I would like to draw your attention to one passage. As our American election season heats up, these words should be in every candidate’s and every voter’s mind:
Insofar as the reasonable mechanisms are concerned he notes that the issue cannot be reduced to a mere struggle for who gets more votes but must include a “process of argumentation that is responsive to truth” (wahrheitssensibles Argumentationsverfahren). This is well said but it is something difficult to turn into political praxis. We know that the representatives of this public “process of argumentation” are for the most part political parties which shape the formation of the public will. In fact they invariably will seek a majority and will almost always take care of the interests they pledge to protect which are very often partisan and not collective interests. Responsiveness to the truth always takes the back seat to partisan interests. To me it is significant that Habermas should say that responsiveness to truth is a necessary component of political argumentation, since it reintroduces the concept of truth in philosophical and political debates.
Thus the difference between a statesman and a politician. A statesman sees his role as one of service. A politician sees his role as one of garnering and preserving power. As we look at the various candidates, it is important to recognize who seeks to be a statesman and who seeks to be a politician.