Which is the most important guarantee of effective deliberation: wise leadership, sound procedures, expert knowledge, or an informed public? Contribute information, experiences or reflections in support of the positions on this question that you think would be taken by Aristotle, Madison, Lippmann, or Dewey.
67 thoughts on “Historical Perspectives on Deliberation and Democracy”
Comments are closed.
It is difficult to conceptualize a system of deliberation removed from our own US Constitution. It is what I have grown up knowing and modeling. Even with its flaws and historical challenges, I do believe that it is a combination of a well built system and active/ informed citizens that guarantee effective deliberation.
The idea of wise leaders is a thought provoking one. It is true that wise leaders may have practical knowledge that can lead to significant and beneficial change. Aristotle’s ideas of deliberation are still significant today in U.S. government. I do think, however, that the idea of a wise leader may be a myth. Human nature, including that of self interest, human error, and stereotypes, may negatively affect any single person’s ability to be vested in the true good of the whole. These arguments would have been used by Lippmann, who believed that most men who are not learned experts have trouble avoiding mental shortcuts in favor of reality. I believe it is impossible to wise, diverse in experience, and impartial for the good and the happiness of the whole.
Just as I believe that wise leaders cannot have a breadth of practical experiences enough to overcome human nature, I do not think that experts are exempt from flaw. Lippmann argues that experts are necessary to help form public opinion, because laypeople are unable to form judgements without employing stereotypes. I argue that even experts fall victim to stereotypes and illogical connections. Expert testimony in life and in a US court is necessary, but it takes many other factors, such as intuition, empathy and experience to develop a complete picture. Even experts can be and have been proven wrong or challenged due to scientific advances or expert testimony from the opposition (ex- religious experts versus scientists).
The only strategy of deliberation that removes these concerns is a well built system. Checks and balances as well as citizen participation controls for these variables. Some people are experts, some people are wise, some are emotional — the diversity enables a representative sample of the shareholders in the deliberation. All must work under constraints to prevent abuse of any one power or scenario. Because the governed/ larger body of the deliberation group are asked to be participants, it is important that they follow Dewey’s push for an active and informed citizenry. Experience is used for education, and I believe that this practical knowledge helps people to act rationally. If faith is vested in the people, the people need to rise to the challenge through research, action, immersion and avoidance of apathy. Without these qualities, the system is missing half of the equation and cannot function properly.
I agree with your points on Aristotle & Lippmann, Emma – that level of unbiased expertise seems to be an unattainable ideal. Your last paragraph shows a healthy skepticism of the public’s ability to engage in deliberation that is productive for society as a whole. Madison’s checks and balances do provide a good backbone for deliberation – especially among an educated and engaged constituency. Madison’s dislike for factions stems from his belief that people act due to self interest and self preservation (ie, property ownership being the greatest cause of faction). Hopefully an engaged and educated public would not let this guide their decision making!
Experts are not exempt from flaw, but they are reliable. The anatomy of their ideas is formed from academic and practical experiences. This dogmatic faith the public has in expert opinion is crucial. Though I do agree that it is important take ones own experiences into account when forming an opinion, to rely on expert opinion allows people to prioritize issues and have informed opinions. When we observe those informing the public, such as journalists and reporters for television stations, magazines, and newspapers, they seem to report identical or similar stories but the perspectives are always different. People can’t know everything, so though it is important to be slightly skeptical, it is difficult to operate independently of expert opinion.
You make an excellent point, Annette. “Expert” knowledge can be tailored to fit one’s specific purpose, control the masses and obtain power. Hence why some countries control which literature is available to the public and why an estimated 500 million women world wide are illiterate. Even the bible is used as a political instrument, uniting or dividing countries as needed by the powers that be. Education is a weapon and knowledge is indeed power.
Emma, it is interesting for me to read about your admiration for the U.S. Constitution. I am from Ukraine, and grew up without any consciousness of a sacred political document that brought order to our society. We never thought or spoke of the “Ukrainian Constitution” because it seemed that there were no political values that mattered to ordinary people. If anything, the Constitution of Ukraine was perceived as just another set of laws that could be ignored, evaded or contradicted by those with money and power. Most Ukrainian citizens were focused on trying to lift up their economic condition, and in the legacy of corruption that our society inherited from the USSR, everyone acknowledged bribes as a survival mechanism or a viable business strategy. Over the past year, in the wake of the EuroMaidan revolution, many Ukrainians have had a political reawakening, and the impassioned anti-government speeches on Maidan included some of the key elements of effective deliberation that Dewey alludes to. But as we observe the heartbreaking separatist violence in Eastern Ukraine, we have to consider, somewhat in opposition to both Dewey and Lippman, that passionate political deliberation must have limits, and that uncontrolled “self-determination” movements can become very hard to contain.
Our representative form of government provides the most effective means for deliberation. It lends itself to a wide variety and well-rounded set of perspectives—a wise leader informed by various experts in each of Aristotle’s topics for deliberation. All of which form our overarching system of checks and balances while elected and informed by everyday citizens. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government are a unique embodiment of each of these principles when coupled with the electoral process.
I would argue that the most important factor in deliberation is a combination of a well-established system with an informed citizenry at its helm. I would have to agree with Aristotle’s notion of happiness in conjunction with the topics of finance, war and peace, trade, and laws. However, the translator’s opinion that “constituents of happiness…do not lie within the power of the subject and…fall outside the range of things which are the proper subject of deliberation,” is well noted (Aristotle, trans. 1992, p. 87).
Just as our form of government is a perfect example of each of these perspectives, so too is our court system. The act itself—of using expert witnesses in testimony as a means to shed light on an issue that stakeholders might not otherwise understand—lends itself to Lippmann’s (1922) perspective on deliberation. Madison’s (1787) interpretation of the flaws of the individual and the need for a republic is further exemplified in our legal system today. Just as we saw recently in 12 Angry Men, leaving the verdict up to the prosecution or defendant “can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction” (p. 6). Thus the fate of the deliberative process is removed from the parties most closely involved and reserved for a panel. However, just as Lippmann also aptly states, all members of the deliberative process are at the mercy of “the pictures in our heads.” I believe we also got a representative glimpse of that reality in the film’s deliberation room.
Finally, it is John Dewey’s (1939) interpretation that ultimately holds all of these perspectives together in our representative form of government—an active and informed base. It is not enough to be engaged only when called for deliberation, however. And just as Lumet’s (1957) jury didn’t discuss in a vacuum—bringing all of their experiences to bear on the discussion—our democracy must be a personal way of life in order to more effectively engage in public debate. In this way, each of the historical perspectives work to form, what I believe to be, a well-rounded and most perfect forum for deliberation.
