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.
68 thoughts on “Historical Perspectives on Deliberation and Democracy”
Comments are closed.
Must we choose only one? This topic is tricky because I believe that all of these elements have their own merits and demerits, and really that all are necessary for effective deliberation. However, one over-arching theme behind seemingly all of the theories is that of a need for knowledge and lack of personal bias.
Aristotle surmised that deliberation ought to be presided over by a wise leader who is knowledgeable in the areas in which he is making decisions. I agree with Aristotle that there needs to be a form of a strong and knowledgeable leader. Often with all the evidence in the world, there is not one clear-cut right choice so it is necessary for someone to make the hard decisions. It is imperative that a leader makes these decisions based on a strong knowledge base, but also has the strength and courage to make decisions that are not so clear-cut. On certain shifts I am the charge nurse and am tasked with leading the floor. It is not an easy task but it is definitely necessary. As much as there are conversations about how things should be run and how certain situations should be handled, ultimately a decision must be made, and it is necessary for me to weigh the knowledge that I have to make a decision that has the best outcome for all involved. I actually understood Aristotle’s idea of pursuing happiness best when I related it to my experiences as a charge nurse. A happy shift for me is one in which all patients and nurses are safe, there are no bad outcomes, and communication is upheld, so I run my shift with those aims in mind.
Madison focused on the idea that sound procedures with checks and balances help to guarantee effective deliberation. This structure would prevent factions from gaining power and from negative policies and poor decisions from making it through to full implementation. I think that this is a good theory and has its areas of practicality. In my workplace (a labor and delivery unit in a hospital) we have systems set in place with checks and balances and a chain of command to help ensure patient safety. For example, if a patient has been pushing for three hours it is required that another obstetrician come in to assess progress. The consulting obstetrician must support the decision to keep pushing if it is to continue. Additionally, if a nurse is concerned with the management plan of a patient, he/she is expected to move up the chain of command and get other opinions involved. Without these checks and balances, it would really affect patient safety and would also decrease our ability to work as a team. However, we are lucky that for the most part we work as a team on my unit. As can be seen in our political world, this system of checks and balances has led to situations in which there is complete gridlock and no decisions or progress can be made. It is necessary for people to be impartial, flexible, and open to compromise – without this checks and balances become blocks.
Lipmann advocated for expertise to be involved in decision making to help reduce the effects of bias and prejudice. This is essential for any deliberation. As we can see from 12 Angry Men, it was a critical review of the evidence that cleared the defendant of the murder charge. Without that impartial view of the facts, the verdict would have largely been based on skewed evidence and biased decision makers. However, my work is an attestation for the fact that with all the evidence available on a subject matter, there is often still not a clear decision to be made – even experts have disagreements on the appropriate course of action. Additionally, there may be conflicting evidence. A strong financial decision may be harmful for the environment. Even with evidence, there most likely not be a clear and easy decision to be made, it could even be more difficult. There is a necessity for deliberation and for leadership to be able to balance all the evidence for an ultimate decision.
Dewey focused on the need for active and informed citizens, stating that democracy is not an automatic process but rather a way of life. He would probably be outraged at the extent to which citizens engage themselves in our democracy. Often citizens express outrage over decisions and policies but don’t show up at the polls to vote. Or, they support policies or parties blindly with no knowledge of the political issues. I saw late-show video of people being asked whether they support Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act. People gave an answer based on the name, failing to recognize that they are the same thing. Voters should be knowledgeable about the issues at hand and about the candidates that are running for office. Not only will this allow for a government that is most representative of the people, but it will also allow for more amicable cooperation and expression of differences.
All of the theorists have valid points on deliberation. I believe that all of these are necessary in a deliberation setting, but that at the root of everything there is a need for education and knowledge. People need to try to set aside bias and opinions for an educated and productive debate.
I think you gave great example of each leaders. It was great that you discuss the fact that a happy shift is when patients are kept safe and communications are held up to high regards. As a charge nurse myself, Its great to lead while ensuring that there is pursuit of happiness at the end of the shift.
Picking one ideology was difficult for me as well. I agree with you in that all four theories stress the importance of a fair and objective deliberation process. I will say that I do not believe that Madison’s theory was as practical. As American history shows us, our government was unable to balance the needs of multiple smaller factions. Madison states that when it comes to issues of the nations well being, smaller factions with common interests will combine and create a majority and a minority on the issue. This was the case with the Confederate secession before the civil war, which did not end smoothly.
