine debate demands both speaking truth and listening to others’ viewpoints.

The internet cannot foster such an environment. The problem is not only false information and misleading messages but also a fragmented public sphere where groups ignore one another.

Presenting differing opinions leads your social media feed to fill solely with views affirming your beliefs but never challenging them, rendering democratic debate impossible.

Habermas wrote, “The main goals of rational politics are to improve our beliefs and direct efforts toward problem-solving.” This requires controversy and interpretation, without which dialogue is impossible.

Habermas initially underestimated social media’s challenges. It not only causes division but promotes nihilism through online triviality. Platforms like TikTok and Twitter are rife with trolling, where who said what matters more than what was said.

He was right to call Trump authoritarian, but social media made him unstable and petty—uncertain in his actions and indifferent to consequences. He harms people and institutions but is not taken seriously by some.

This paradox makes Trump a political theory puzzle but a social media star. Quoting Karl Marx, “All that is solid melts into air.”

When ruthlessness and irresponsibility form an effective political combination, it becomes clear that the era of logical debate—Jürgen Habermas’s era—has fully ended.

(Adapted from an article by Adam Kirsch in The Atlantic. Adam Kirsch is a poet, critic, editor, and regular contributor to The Atlantic and The New Yorker. He is the author of 10 books, including poetry collections ‘The People and the Books’ and ‘The Discarded Life.’ )