I agree that we have an excellent court system, yet every once in a while, it is important to check under the hood to make all parts are working properly. For example, how is that an unarmed black teenager is shot to death by a volunteer safety patrol, and the latter receives no chastiment for his criminal activity? Or an unarmed man chocked to death by people supposed to protect citizens and uphold the law who are not so much as reprimanded for their actions? One can question how genuine the testimonies of so-called expert witnesses are or the authenticity of evidence presented in any given case. Injustices can occur even in the most perfect of justice systems.
You bring up some good points Ysmeli. I think some of the flaws in our systems are represented with these few cases. In some controversial instances, a state might appoint a special or independent prosecutor who presents a case to the Grand Jury. This “check and balance” is critically important, I believe, when we’re talking about law enforcement and investigations of excessive force or what have you.
Although you didn’t specifically cite the Ferguson indictment, I thought it was somewhat fitting for the discussion.
Some interesting reading from Columbia Law School:
“In many jurisdictions, a grand jury often is convened to review every police-involved homicide. A prosecutor who, while accountable to an electorate, must also rely on the police department to bring him cases, will frequently find it very useful to attribute a decision not to bring criminal charges to the grand jury. This means that police shootings will sometimes be presented to a grand jury in a situation where, had a civilian been involved, the prosecutor would have made no presentation.”
Jeffrey Fagan, Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law
Bernard E. Harcourt, Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law and Director, Columbia Center for Contemporary Critical Thought
Columbia Law School
New York, NY
Revised December 5, 2014, 12:00 PM
http://www.law.columbia.edu/media_inquiries/news_events/2014/november2014/Facts-on-Ferguson-Grand-Jury
I agree that the conjunction of all of these perspectives is well represented in our own government. Our court system is an excellent example of that. We have experts with educational AND practical experience that combine to form a more well-rounded picture, as well as a diverse group of jurors who use their knowledge and experience to form judgements as well.
We have learned through recent events around the country and by watching 12 Angry men, that witness and juries are not always reliable. I wonder if anything can be done to limit this. We have checks and balances, but do they prevent corruption and reveal the truth, or do they just create a lot of red tape?
Dewey does hold these perspectives together in the form of government. However, the principle has shown to be not fully reliable. Consider voter turnout in our country that I would argue still functions as a democracy. The base of active and informed citizens in this country is arguably a minority, yet this doesn’t stop the democratic process of electing our leaders. For when an active and informed constituency isn’t “active” enough, the procedure of checks and balances saves an apathetic society from being taken advantage of.
Ryan, your integration of 12 Angry Men into this week’s post fits perfectly with Dewey’s emphasis on the importance of democracy being exhibited in daily life. If the jurors didn’t feel they could deliberate in a space in which they had true freedom of expression (especially juror#8), the movie would have turned out quite differently. Similarly, and to Dewey’s point, if we don’t feel ourselves being able to live the ideals of the democratic construct of our government, then what’s the point of calling our government democratic?
In class this week we read four different historical perspectives on government. As somewhere between a bit of a skeptic and an idealist myself, I believe Dewey’s informed public is the most important guarantee of effective deliberation.
In order for Aristotle’s wise leader to properly conduct deliberation, they must be practically omniscient – or very well staffed by wise individuals. The wise leader must have an infallible knowledge about everything in the community. The qualities listed by Aristotle as important for a wise leader to possess are all ideals. The idea of centralizing knowledge within a philosopher king doesn’t seem too practical for facilitating effective deliberation. All decisions would, by default, be made by one individual – no other perspectives would be seen.
Madison writes about how Aristotle’s wise leader will not always be the head of state. He argues instead that a system of checks and balances provides for the slow creation of a decision, and completely removes the individual from the decision making process. Madison does not trust that the public can deliberate effectively. Madison dislikes factions, and suggests a system that will oppress the minority and give power to the majority. If this were the case in 12 Angry Men, Juror #8’s opinion would not have mattered and the defendant would have been ruled guilty immediately after the first vote.
Lippmann’s expert knowledge is similar to Aristotle’s wise leader. While I agree that individuals base their actions off of their experiences and not always fact, the idea that experts who only speak in fact seems far fetched. In court and in legislative hearings, expert witnesses are brought in to speak on facts. Yet there is always a personal bias – witnesses in court can be recruited by one side to emphasize the point of that side.
Dewey’s educated public is the most important guarantee of effective deliberation. Access to education regarding public discourse is crucial to making good decisions. While everyone has different experiences, as described by Lippmann, providing them with information and allowing them to apply these experiences might be more effective. In addition to educated, the public must also be engaged. Educated and engaged voters are the most effective way of deciding what is best for a society.
While Lippmann’s expert knowledge might be similar to Aristotle’s idea of a wise leader, I think expert knowledge is more important than a wise leader. Though a wise leader is obviously important, through Madison’s system of check’s and balances, a wise leader is limited and must confer with other people holding different opinions. Expert knowledge allows for sharing ideas and paves the way for a more informed public. No system is without its flaws, but if we cannot rely on expert opinion, then on what can we rely?
My concern with expert knowledge is that especially in the modern world, the public is critical of nearly everything, including experts. Additionally, I find the idea that anyone would label themself an expert overbearing. People who spend their entire lives as scholars wouldn’t consider themselves experts in that they are always learning new ideas and improvements or different interpretations to older ones.
Relying on experts simply means relying on people more knowledgable than the average person in a certain field of study, which certainly does have its advantages. Our court system allows for the admission of “expert testimony” when trying to determine the guilt or innocence of people alledged to have had committed crimes. However, in reality experts can be called for both sides of any court case and it will ultimately be up to the jurors to decide the fate of the case.
You bring up an interesting point, Megan. The public needs access in order to be well informed. The public cannot be educated and engaged if they feel at a distance from deliberation. Do we, as independent citizens not in the trenches of government or monumental deliberations, have the ability to be informed? We can read the news, we can listen to podcasts, we can read Congressional transcripts until we are blue in the face, but do we actually have a clear enough picture to consider ourselves educated enough to even engage in deliberation? Is it almost irresponsible to engage in deliberation if we are not informed?
Megan, you made a great observation about the flawed thinking in Madison’s worldview and his suspicion about public being effective at deliberating. Your correlation to Juror #8 in 12 Angry men is quiet accurate and it does negate Madison’s suspicions that regular people can in fact reach at a reasonable and just conclusion.
Megan, initially when I read Dewey’s view of an educated public I thought this is a great system. People will have more want to be engaged in their government. People will be provided an education to have the means of engaging. People can vote on each issue and make decisions upon what is right for each other. But once I started thinking more into it, people don’t always know right from wrong. Sometimes, in fact most times, people will think of ideal situations, look at things only from the surface and not seem to grasp concepts that are not interesting to them or do not directly effect them. We cannot trust a public to make great decisions, even if it is for the general greater good. To me if we lived in an ideal world, this would be a great system to follow but unfortunately it doesn’t seem plausible .