Thanks for the feedback! I only said that that it has areas of practicality – the examples I gave show how on my unit checks and balances help us make decisions and provide safe care. I agree that overall it really can have some unintended negative consequences.
That’s a good point, but we can also see the aggregation of factions in our modern two party system. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have united many factions of varied interest under a big tent, with one party being generally on the left and one generally on the right. We see the smaller factions fight it out in the presidential primary process. Hillary vs. Bernie Sanders for instance is an example of the traditionally smaller faction of vocal socialists in the Democratic party fighting for their views to take center stage. While on the Republican side one need only take notice of the 15 candidates to see how many different priorities and factions there are.
I agree with you as well that it is too difficult to choose just one and that a better option would be to take a little from each aspect. Its important for us, as a society and government to have wise leaders, experts, a strong system in place and active and informed citizens to take place in our democratic process in order for our modern day democracy to stand and function. If I had to choose just one I would take the wise leader because if you look at ancient Rome, when a state of emergency was issued Rome would suspend democracy and place the fate of the empire in the hands of one man to increase efficiency and remove the many voices from the democratic process to make the empire more adaptable to change. When one person is making the decisions, whether it be good or bad, it happens right away and when in a democracy it is possible that public opinion could be the wrong choice. Of course the last person selected Cesear held onto power and became a tyrant but nobody’s perfect.
Thank you for your elaborate post. You have summarized the philosophies and try to focus on the pros and cons. I was thinking, although the philosophers offered a mean to effective deliberation, they did not mention any hard and fast rules to achieve them. on that note, wise leaders existed all the time and when they become biased, which is very human, chaos occur. Experts with knowledge may not be the visionary and follow wrong lead. Informed citizenry often lack the power to stop wrong political decision. Hence, there is now exact definition or guideline of a proper well built system, which in my opinion can be one of the biggest achievement of mankind. Although, Madison’s well built system has flaws, but imagine what a flawless system can achieve in few centuries from now.
I think you summerized the readings acurately. There are flaws in all the systems emphasized by each theory. I think all the theorists described aspects of a perfect system but no one set of rules can achieve it perfectly.
Although I feel as though each of these components; wise leadership, sound procedures, expert knowledge and an informed public are all necessary in some capacity for effective deliberation, I feel as though John Dewey’s faith in the citizenry is most needed.
While many of the other thinkers points are extremely important to the organization and running of government, experience in the process as Dewey explains is the foundation for deliberation. Wise leadership, sound procedures and expert knowledge are all components which we can observe in today’s government, stemming from our country’s constitution. However these ideas came from a body of people that developed from becoming deeply knowledgeable through a hands on process.
As John Dewey mentioned in his 1939 speech “Creative Democracy”, democratic institutions alone do not guarantee a functioning democracy; this point alone can be seen even in our society today. According to an article by the New York Times, only 36.4% of eligible voters participated in the 2014 midterm elections, which was even lower than in 2010 when 40.9% of voters voted. Although we have a system of democratic government in place, our government institutions are not being run by the governed. This lack of democracy in a democratic society is strictly due to a lack of an informed and participatory citizenry.
We can observe in such documents as the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution that those who are informed and participatory have the power to conceive powerful movements in society. I believe that Dewey would consider our founding fathers, not experts as Lippmann called for but as our country’s first informed citizens. We can understand what power the citizens hold when they are fully informed and active, such as in recent legislation that allowed for marriage equality.
Of the four theory’s I believe Dewey touch on what the soul of democracy is fundamentally. He highlighted democracy’s nature and what we as a society should strive for. You made some significant points. The is a basic lack of interest in politics.
I agree with you! I like your example regarding the 2014 midterm elections. Just because we have democratic institutions in place, if people do not use them, what kind of democracy do we have? I also like your idea about thinking of our founding fathers, not as experts, but as informed citizens. At the time, I don’t believe they thought of themselves as experts, but as members of the public who came together to deliberate to make a change.
I completely agree with your idea that an informed citizenry is the most complete way in which to increase the quality of deliberation amongst a general population. I also like your point that our own system shows that our society lacks a general understanding of the issues, or just does not care to participate in elections, which are the cornerstone of the system Madison describes in the Federalist Letters. The states are almost alarming in regards to how little people turn out to vote in general elections, as you pointed out with the latest mid-term.
