In other words, liberal democracy has become hegemonic, at least in the West. While he did not explicitly say so, Habermas did imply, I believe, that fascism as a mass movement formed with the intent of capturing state power is no longer possible in the West. With regard to the second question, that is, whether we still have the capacity to continue to learn, Habermas was much more tentative. Indeed his analysis of our present political situation and the possibilities of progressive political change it holds was the most disappointing aspect of his talk. Employing such vague and superficial concepts like global civil society, Habermas pointed out the need, in the face of structural changes in Western welfare states and the global economy, for new political networks that transcend the borders of present nation-states.
Exhortations pleading for the formation of transnational political movements are nothing new.
Habermas's pleading for such movements in an era when leftist political movements at the national level, not to mention the global level, are in retreat, regrettably allowed a note of hopelessness and resignation to echo in his talk. The resignation that Habermas allowed to creep into his talk is not the only disappointing aspect of his analysis of our ability to progress politically and socially. Disappointing, too, is his analysis of solidarity and the role it plays in learning. Elsewhere in his writings, Habermas has argued that our ability to learn from the events and forces that shape our lives is dependent upon the resources of solidarity at our disposal. These resources, which are deposited in, for example, our cultural and political traditions, help us to define our membership in society.