Anna, I agree that Dewey’s concept of an educated and engaged public is highly idealistic and rarely reflects the reality around us. We observe countless programs aiming to increase the engagement of young people and other segments of society in public policy, but yet in the U.S. and other leading democracies, many (if not most) citizens choose not even to vote or to actively debate public issues. Whereas we can assess the effectiveness and productivity of governments by looking at the laws the pass and their impact on social problems, we can hardly hope to measure the contributions of the public-at-large, and even increasing civic engagement does not necessarily correspond to an enhancement in the overall educational level of the public. But yet I want to believe that the “Common People” (to borrow from Dewey) can indeed influence government processes if there is a more concrete and constructive dialogue established between government officials and ordinary citizens.
Annette I must disagree. A well built system is very important, but will never be able to function justly and effectively without an informed public. I would argue that your national security example illustrates this point. No, it would not have been prudent to discuss the specifics of the final operation to kill bin Laden before it happened, however public opinion was already in on whether he should be killed or not. We had been discussing it for a decade. Conversely look at the hasty run up to the Iraq War. The public was intentionally misled and kept in the dark and therefore unable to make a fully informed opinion, and the result was one of the most damaging foreign policy decisions in the last 50 years. The system of internal checks and balances in our government is very effective and works beautifully when kept in tune by an external force, and that force MUST be an informed public.
Annette, I also thought about whether there are situations in which the public input was not necessary, and you brought up examples that show that expert opinion should only be considered. I guess that ideally decisionmakers would want to have both an informed public and expert opinion, but for some critical situations this cannot happen.
Annette,
I definitely agree with your post. The real truth is most “American People” are not ready for the truth. If every time the president had to make a move on the public safety; he held a deliberation and waited for all government officials to weigh in nothing would get done. There are some things that need to be kept away for the public view, to protect them from becoming outrage.
Having too many folks in the decision-making may cause destructions in developing a solution. Sometimes a leader must take action into his own hands, for example the president is the commander in chief of the United States, we the “People” voted him into office, so must respect and trust his action will be in best interest of the people and the nation.
In my opinion, a combination of informed, educated citizens and a well built system is the best guarantee for informed deliberation.
As some of you have said, expert testimony can be biased to fit the needs of a corporation, policy or political party. At the same time, many people rely on the media as “experts” on different topics – political, scientific, etc. Can we really say that the media is objective when presenting a story. I would argue that it is very hard to find objective information by watching mainstream media. Depending on ones beliefs and ideology, some of us like to read the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and some of us like the New York Times. Some people spend their entire lives watching nothing but FOX news and believing that their “experts” are presenting a true account of facts and information. For this reason, I believe that being an educated citizen is crucial in the deliberation process – not just to be able to analyze the facts and information in an objective manner, but also to be able to develop valid arguments that take into consideration many points of view.
I have to agree, in that finding an objective source for information on any topic where various points of view exist is challenging. Finding an educated citizen in a society where the public is interested in really only learning more about their own point of view after coming home after a day at work. Growing up in a house where my parents would turn to fox news and the adolescents would leave the room to watch almost any other news outlet was a unique experience. Who is to say who is educated or not? Who is to say that the standards for education are working properly?
From where I sit, relying on an “educated” public is more idealistic than realistic. Counting on an organized system that includes checks and balances means that no matter who believes who is educated or not, everyone participates in discussions and are safeguarded from any one group becoming too influential or powerful within deliberations.
This is a great point Craig. In many ways, it’s something of our human nature to interact with our surroundings in debate. Whether something we see in the news (the perspective of which is bound to be biased depending of what channel you’re watching), or some readings from “experts” on the best methods for deliberation…to take the line from Lippmann, we then rely on the pictures in our own heads. The system itself seems to be the best angle on constructive debate–bringing in all other perspectives. I’d like to think that it’s well enough that we each have our opinions about the topic for this particular post, however it’s the educational system in place that gives it room to consider each of the relevant perspectives in a manner which brings us all to the table.
I agree with your point Maria – it’s very difficult in today’s society to figure out which “experts” are actually presenting the truth. I believe Lippmann’s expert knowledge is extremely subjective when put into practice. It would be great to have an infallible source of knowledge, but everything put forth – especially by news media – has a bias. I agree that the engaged and educated citizen is the best chance for deliberation – particularly when bombarded with the testimony of many so-called “experts.” If the public is educated about the bias that exists in the media, they can sift through the fancy rhetoric to find the facts.
Piggybacking on Maria’s, Craig’s and Megan’s posts about the ever-presence of bias in the news: It’s interesting to note that Lippmann adamantly argues for “an independent, expert organization for making the unseen facts intelligible to those who have to make the decisions,” yet he doesn’t elaborate on what that could tangibly look like.
Megan, your point about educating the public about the ever-presence of bias is excellent. Before debunking biases, we should first make sure everyone knows they exist.
Maria, I agree that a combination of a well built system and an informed citizenry is probably the best option for any deliberative process and I liked that you mentioned the media and different modes that people may take to arrive at what they believe to be the truth but it is here that the problem lies.
There are many conflicting points when we decide to deliberate based on public opinion but a well build system based on rules will eventually find a way to arrive at a conclusion that will be most suitable and closest to the right and just outcome.
Annette, I agree that a well built system is one of the most important elements to ensure an effective deliberative system, however, can we really say that this system, as it stands now, has prevented factions from becoming too powerful? (one of Madison’s main concern to begin with). My opinion is no. The power of factions is greater than ever today. Modern day factions or special interest groups exercise great control over our system, in the form of lobbying for their own interests – even when those go against the well being of society in general – , and spending large amounts of money into political campaigns to elect those representatives that will take care of their needs.
For this reason, I believe that having educated citizens, is even more important at this point. If all citizens made truly informed decisions about who to vote for in local and state elections, we would not have to worry about the money that special interest groups are spending on elections, simply because citizens would exercise their right in an educated manner and vote those politicians who are not protecting the interests of the citizens, out of office.
Checks and balances is the most important guarantee for effective deliberation for several reasons, nut primarily because a well built political system that includes checks and balances ensures participation in deliberations by a variety of people who hold various different view points.
One of the key components to an effective deliberation is to include many people and Madison had believed that the more people included in a democracy would prevent the influence of corruption or in other words, from one faction or their ideas from to heavily influencing the decisions made by the federal government, thus protecting the publics numerous beliefs and their right to debate them.
Checks and balances is an effective tool for deliberation because while the government cannot control the formation of groups and their ideas, the government can limit the impact that they may have through their influence. For example, checks and balances protect minority groups from prosecution by larger ones. Minority groups remain intact since they receive protection from the government incase a majority group decides to threaten them or their interests. In addition, checks and balances make it challenging for larger groups to remain together throughout their progression, and thus larger groups eventually tend to divide themselves up into smaller groups with more in common about their original unified idea.