In defense of the general population, voting is not the only way to be apart of public deliberation or be an informed citizen. One can partake in political organizations, interest groups, actively support issues over social media, etc. Research on Millennials and younger generations have shown that this type of political activism is becoming the norm, as opposed to voting. Although, it is not good for the system when guiding principles for the system to work, elections, are ignored by the populace.
I also liked your last point on the Founding Fathers. I believe you are correct when you state that Dewey would consider the Founding Fathers our country’s first informed citizens, which is in contrast to what Lippman sees them as; experts.
I agree that an informed citizenry is the most effective tool for good deliberation. There is no doubt that an enlightened unbiased public will make the best decisions, the problem is that in actuality the public is very misinformed. As you pointed out the voting participation rate is appallingly low. Those numbers do not begin to reflect the ignorance of the voting public, of those that actually did vote, there is probably a good number that do not even know what or who they are voting for. John Dewey made an excellent point when he stated that democratic institutions alone do not guarantee democracy. This can be seen in the widespread apathy towards politics in America. If we focus on engaging the citizens through more civic participation classes in school, there might be hope for a informed citizenry as Dewey envisioned.
I think that this is a great point of Dewey’s that is important to his ideals working. Having a public that doesn’t educate and engage is dangerous for the direction of the deliberation and simply allows those with bigger voices to impose their will with greater ease. The old adage has been that if you don’t vote than you can’t complain, but we should be stressing that if you don’t vote or don’t take your role in society seriously than you are actively hurting the value of the collective group by remaining mute.
I agree that citizen participation is essential for an effective government. In order for the citizens to be truly “hands on” when participating in government, they must understand the fine points of deliberation. This knowledge lets specific people and groups advocate for themselves instead of going through various channels. I agree that Dewey had a great grasp as to what would benefit the American people the most.
I like the concept of referring to our founding fathers as the first informed citizens. They really did set out to create a democracy that engaged citizens, and for the that time they set out to become the most informed citizens to create the democracy. Many times I’ve heard the defense of an argument that the Founding Fathers intended something to be a certain way and that we have to honor that all these years later but I think if they were present today, they would act more as informed citizens of the current time and determine the best course of action based on today’s situation.
Emily– I think that’s a great point that the Founding Fathers, as informed citizens, learned from their experiences and made changes when necessary (i.e. the first several constitutional amendments) — furthering Dewey’s point about education and experience being the most fundamental part of good deliberation.
But don’t you think that they were less part of the general citizenry, and more the expert class of their day? Wonder if Lippmann would consider them to be a foot in both camps.
Chris, though I ranked expert knowledge as the most important factor of deliberation, I have to admit that it was a coin-toss between that and the informed citizenry for some of the very points you make. If the prompt specifically referred to the the deliberative process on a national level – especially when it comes to the electoral process – I concur that a well informed citizenry is important to maintaining the system, shall we say, honest. However, the problem I find – and its why I gave it away to expert knowledge – is that citizens are mainly informed on issues by popular media, and don’t have the time to reach out independently to knowledgeable sources on all the issues that affect us. Whether we talk about all the issues that affect us at a community/city level (e.g. access to proper sanitation, education expenses) to those of the national level (defense expenditure, trade agreements), the average citizen will never have the time to get informed on all these issues. We rely heavily on electing officials that “align” with our political philosophy and vote for them to make decisions for us and manage the community (big or small) on a day to day. Ideally, these elected officials have the time to consult experts and make those decisions for us.
I agree, as you suggest Dewey would’ve posited, that the Founders were more representative of an informed citizenry than an expert oligarchy. It is critical that people engage in our democracy by voting and informing themselves on the issues. This speaks to the mysticism of democracy in my opinion, as we put our faith and our future in the hands of the collective wisdom of the American people. I will contend however that this system breaks down to some extent when the people become as deeply divided as they are today, but in the long run one would expect a new national consensus to emerge.
I agree that our founding fathers might not be categorized as experts, but instead informed citizens. I struggled with Dewey’s statement that they were “a group of men extraordinarily gifted in political inventiveness,” because it seemed as if he was saying they might fall under experts or wise leaders (or they were just lucky). Thus, instead of calling them “extraordinarily gifted,” I think titling them our first informed citizens plays well into his rhetoric.