While I agree that checks and balances can protect the minority opinion from prosecution, I do believe that checks and balances favors the majority opinion. Minority voices can be heard in the Madisonian model, but they are not necessarily given strength or validity. Madison is of the opinion that factions are evil, and should be eliminated – though he knows that is not possible.
Minority groups may not have strength or validity, but they are protected regardless of their point of view. As seen in American politics minority groups do not always remain minorities and public opinion swings back and forth. Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, Progressives, Democrats, and Republicans have all felt popular swing in and out of their favor. Madison only believes that factions are evil in that their actions can result in demolishing the democracy the founding fathers worked so hard to design and implement in the colonies. Factions are a necessary evil, people will always band togther to form groups and stand united in their beliefs, however in controling the impact factions have on the country you limit their effect on the public.
“Liberty is to Faction What Air is to Fire” means that factions will grow in an environment where liberty exists. I believe that Federal government and its system of checks and balances is the candle and wick that holds the fire in place and allows it to continually burn at just the right brightness.
After reading through these great thinkers’ thoughts on deliberation and political process (interestingly, Aristotle finds these two to be separate), I cannot wrap my head around what the the goal for deliberation is. In all cases, I agree that checks and balances is better. If the goal for deliberation is happiness, the system ensures that the people are not being taken advantage of. If it is in part the means itself, which I think is a valid consideration, then the democratic process associated with checks and balances allows for the participation and reflection of all factions.
Craig, I have a different opinion. In my view, the system of checks and balances is important but it is not the most important guarantee for effective deliberation.
You mention that one of the components to effective deliberation is to include many people – and Madison believed that more people involved would prevent one faction from taking too much power. However, if our system gives people the tools, opportunities, and possibilities to participate, but they lack the necessary knowledge and education to make informed and proper decisions, the system itself will benefit only a few – more than likely, those who form or belong to powerful factions.
In my view, John Dewey’s theory about having informed and educated citizens is the single most important component to effective deliberation.
Posted on Behalf of Ysmeli Rose
Aristotle, Madison, Lippman and Dewey Walk Into A Bar…
February 8, 2015UncategorizedYSMELI ROSA Edit
All four thinkers are correct, however, neither of their ideas can thrive independently without the other three. The need for a wise leader is a convincing argument, yet Aristotle fails to express how this leader’s wisdom is evaluated. Do we trust a leader for his or her academic knowledge, logic and strategy, or are qualities like empathy, patience and mercy more or less important? How is wisdom interpreted? How do we monitor this leader? How do we evaluate his failures or successes? Who is responsible for cultivating the next leader? More importantly: who will guard the guard?
A strong, well-built system is perhaps the most convincing argument. Organized systems work best if they are, in fact, organized. Yet without a prominent leader to over-see all, how can we expect the system to sustain itself? Yes, having the many facets monitor each other is effective, yet who is to assume responsibility during times of turmoil and make the difficult decisions that affect all? Who is to be held accountable for failure? Who will guard the guards?
The idea of knowledge as the foundation of a given system is a provocative thought. And yet, how is this knowledge executed? To segregate decision-making into separate units hinders the ability to communicate and deliberate as a unified system. Just like no man is an island, all issues are interconnected and have ramifications. Who will unite the experts and make definite decisions? Who will out-smart the smart people?
Finally, experience is a valid argument for any position. Practice makes perfect, right? Yet if one is practicing imperfectly, perfection will never be reached. The world changes every day in everything from science to literature and one must keep up-to-date with advances in order to remain relevant. Also, if power is given exclusively to the masses, who, then, is to be held accountable?
No system is perfect, but to piggy back on Robert Dahl’s comments on democracy, a system is perfect by degrees. An efficient system will, however, apply the best practices to meet its specific needs and ensure the sustainability of the system and, most importantly, the well-being of all citizens.
The “wise leader” simplification is good, up to a point. Your argument about defining wise leaders is very fair. I think the process of checks and balances allows us to negate a lot of the trouble associated with defining the term. Multiple perspectives/leaders come into the fold via the three branches of federal government. Under those three branches (and at times, separate) there are also state governments, further taking the concentration of power and spreading it among multiple parties.
After those internal controls, the necessity of an informed public comes in, allowing the general masses to analyze the actions and plans of the government. Experts can help clarify all the information that we encounter, especially with the amount we’re expected to process today. However, I have trouble deciding on who the experts are, because “expert” can also be defined in biased ways. Oftentimes I’ll just look at various sources and try to explore arguments from different points of view so that I can see for myself what the alternating opinions really mean. From my perspective, paying attention to the issues and debates on a daily basis helps me enter the discussion prepared to compare differing positions.
Well said Ysmeli. I think we could all agree that our government isn’t perfect, our justice system isn’t perfect, but a well rounded set of perspectives ensures that our aim is as true as the time permits. When we think of the founding principles of the Constitution for instance, it is a balancing act of individual civil liberties and a system that protects the public good. No system is without its flaws, but its limitations depend on our perspective.
I also agree with Megan in that an informed public is the most important guarantee of effective deliberation.
The definition of deliberation according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is, “a discussion and consideration by a group of persons of the reasons for and against a measure.”. As discussed in our last class, the presence of a leader to set discussion rules and speaking rules is needed during group deliberations. However, Aristotle’s definition of the role a wise leader should play during deliberation, “to make it know through persuasion what the correct path is”, directly conflicts with the definition of what deliberation is.
The ultimate goal of deliberation is to have the group present make a final decision together. A leader that is there to persuade the group to to go on a “correct path” causes bias in the group’s decision and also negates the need for a deliberative process. After all, if the correct answer is already known, then what is the point of getting a group of people together to have a discussion. In a deliberation, the public then is the most important group in this process and in order for deliberation to happen effectively it is then essential that the public is well educated and knows all facets of the topic that is to be debated.
When deliberation happens on a larger scale; such as in government deliberations over a policy then I think that sound procedures play a big part in making sure that this process happens efficiently. In a small group discussion it is possible to ensure that every person ‘s voice is heard. However, when the country has debate on a policy issue, such as the validity of same sex marriage, this is definitely not the case. Hence, the US’s representative government has procedures, though imperfect as they may be, set up that can allow deliberation, amongst the country’s (multi-million) citizen population, occur.
In this large scale deliberation, Madison’s idea of checks and balances becomes necessary since individual voices can no longer be heard.
I agree with Adam on the importance of exerts in the deliberation process. Indeed many experts are biased in the information they present. However, we cannot dispute the persuasive power an expert can lend to an argument. I think the use of experts by minority groups or minority opinions can be extremely persuasive and can help that minority opinion eventually become a majority opinion. Experts can serve as a check for minority groups against the majority opinion.
For example, with the policy of marijuana legalization, legalization was not a majority opinion held by the US in the early 1900s. However, I think that recent released research about the medically therapeutic qualities of this drug has helped marijuana legalization become less of a minority opinion. The fact that the New York Times (a very well renowned publication) recently published a news item calling the US Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy’s declaration, that “we have some preliminary data showing that for certain medical conditions and symptoms, that marijuana can be helpful , a sane view of this drug also shows that marijuana legalization has become less of a minority opinion.
Finally, proof that this policy is a majority opinion of this country will come when a majority of the states in this country or the federal government enacts this policy.
You make a great point Dianna, that it’s important that a wise leader not take a biased role in the deliberative process. This is the precise reason we have judges in our courtrooms–not to take a stand in the deliberation room, but to provide the ground rules and set the system in motion.
What is effective deliberation, and is needed?
All four perspectives may lead to an outcome that brings one or more of happiness, enlightenment, perspective, knowledge, empathy, fulfilment, and enthusiasm.
Gastil believes that deliberation should seek to enlighten its participants, and that it should welcome dissenting opinions. All four concepts presented in our readings allow for this as a possibility. However, Madison’s system of checks and balances is the only that virtually guarantees it.
Too many deliberative rules may set unintended inhibitions on participants; the practice can never work like a well oiled machine. However, too messy a process may also lead to some not being heard, and the unrestricted speech of more powerful over less powerful. Put very simply, Madison’s plan based on tried principle sets standards that necessitate speech from multiple, and likely dissenting factions, while still preserving a process that permits participants to speak freely.
Checks and balances will not work for every deliberative process, but a well-balanced system that dictates rules for and encourages deliberation also allows any single body to incorporate the essence of all of this week’s thinker’s perspectives. Consider the make-up of a nonprofit organization: A board of directors, administration, and members. Aristotle and Lippmann’s wise leader and holders of expert knowledge can be found within the organization as administrators. Dewey’s informed citizens are represented by the organization’s board of directors and in part its members too. The wise leader and the experts are held in high regard and benefit the organization as Aristotle and Lippmann would expect, but the informed citizens always reserve the right to question and replace them with leaders they see better fit.
The greatest flaw in all three other thinkers’ logic is its lack of sustainability. A wise leader or set of experts may rule with the community’s best interest at heart, but even the wise and the experts cannot possibly balance ethical and favorable decision making without the expressed interest of constituents.
To take your nonprofit example one step further Dov, the informed citizenry–the board of directors–are charged with the overall mission of the organization. They are ultimately responsible for the successes and failures, by law. It’s an interesting mix of each perspective filtering into our everyday lives.
The 4 historical perspectives on deliberation we read and heard about for this assignment varied greatly and provided a good platform for internal deliberation on what factors create sound public deliberation.
In my opinion, Aristotle’s conditions for effective deliberation relied too much on a sole leader. While I believe that political leaders need to be well-informed, I don’t agree with the model of incorporating minimal input from others to effectively deliberate. Walter Lippmann, in his writings, goes on to directly contradict Aristotle’s ‘wise leader’ theory of sound deliberation by stating, “Man is no Aristotelian god contemplating all existence at one glance.”
James Madison correctly concludes that a political system, with built-in checks and balances, is necessary to set a productive deliberative stage, and also unlike Aristotle, thought it unproductive for an “enlightened statesman” to be responsible for the greater good. He believed that the multiplicities of man – different opinions about government, religion, etc. – has “divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.” A system to maintain order is necessary.
Walter Lippmann, like James Madison, understood that the public is riddled with differences. He not only thought men were different in opinion, but also in how they saw the world. I really appreciate how Lippmann likens the four men at the pea green lamppost who happen to all be there for different reasons to the “governments, the parties, the corporations, the societies, the social sects, the trades and professions, universities, sects, and nationalities of the world” as a way of pointing out the countless motivations found in mankind . One of the main difficulties in public opinion, Lippmann argued, was that “the pictures inside people’s heads do not automatically correspond with the world outside.” For this reason, he relied on the manufacturing of consent by an expert, unbiased, and independent organization for deliberation to be sound. I think Lippmann makes an excellent point that should be incorporated into Madison’s system, not thought of as a standalone replacement for it. It’s necessary for the public to have access to unbiased information to make informed decisions.
To finish the readings with John Dewey’s “Creative Democracy – The Task Before Us” felt appropriate because his ideas of friendly cooperation and pragmatism were seeded in a more micro level. I agree with his conclusion that democracy lives through the personal lives it affects, and how it’s carried out in daily life. In an ideal world, democracy and deliberation should inherently offer the “possibility of conducting disputes, controversies and conflicts as cooperative undertakings in which both parties learn by giving the other a chance to express itself…”
I think it’s interesting that you brought Nixon into the fold. I did the same, but re: the Nixon Kennedy debates (post not up yet…). The representative system did well to eventually get Nixon to resign, but I wonder how much of that was due to the follies of all of the people around him. If the situation did not come to light when the Watergate burglars were caught, nothing would have happened and our system would move on without interfering. I’m just slightly skeptical in how much our system can fit any of these molds perfectly. Maybe we have to take a bit from every one of these thinkers, and adjust as we move along?
I was reading Aristotle, and something struck me: how many of these alternate ways (Madison’s, Lippmann’s, Dewey’s) of thinking would we even have if he didn’t propose his arguments on deliberation? All of these thinkers were in some part influenced by his work. For the United States, Madison and the framers of the Constitution created a system that incorporated those ideals, but provided at least some protection against naivety.
Aristotle’s argument essentially outlines the priorities and conditions of good deliberation through descriptions of what a wise leader respects. The strongest point concerns the ability to deliberate within different structures of constitutions, defined by Aristotle as the democratic (freedom), oligarchic (wealth), aristocratic (education and customs), and monarchic (security) traditions. Adhering to the limitations of each system when deliberating proves effective even in the modern tradition. Aristotle’s attention to physical presentation immediately reminded me of the Nixon/Kennedy debates: Kennedy as cool, calm, Nixon sweaty, insecure. Even the images formed in our minds about the Kennedy family’s almost-noble status in the U.S.; shaped by many of the descriptions Aristotle provides regarding close social ties and surrounding oneself with a large circle of supporters.
Aristotle’s points are so absorbed into our tradition of deliberation, that they appear as common sense. Only when we realize that he established these very same principles, do we recognize the profound impact he has had upon the way we carry ourselves in modern deliberation.
James Madison’s views in The Federalist No. 10 prove just how much society has moved forward in terms of applying government theory. He describes a traditional democracy, and explains that it is not as effective as a republican system (where representatives make decisions as opposed to the whole populace voting) precisely because it gives into the desires of the majority. A republican system allows for debate and deliberation between representatives of the varied interests of society. While Madison is smart in declaring that he does not believe leaders will necessarily be flawless, he does not anticipate many of the changes that plague American society years after the Constitution. Namely, as Professor Hoffman mentioned, the Civil War and America’s two-party tendency.