In my opinion, an informed public is the most important guarantee of effective deliberation. All four perspectives mentioned in the materials this week are essential, but due to the complexity of the policy issues nowadays, it becomes more important to get our citizens informed of how their representatives make decisions on the issues they care about.
In the modern society, our citizens have had a lot better opportunities to access to the education and become way more knowledgeable about our democratic institutions. Thanks to the Internet, nowadays information becomes more transparent, our citizens have smooth channels to express their individual opinions and participate in the policy making. Our policy makers have to relearn how to conduct public deliberation, gather such diverse voices, and form a collective decision. Our public servants are serving the citizens. So if the public is well informed, their opinions will become highly valuable to the democracy we want to build and maintain.
In order to get the public be informed, the policy makers should educate participants about an issue on the agenda through neutral and objective materials or conversations with experts. The policy makers should also ensure balance, allowing participants to consider all sides of the issue. Last but not least, the public must be encouraged to keep broader societal concerns in mind along with their individual points of view.
We have been relying more on the wise leadership, sound procedures, and expert knowledge, assuming that our public lacks a broad view and the necessary knowledge. Ideally, in fact, if we have a very well informed public, we can limit the size and use of democratic institutions to make decisions that maximize the societal good. All four elements are fundamental to democracy. However, an informed public is undervalued at the moment. And we should take action on changing it.
Education is always a great way to share information to the public. To make policy it requires expertise from different background. To make this possible participants should be informed and educated about any changes or issue that needs to be address.
I believe you are correct in your sentiments that an active, informed citizenry is the best way to advance public deliberation on today’s policy issues. As you mentioned, none of the other options should not be discounted. However, with today’s complexities, it is important for the citizenry to be knowledge of these complexities.
As you mentioned, there is an abundance of channels in which individuals can become informed on the issues at hand. It is frustrating to see that this increase information availability has not led to a large increase in overall voter participation in elections (Down much lower from voter turnout in the 1950s, 1960s, etc.).
I also liked your point that an informed citizenry can influence how lawmakers view the issues. As you said, lawmakers are elected officials, who ultimately take their cue from the voters who elect them. If said voters become more informed, more engaged, then those elected officials would have to take this change into their thought process when it comes to budgets, initiatives, programs, etc.
However, in your third paragraph, I believe you may have a contradiction. If it takes policy makers and politicians to inform the public, then wouldn’t that make wise leaders more important than an educated citizenry? The citizenry would become more educated, which is the most effective way to ensure an effective public deliberation. However, the catalyst for this end goal would be the policy makers, or wise leaders, who are intelligent enough to educate the public through a neutral lens. I could be misinterpreting what you are explaining in the third paragraph.
Corbin– that’s how I read Shawn’s comment too– as leaning towards agreeing with Aristotle that guidance from wise leaders is the best way out of a deliberative maze.
You’re point about the numerous channels of information available is one well made. As a citizenry, we should be utilizing the ways in which we can communicate and learn in a way that makes us informed about the issues governing our country. It is somewhat strange that in an age where we have access to information so readily, many Americans lack a basic understanding of what power they have in a democratic society. If we could find a way to utilize these outlets for communication in a way that sparks the public to participate in their government fully, I believe we would have greater deliberation and ultimately a more successful government.
I agree that an informed public is an important aspect for an effective democracy. However, I would argue that it’s not necessarily the job of policymakers to try to get people informed. People would first need to take interest in learning about issues relevant to their lives. This interest doesn’t merely stem from receiving more information. Rather, we must think about socioeconomic factors that might influence a person’s interest in politics. Maybe our education system could do a better job at getting youth about civics.
I agree that an informed public is very important. One of the issues currently may be how the media is giving the public information. Often we only see a portion of what is going on, and some media stations support one view stronger than the other. Not only do people need to make sure that they know about the issues, but we need to make sure that the information they get is accurate, complete, and non-biased.
I do think that all the other elements are necessary – the public cannot be expected to know every detail of every decision that the government faces. I certainly know that I am so busy with school and work that even just knowing the basics of what is going on is an accomplishment.
I agree that an informed public is very important but that it isn’t the most important out of the 4 areas. As someone who tries to stay informed it can be extremely difficult wading through the biased media’s, for lack of a better word, “bullshit”. Whether its Fox, NBC, Reuters ect it is hard to get a firm grasp on what is going on in our political process. Is Obamacare working? Are we better off with it or without it? Those two questions can be answered in a million different ways by several news stations.