Lippmann. Deception. Wanting to destroy something, and thus believing. Certain politicians believed that Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations sapped influence from the United States, and thus they believed in something that had no proof. The individual man cannot see everything. He only sees what he wants to see, because so far, that has kept him alive. “What view of the facts, and why that one?” Lippmann asks a question that pertains to all of us, because we all have preferences for which questions we want to tackle, and how we want them answered. Lippmann’s contribution cannot be underrated – he tries to offer a way to bring a form of unbiased critical analysis to public affairs. Since (according to him), we all function through the lens of our internal experience, the necessary platform should provide some way to clarify external communication between people.
Lippmann posits that man is not perfect. He in fact mentions Aristotle’s “pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain” to question what that pursuit is, and how it forms in one’s mind, arguing that we are not wise enough to understand and properly adjust to create rational responses.
Dewey stresses the dangers of complacency. Democracy in America is not a machine. It is not something set up by the likes of Madison, to work automatically. The key to ensuring that it lives on is communication on an equal level. If all parties respect one another and discard their selfishness and biases, then democracy succeeds. In Dewey’s view (contrary to Aristotle’s view), we all have the capacity to become leaders, in that we all shape the future of democracy.
Aristotle created the image of the leader. Madison multiplied him within a much larger culture. Lippmann framed his tendencies of inner thinking. Dewey encouraged him to spread his message if he is a genuine believer. All of the points are essential, especially if deliberation should lead to even newer and fresher ways of judging our society’s democratic effectiveness.
Aristotle no doubt has had a profound effect on the path that led to modern functioning democracies all over the world and so the world owes him a debt of gratitude but in the 21st century, his model of a ‘Wise leader’ at the helm of all decision making processes is no longer applicable.
For those nations fortunate enough to have great leadership have at that moment in time the greatest gift a country could have but what a nation does in the absence of great leadership seals its destiny. The same principal applies to Lippmann’s belief that elections and electorate should be secondary to individuals who are ‘Experts’ in their respective fields and should enjoy the freedom to govern, deliberate and decide as they see fit since they clearly hold a privileged position in that society. The same concept applies in this setup, experts are great but what does a nation do in the absence of ‘Great experts’.
It is in these situations that James Madison’s ‘Procedural Democracy’ leads the nation on a path of prosperity, justice and progress. Madison’s Representative Democracy governed by sets of rules, regulations and procedures I believe, offer the best course of action for a country that in its life-time is blessed with great leaders/experts and also serves the nation well in the absence of such individuals in which case the wheels of progress are not obstructed due to the presence of bad leaders neither is growth stunted due to ill advise by so called ‘experts’.
John Dewey’s concept of ‘Creative Democracy’ also is a noteworthy idea. Dewey held the belief that a well-informed citizenry is the key to a prosperous society and better than all other models. This perhaps maybe true but seldom has such wisdom been achieved in the history of our species.
If this idea is allowed to be practiced as Dewey intended, ideally it is a fantastic option. A well informed public making decisions that are in the best interest of the masses- ruling, governing and running based on consensus and common sense.
However once again we fall onto our default questions which is “what if?” What if this populace down the road loses its keen sense of judgment, its desire to remain well informed as a nation? The result is again the same as Aristotle’s and Lippmann’s results. A breakdown in order that eventually leads to chaos.
I therefore believe that James Madison’s philosophy is most appropriate in today’s age but like everything else, stands to gain from further refinement, coupled with improvements that can perhaps even come from ideas taken from Aristotle, Lippmann, Dewey and others.
I agree with you Ahmed, I believe James Madison’s philosophy is the most appropriate in today’s age. He believed that the primary goal of government is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. However, Aristotle has created the image of the leader. For Aristotle there were three: ethos, pathos, and logos. The ethos is his moral character and the source of his ability to convince others; the pathos is his ability to touch feelings and move people emotionally; the logos is his ability to give solid reasons for particular actions and, therefore, to move people intellectually. By this definition, Socrates, Jesus Christ, Gandhi, Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln were great leaders.
Dewey sees government arising directly from the public. The public forms agencies for the purpose of taking charge of the overall consequences of the activities of the public. The government is the outcome of the public’s efforts to manage its interactions.
Lippmann argued for an intellectual elite that would apply scientific management to democracy, in order to tame it. His philosophy was a blend of liberalism and elitism. Dewey, on the other hand, had a lot of time for Science, did not see Science as standing outside of and above human existence – for him, scientific knowledge was human-made knowledge.
Ideally, there would be a combination of the four different methods that can guarantee effective deliberation. The argument can be made that each is essential for not only effective deliberation but also effective democracy. Dewey states that democracy, “Put into effect it signifies that powerful present enemies of democracy can be successfully met only by the creation of personal attitudes in individual human beings.” It is the individual that grants power to the government and allows it to represent his/her own interests. Without the power of the informed individual, the government is disjointed and the system as a whole fails. An informed public identifies needs and elects proper representation. Identifying necessities, though subjective, is best done through public deliberation than by a few people claiming to be experts.
Aristotle’s perspective, though platonic in its logical conclusions, does not embody the practicality necessary for effective deliberation. Though wise leaders are important, it is only a small piece of what would create effective deliberation, and, without Dewey’s theory of an informed public being the most reliable way to achieve effective deliberation, would create a power vacuum in the public.
Adam – I completely agree with you. I do agree all four models are significant in assisting society in effective deliberation but that the wise leaders are only a cog in the much-bigger wheel.
Your prospective is very interesting.
well think about it- what is one of the primary purposes of government? To keep a society from falling into anarchy and lawlessness. We need laws to keep people in line and doing what they are supposed to and not killing people or stealing things. If people were angels, would all of that be necessary?
The passage that refers to the angels: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” —James Madison, The Federalist No 51, is a rhetorical masterpiece, so memorable that it has become almost a cliché. In Madison’s argument, however, it does more than emphasize that human nature is something less than angelic. It also serves as a springboard that propels Madison directly into a consideration of “framing a government which is to be administered by men over men. However, the extension of government today in so many areas and in so many ways that affect so many people cannot be justified on moral or ethical grounds alone. Just because something is wrong, or cries out to be fixed, does not mean that government must step in and “do something.” Instead, it often is wiser to let people act like angels and step in themselves. I suspect there are more Mother Teresa’s in our world, if only government would get out of their way. Thus, we may be libertarian in our opposition to all efforts to enlarge government while at the same time we may be puritan in our discourse on behavioral attributes.
Noting the emphasis that many people in this discussion have placed on a well educated public as the cornerstone of a functioning representative government as well as the key to an efficient deliberative process, I wonder what role the internet and technology plays in this.
In some ways the internet leads us to have any information that we need at our fingertips. This allows anyone to become or at least to claim to be an expert in any subject. Does this technology then further strengthen the already very important role the public individual plays in the deliberation process in regards to the American Government?
I think the internet can be an advantage and a disadvantage to increasing public awareness. I am afraid that the amount of political content online makes it very difficult to filter through what is good and what is bad informations.
Also people tend to traditionally access information online that goes along their party lines. A democrat is more likely to look up information on the New York Times website, while a republican will probably look up Fox news. I think public information debate should be about access to quality content.
For deliberation to be most effective and to lead to decisions that favor the public good, a melding of these four philosophies would be most ideal. An informed public is an important part of deliberation, whether the forum is a school board meeting or a debate on Capitol Hill. Expert knowledge alone may not be enough to guarantee effective deliberation, because there also needs to be input from the public about how policies affect their daily lives. Likewise, wise leadership would be characterized by having specialized knowledge as well as active communication with the public about its concerns. After having watched “12 Angry Men,” it would seem that having clear procedures in place before deliberation would lead to a more civil debate and also allow different voices to be heard.
All of the items mentioned in the prompt are arguably very important to a healthy, functioning and deliberative society. A wise leader is necessary to keep the agenda focused and moving in the right directions, and sound procedures are necessary in order to provide the framework for the societies agenda to be realized and implemented. Expert knowledge is crucial if a society is going to make decisions based on facts and not succumb to its emotions and prejudices. All of these play important roles in the ideal society, but none is so important as that of an informed public. An informed public is the only way to keep all the other attributes of a society in balance, and preventing any one portion from taking too much control.
Lippmann makes the point that often within a debate, both (or all) parties feel that they are 100% correct, “…two nations […] each convinced that it is acting in self defense, or two classes at war each certain that it speaks for the common interest.” Lippmann would argue that it is the role of a class of experts to frame the debate for legislators and the public. This is true but only when they are operating in a supporting role, educating the public so the public can in turn make informed decisions. The danger comes when the experts are themselves dictating policy, ostensibly for the good of the people, but separate from and with no regard for the will of the people.
Aristotle might contend that a strong and wise leader is the most important to effective deliberation within a society. His student Alexander the Great famously said he is more afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion than an army of lions led by a sheep. Good leadership is important to the success of any enterprise, but it is important that that leader is drawing his power from the masses not inflicting his will upon them. It is crucial for the public to be well educated and participate in this relationship to be able to recognize when an executive is overreaching.
In Federalist 10 Madison argues that “faction” is one of the largest threats to democracy. He also argues that there is no way to prevent the compartmentalization of a population and therefore it is the role of the government not to prevent this, but rather to control its effects. While I can only agree with this line of reasoning, it is still not the most important element of a deliberative society. As we can see in our own political climate in 2015, factions have brought our legislative process to a screeching halt. The framework of a government designed on compromise has itself been unable to stop this from happening. It must now fall to an educated populace to intervene, and step in to reform the system, and restore it once again to a functioning democracy.
I think it is worth considering the historical dimensions of this exercise. Each author was not writing in a historical vacuum, but rather each author’s political philosophy can be said to be a product of his particular society and his unique moment in human history. In addition, the two 20th century thinkers (Lippman and Dewey) had the benefit of building on the intellectual work developed by Madison and Aristotle.
Aristotle’s emphasis on “a wise leader” makes sense, given that the life of the mind, and of pursuing a virtuous and “good” life was of prime importance in the Ancient Greek society. But I do not believe that a wise leader is a guarantor of effective deliberation – on the contrary, a leader perceived by the governed as “wise” likely inhibits healthy deliberation by the people, because they may assume that their leader’s wisdom will solve all of their society’s problems. Time and time again in history (for example, with the leaders of North Korea), we observe how the perception of “wisdom” in a leader leads to autocracy rather than to a deliberative democratic process. Even Aristotle conceded that three of the four types of constitution were not democratic – oligarchy, aristocracy, and monarchy (aka tyranny).
Madison’s description of sound procedures as the foundation of democratic society can be explained by the Enlightenment, and his principal involvement in the creation of the U.S. Constitution. Madison was observing centuries of history (including the rise and fall of the Roman Empire) and I believe that effective procedures are the most important factor in promoting open deliberation. Where “wise leaders” come in is in protecting those sound procedures from abuse and corruption.
Lippman was writing two decades before World War II—and before the rise of Stalin and Hitler. Dewey was writing in contemplation of the totalitarian societies of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. These thinkers could not even accept that sound procedures would guarantee deliberative democracy. Ultimately, I agree with others who have posted that Dewey’s ideas about the direct engagement of the public and a belief in their own capability for self-government is the essential driving force towards effective deliberation.
Olena, I think you make a great point about needing to consider the time frame each of these great thinkers was living in. You are right that each one of these perspectives on deliberation is a product of the time frame. In present day we can analyze each thought and use each theory to create our own views on deliberation. Each one of those men provided a theory that seemed to work for time time periods they lived in. We can now look back and see how a wise leader could essentially cause corruption, but in Aristotle’s time there was a need for someone to come to power and take control of the people. He wasn’t exactly part of a civilized society so to speak. Madison was leading the people of the US from the rule of a “wise leader” and had to conform his view of deliberation to a government where people would not overthrow him but would support him. Therefore the factions and checks and balances worked in order to keep the public from over throwing the government.
Effective deliberation cannot exist solely based on one aspect of wise leadership, sound procedures, expert knowledge or an informed public. Ideally an effective deliberation will have a little bit of each quality.
A wise leader cannot alone have enough power to guarantee an effective deliberation. He needs to be appealing the case to a public who are knowledgeable and who have expertise to be able to participate and judge the deliberation fairly. People are past the dictator days, which ended with a world war. The wise leader cannot be appealing to mob of angry people, because like Madison pointed out in Federalist 10, the larger faction would gang up on him. Sound procedures are needed to keep order during the deliberation and expert knowledge is needed to bring facts and expertise to prove the point being made.
Taking a look back at “12 Angry Men”, all four qualities were present during that deliberation. Juror number one was keeping the procedures in check, while Juror number eight was acting as the wise leader trying to keep everyone on point. The Juror from the slums provided expert knowledge on the knife and the Jurors who kept the guilty vote alive represented the informed public who based their votes on the information that was presented to them at the trail. Without any of these components, the deliberation could have rendered a different result.
To choose one philosophy, is extremely difficult but it would have to be Madison’s model. Without people with similar views coming together, no point would be able to be achieved. People need to question each other, challenge each other and by forming factions they can keep each other in check. This goes hand in hand with the checks and balances model. People need structure and they need to be able to express all the popular opinions and find ways to work together to come to a decision.
Anna – I question, first, why you would pick one model. If you stated that, for effective deliberation, all four qualities need to be present, how is it possible to choose one? Additionally, how often do we see in Congress or in the Supreme Court where the method of checks and balances does not work because of individual agendas.
I suppose it’s the skeptic in me but I do agree that without all four models, no society can effectively deliberate.