For our government to run properly we have to hope that those being elected are the wise leaders Aristotle talks about or that they are the experts Lippman talks about. The best leaders not necessarily are the smartest people in the room but those who are surrounded by the smartest people.
Informed citizenry can be a blessing without doubt, but i believe they often lack power to change their leader’s wrong decision. Leaders rise from the public, and the better the citizenry the more is the chance of having wise and better leaders. But in my opinion, when it comes to decision and policy, it depends on the leaders and more importantly how well built the system is.
I believe that in order to have effective deliberation, there should be wise leadership skills, sound procedure, expert knowledge and informed public. As a health care provider in a hospital setting, these skills are being utilized in our daily practices. Leaders should possess the necessary knowledge to make sound decisions as well as keeping staff informed and provide continuous education. However, among the founding fathers, James Madison strikes to most as a true leader, as he reflects on the limitations of leader and professes the need for checks and balance in the system.
Madison was a staunch believer of self-government and responsibility. While he dreamt of a free and more responsible nation, he was not oblivious to the temptations of power. He understood the intricacies of political climate, and believed even the noblest representative, was subjected to temptations and distraction.
Health preservation and patient care have always been valued drivers of the healthcare sector. However, most literature fails to give consideration to work safety, and effective practice in healthcare.
In a typical hospital setting negligence or an error can cause a fatality, as a result there are a code of conducts, and guidelines for ethical as well as medicinal practices. While there are automated systems and regulations to ensure checks and balance in regard to medical practices, there is a need to prevent temptations in the field as well. Medical community is accountable towards public, and their responses, opinions and decisions frequently affect the common man. As a result while a typical practitioner is responsible for making life-and-death decisions for the patients, there is a need of check to assure that they are acting in the interest of the patients in an attempt to prevent fatalities, there is a need to ensure that the hospital is ethically practicing, and there are committees to overlook these aspects. It is further noted that there is a need for checks and balance in order to practice effective financial, democratic and standardized performance. In continuation with the norms set by Madison, these aspects are kept in check by providing a right to patients, to assess the practice, and file for a malpractice case if applicable
Accountability has always been an important driver of our constitution, and an effective system has to be in consideration to all stakeholders. Madison was quick to recognize the array of temptation, brought forth by power. His assurance, initiatives and principle hold validity more than ever in the present world.
I like how you used your experience working as a health care provider to illustrate Madison’s ideas. Checks and balances are absolutely necessary in the healthcare industry to provide for the health and wellbeing of the patients. There needs to be an institution that holds hospitals accountable for their mistakes. You illustrate that checks and balances are not only necessary in government, but in many other organizations as well.
I agree with your statement, checks and balances are definitely are critical in our society. We need them in many institutions, not only in health care. Individuals need to take responsibility for their actions as well as be willing to hold their peers accountable for their actions (or lack thereof), if necessary. We need the system of checks and balances not only to ensure that everyone is playing their part, but to make sure that things are just. You want to make sure that one person does not have too much power and other people are suffering as a result of that person.
I appreciate your perspective and it was interesting to consider deliberation in a setting I wouldn’t normally think about (with the first obvious topic of politics coming to mind instead). I agree that it is necessary for a system of checks and balances to exist and this provides a great example of how deliberative techniques can be utilized across many different organizations.
Your use of your background in the medical field works to powerfully illustrate how Madison’s thoughts on deliberation play out in the real world, and not just as it relates to government. It shows the importance of checks and balances on every idea or decision put out there in order to guarantee the best outcome possible.
Overall, I think that all four perspectives play an important role in effective deliberation. I believe that we could create an even stronger theory if we could somehow combine the best ideas regarding deliberation from each thinker. Each would work best with the support of the others.
However, I believe that the most important guarantee of effective deliberation would be Dewey’s idea of an informed public. While one can argue that you need leadership, structure, and expert knowledge, what good would any of that be without an informed public? An informed public is essentially the foundation of democracy. People need to be educated on the issues facing society, aware of what is going on in the world around them, and they need to communicate with one another about their ideas in order create stronger ones. How can a government that is supposed to be governed by the people work if people are not informed? Trying to deliberate on policy issues would be near impossible if most of the people involved didn’t know what they were talking about. One of Dewey’s main points in “Creative Democracy” is that the people, not the institutions, are important for making democracy work. Democratic institutions alone cannot create democracy- it is the people who use those institutions who make it work the way it’s supposed to.
Dewey made me realize, that if an informed public is most important for effective deliberation, the United States has some work to do to make the country function as an effective democracy. I thought about elections, and how many people who know very little about the candidates or the issues go out and vote. People look at the ballot and sometimes don’t recognize the names of any of the candidates for a particular position, and so end up voting blindly, many times simply based on their political party. The nation needs to work to make sure that citizens have access, and take advantage of, as much information as possible so that they can make their decision as informed members of the public.
Although i agree with you that and a informed public is very important. However, that depends on how the public is informed. Today’s society informs the public through social media including the news. The News are not neutral as they claim to be. People who follow the different news station have different options that are very much influenced by them.
Though I agree that an informed public is most important of the four, i am thinking in a different way. As you brought up the question that “while one can argue that you need leadership, structure, and expert knowledge, what good would any of that be without an informed public,” in my opinion, leadership, structure and expert knowledge have been so important in our history just because the public has not been so well informed. Therefore, we need such a large size of democratic institutions to guide the public.
I agree that an informed public is the root of the effective deliberation and democracy. We have been developing the institutions for such a long time, but now in order to improve the effectivity of deliberation, getting the public informed is a must.
This is a difficult question for which there is no final, concrete answer. All four choices put forward by Aristotle, Madison, Lippmann, and Dewey I believe are essential ways in which to guarantee effective deliberation. Each option presented has both its positive aspects, as well as their own drawbacks.
However, I believe that John Dewey’s belief in an informed citizenry is the most effective way in which to have an advanced dialogue on the issue’s at hand. As he outlines in “Creative Democracy – The Task Before Us”, Dewey states that “Democracy as a way of life is controlled by personal faith in personal day-by-day working together with others.” What he means is that in our democratic (well republican system, technically) institution, it is vital for citizens to collaborate and engage in dialogue in order for the system to function effectively. If one believes this to be true, then you would wish for the citizenry to be educated on the issues so to have a meaningful discussion on how to address them. These educated citizens work in government, they work for companies, and above else, they are voters who are entrusted to elect individuals who run our governmental structures. So much of our political system relies on elections that it is of the upmost importance to have an informed citizenry be able to identify the problems at hand, which solutions they deem most appropriate, and vote in favor of the candidate they believe will best apply those solutions.
This is where, I believe, Madison’s idea of a strong system suffers a setback. I believe the idea of a strong structure is important for deliberation, as evident by the fact that United States has used the system he has advocated for since 1789. The system he mentions talks of checks and balances on factions with elections. The issue with this is that it does mention the quality of the deliberation within the public, but just how to control individual factions within that system. His checks and balances focus on groups and their ideals, not the quality of their ideals, or the deliberation between different factions. With an informed citizenry, this guarantees a higher quality of deliberation that Madison’s system does not.
I agree with you Corbin, our society relies heavily on the knowledge of the people. We put trust in our citizens and hope that they are making the decision to elect officials that they believe are the ideal candidate. However, it hard to ensure that the decisions people are making are informed decisions. There is no way to regulate it, but I guess one would only hope that a person who is exercising their right to vote has taken the time to education him or herself on the issues at hand.
Madison focused on a organized government system of checks and balances that made sure that no individual is abusing the power they are given. in do so, he also put checks on a deliberation process. Everyone has the chance to speak up and voice their opinion in the process. However, i did not consider the quality of the ideas that are being presented by the group members. But i would assume that the quality of the deliberation would be on point considering the members of government were educated according to their standards.
I have also the same points like you” checks and balances” which is vital guarantee for effective deliberation .
Corbin, I sympathize with you on your point about an informed citizenry leading to a higher quality of deliberation. However, there is no guarantee of enough of the citizens being informed, and regardless, depending on the size of the population in question, you will have a wide variety of viewpoints that will clash furiously against each other and render a deliberation process fruitless and with a lower quality than you might orginally think. This is easily demonstrated in what we see in a lot of free-wheeling online forums, for example. I strongly believe that, while not perfect, a structured system like Madison’s would be more conducive to higher-quality debate.