Isabella, you mentioned…. “an independent, expert organization for making the unseen facts intelligible to those who have to make the decisions,” yet he does’nt elaborate on what that could tangibly look like.”
I perceived what he was talking about as something like having the consensus of Environmental Scientists tell us that there is global warming, and that is the “expert” opinion that will make the unseen facts intelligible to the decision makers. I think of how this is not fully used in politics as so many still believe worldwide that there is no man made climate change.
I would think all four would be an optimal situation for effective deliberation. A wise leader as president, sound procedures of our government working like a well oiled machine, open minded public officials who listen and make their decisions based on expert advice, and an informed public that is active in government….but that seems like a fantasy longshot to hope would happen all at once.
If I had to pick one, I would have to edge towards Dewey and an informed public. I think Lippman and Madison were realists. Madison understood that people will always have differing opinions and form factions as a result, and Lippman really understood the psychology of mankind, and that we will always be susceptible to our own stereotypes based on our individual past, and that our thinking will be clouded because of it.
I am a great big fan of the United States system. I truly believe James Madison creation of Federalist paper 10 was not only to protect the poor, rich, tall or even small folks but to protect everyone from each other. A good deliberation needs checks and balance to actually work. Having a great leader is important, but there can be a huge problem if you only rely on one opinion to to decide the faith of a group of people. The Founding father probably all didn’t agree with a checks and balance system but could you imagine if we didn’t have one in place how this nation would be??? Right now we have check and balance system and still there problem with one group over topping the other.
While sound procedures and the participation of wise leaders and experts is important to effective deliberation, in the long run, they can just as easily fail the public if the public is not informed and ready to advocate on its own behalf. Assuming that the context is one where we are trying to make an effective decision that serves the “public good,” it is important to remember that there is no monolithic “public.”
In Federalist #10, Madison argues that the division of society into factions is inevitable under capitalism and that ultimately our class position influences how we see the world. He mentions that the most common source of faction (ie group with a distinct interest in society) is the “various and unequal distribution of property,” such as the difference between those who hold and those who are without property. He further goes on, “the diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of society into different interests and parties.”
He then develops a case for a governmental structure that can limit the power of factions and protect various interests. Ironically (or unironically) at that time, you had to be a propertied white man to be in government. How was this structure supposed to protect the interest of people without property if there was no representation from these classes? Madison, wealthy slave-owner himself, advocated for a government structure made up entirely of the propertied class and he described the demands of the working class (ie “a rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts and an equal division of property”) as “improper” and “wicked” projects. Remember that the Constitution was a fairly conservative construction of government, designed a decade after the revolutionary spirit of the Virginia Declaration of Rights and in a period in which small farmers were facing large debts, forclosures and demanding their rights. This new federal government structure served the interest of creditors and the wealthy American elite. My point is that procedures are not neutral, and you need an informed public of multiple interests to even develop ‘sound procedures’ that will work for society. Later in life, Madison went on to form the first American political party and his views on how to protect those without property and adequately express their interests changed significantly.
Experts are similarly not neutral. They come from different class, race, and gender backgrounds and operate within institutional structures. Experts can help set up accountable structures, ethical standards for media and provide information that will help deliberation. I agree with Lippman’s contention that experts are required “for making the unseen facts intelligible to those who have to make the decisions,” and that elected government alone, or the news media industry alone, cannot provide that kind of knowledge to responsibly both reflect and inform public opinion. But, I do think that it is problematic to expect an unelected body of experts to make important content decisions themselves on behalf of an uninformed public.
Realistically, it takes a strong combination of each of these factors – sound procedures, wise leaders, experts and an informed public – to make effective decisions that will benefit the public for the long haul. But it is an informed public that will take action to make sure each of the rest remain accountable to their needs.
I have read many posts contending that Madison’s well built political system is the most important aspect of a deliberative society. But can anyone tell me what that system would look like? Is it the one that we enjoy today? It seem that in many of ways faction has overtaken our system much as Madison feared. Is it any coincidence that this coincides with a public that is less and less aware and politically active?
Ben, I agree with what you said in class that a less aware and informed public causes the collapse. What I wanted to add is that when the public is less and less aware and informed the power shifts. An example would be that the strong majority of voters in the US are older, and even senior citizens, and thus enjoy more political power than the less informed 35 and under demographic. I had a professor once that said you should see what happens when you try to even mention cutting medicare or medicaid, the senior citizens rally and become extremely active in politics. It actually happened once were an official I can’t recall mentioned reforming medicare and he was practically assaulted when in his car by a mob of senior citizens.
I think the first victory by Barack Obama shows that there is a big interest in young voters in this country however they have to be reached through local grassroots efforts.
As for the older voters and Medicare, they have a lobby in place that is very effective in reaching out to seniors and having their voices be heard.
Effective deliberations flourished only when all 4 aspects of deliberation are present. Wise leadership, sound procedures, expert knowledge and informed public are all necessary. There does not have to be lots of everything but some basic models have to exist.
Without a wise leader (todays executive branch) to coordinate and encourage deliberation there can be no effective government. Without sound procedures (Madisons Federalist 10 and 51) in the form of checks and balances the government branches could not be prevented from gaining too much power. Expert knowledge committees (in the form of congressional committees and subcommittees) that look into various issues and provide ‘expertise’ opinions and advice to our elected leaders. And an informed public that understands the Madisonian model of government enough to monitor out elected leaders in how they lobby for the demands of their constituents.
We live in the world post 2008 financial crisis in which the criticism calls for limits on big money spending in Washington, and it may seam that Madison was wrong in not predicting factions as we see them today in form of lobbyists. Washington often seems gridlocked by lack of bipartisanship and political will. Despite the negative atmosphere in our capital, it is the fact that we have all four components for effective deliberation present that keeps our democracy functioning and well.
In my opinion, for truly effective deliberation among a group, all four types of deliberation – wise leadership, sound procedures, expert knowledge, and informed public – are necessary. Wise leadership, as seen in 12 Angry Men, can help to bring new information and/or new ideas to a group which may help to sway the opinion and deliberation from one way to another. Sound procedures, as stated by Madison, in conjunction with expert knowledge, would help to alleviate any one individual from commanding all the attention in an attempt at deliberation. Finally, it is not possible to have an semblance of an effective deliberation when the individuals having the conversation are ignorant to the basic facts at hand. Therefore, having an informed public paves the way for any type of deliberation.
I do believe that, while the foundation of any effective form of deliberation should be based in an informed public, without the other three components, how is a group of people – some with varying or extremely opposite opinions – supposed to come together towards one conclusion? With the assistance of the three additional components, I believe that it would be easier for any group, in any situation, in any society, to mutually agree and deliberate in a most-effective manner.
I wonder, if Madison, Aristotle, Dewey and Lippman sat together and deliberated, if they would agree that all four methods of deliberation are equally important.