It has been suggested that there are a variety of guarantees to ensure effective deliberation. Throughout the ages philosophers and statesmen have singled out wise leadership, sound procedure, expert knowledge, and an informed public as four possible guarantees to effective deliberation. Although all of them are conducive to successful deliberation, James Madison argued that sound procedure was the most important element to effective deliberation.
This is clearly evidenced in Madison’s writings, including Federalist no. 10 and 51, as well as the Constitution of the United States of America. In Federalist 10 Madison focuses primarily on the issue of factions and the threat they pose to liberty, he concludes that in a large republic with many factions, there can be no single dominant faction to impose its will. Madison expounds further on sound procedure in Federalist 51, here he makes an explicit mention of the need for a system of checks and balances to ensure liberty. The United States Constitution, which was authored primarily by James Madison is filled with a specific set of procedures to ensure that the government has effective deliberation, especially the legislative branch.
I believe that James Madison was correct in advocating for a set of sound procedures to ensure effective deliberation. The U.S. Constitution is one of the oldest and most effective documents for a forming a government, that being said there is still room for improvement. If James Madison were alive today I think he would be taken back by the Gerry mandering and political fundraising that occurs in elections. I think he would agree that it is time for more sound procedures to right these wrongs.
I completely agree with your argument. Although I believe that an informed public is ultimately what should drive successful deliberation in our government, I had a hard time deciding between the points of Madison and Dewey. It seems as though each of these thinkers ideas are somewhat interconnected, with one being reliant on the next. What use are sound procedures without an informed public to utilize them?
Your last comment about how Madison would react to aspects of politics today is very accurate. It seems that so much effort was put in place to ensure that large factions did not bully and force others into their beliefs, but that is exactly was takes place. People in power manipulate and bend the rules or district lines in order to ensure they stay in power whether they deserve it or not.
Good points. However, I think that political fundraising is not necessarily an evil of our form of democracy. It is the U.S. constitution (and courts upholding it) that have decided that officials have a right to fundraise (e.g. Citizens United). It might be worth thinking more about how we can level the playing field with fundraising, so that people of different backgrounds have a fair shot at running in an election.
I agree that people should be able to donate money to someone’s campaign that they believe in but Citizens United has taken this idea and tossed it out of control. By allowing corporations or a family (Koch Brothers) to donate an unlimited supply of funds into PACs it makes it hard for politicians to run a clean campaign. If politicians want to win a race they need to be “bought” otherwise they run the risk of having the corporations that they turned down dumping funds into their opponents war chest. We are seeing this more and more with Grover Nordquvist to tea party candidates, essentially forcing out middle of the road Republicans and swapping in radical right Tea Party members.
The ability for corporations to dump funds into which ever candidate they want and expect favors in return is a plague on our political process and limits the every day American’s voice in the political sphere. Even though elections come down to votes, the public can be easily swayed by PR campaigns and TV commercials. In the same way the American public buys Coca Cola over an unknown brand of soda, people will vote for who they see and know. If a candidate obtains unlimited funds from a donor they can easily win an elections because they are more so in the public eye.
Ashley, your example of Citizen’s United also speaks to the problems with relying on sound procedure for deliberation (not to mention our go to film – 12 Angry Men). Procedure is only a platform for maintaining order during deliberation but does not guarantee a good outcome. The case of Citizens United – where we have a relatively “sound procedure”, or at least, a long established tradition of Supreme Court rulings – ended up giving what some would argue is an unfair advantage to corporations and those with money in the election process. The case decision was not the outcome of the procedure, and I don’t think any changes to such procedure would make a difference in the outcome. Rather, its about the information presented to the judges and their own interpretation of the facts that led to the ruling we had.
Suppose you have three different groups collaborating on a single project at a local school district with a limited budget and specified time to complete said project. Each of the three groups comes with a different idea: one group wants to build a temporary shelter for students to use during lunch hours, one group wants to make a sustainable garden, and the last group wants to create a recreation area. The three groups agree that they want projects that will have the greatest “impact” on the students in the area. So how do they decide on the project? Simple. The projects have to be evaluated based on the merits of its potential impact and whether or not the project is feasible within the constraints of resources – time, money, etc. You cannot begin to evaluate the projects without key information – expert knowledge – that will determine what the feasibility and impact of said project is.
I experienced this previous scenario while working for a small non-profit (Party 1) that collaborated with another non-profit (Party 2) and the local residents of the community (Party 3) to bring a project to fruition. In deciding which project(s) we’d be able to complete, and how to complete them, we needed information to prove whether or not a specific project could be completed within budget, if we needed people with particular skills (architect, construction, plumber, etc.) to help complete the project, and even to determine whether or not certain projects as envisioned would be functional.
For example, the shelter suggested was a simple shelter with four main posts supporting a roof with a cement floor and no walls. First, we needed an architect/civil engineer to help assess the site for best location and to provide an estimate of materials, and provide over-site for the construction of the shelter. Without the expert knowledge on the project, we would have potentially made serious errors in the execution of the project that could have led to a waste of additional resources, it could have led to the shelter never being completed, or worse, a completed structure that put the health of those who used it in jeopardy. This is no different when it comes to any aspect of the deliberative process, whether it’s the adoption of new laws in local or federal government or the determination of a fiscal budget for a non-profit or small business. Expert knowledge can help prevent poor decisions from being made or help in creating solutions where problems arise.
I do not discount the influence of wise leadership, sound procedures, or an informed public in effective deliberation. But the wisest of leaders must recognize that if she is uninformed on a subject of interest, it would be wise to attain as much information as needed to make a wise decision. Sound procedures would take into account expert knowledge and create stopgaps to prevent further progress without the input of certain required data. And the public cannot effectively participate in a democracy – whether it’s participating in the electoral process or whether it’s the daily observance of a democratic life as described by Dewey – if it’s not challenged and informed by some form of knowledge.
There is no doubt all four of the qualities mentioned in the prompt improve deliberation. After reading several posts I find myself going back and forth as to which one is the most important. Your post has made me realized that what is most important depends on the situation, in the situation you described expert knowledge is clearly the most important trait to have for good deliberation. There are many cases in public policy where expert knowledge is needed for good deliberation, however there are also times when other traits are needed.
For example if the public is debating zoning laws, expert knowledge is not nearly as important as an informed citizenry. The experts can explain how the market is going to be effected by zoning laws, but they can never capture the informed citizens knowledge of how the social dynamics of a community might change.
Expert knowledge goes hand in hand with many of the other traits, as you stated in your post, it takes a wise leader to realize he needs expert opinion. I agree that expert knowledge is vital but I see it as an input to the other three traits instead of a stand alone quality. If there is expert knowledge that is not listened to because it lacks a leader to communicate it or a forum with sound procedures to express it, what good is it?
I agree. The theme underlying all of these theories is that there is knowledge. If any kind of decision is to be made, whether it is by a leader, a group, or the public, it cannot and should not be made without a knowledge of all the elements of the issue at hand.
As many others have noted I think it having aspects of all four historical viewpoints on deliberation makes for the best experience. In choosing one, I believe that John Dewey’s belief in the general public makes his views the most appealing with the end goal of effective deliberation.
By believing that the masses should be informed and involved in the decision making process, Dewey was putting his faith in general public that they would chose to be involved. The thought that the government should be beholden to the people and that representatives should be in touch with their constituents is certainly nothing new in America, but it is sadly something that gets brushed aside too often.
The idea of citizens being better for deliberation than, “wise leaders” made me think of the soup kitchen I volunteer with and a recent change in procedures that have helped things run more smoothly. The past way of running the kitchen was to have a different president representing each night of the week of service (Monday, Wednesday, Thursday) and that only the presidents would get together and decide the course of action for the organization as a whole. Most of the time the volunteers were told that they could only come on one night and each day of the week ran things completely different. It wasn’t until we found out the kitchen did not have enough money to survive another year that the entire staff took notice. A collective meeting was organized and people who had the same intentions, but had never met were all assembled together for the first time. By the end of the meeting, fundraisers had been organized, a new ordering system was in place, and a set schedule for how dinners should be run was established. I have no doubt that had the volunteers not demanded better access to the decision making process that the soup kitchen would have closed. This is just a small example on an extremely local level about the good that can come from active participation and discussion by people who are passionate and involved in their cause.
Your volunteer experience is a strong example of the need for an informed public. Although roles such as presidents are necessary to keep a group moving forward and on task, it is up to the public to become informed and to keep that structure in place. As we saw here with your example, without the coming together of the public, the entire structure would have collapsed.
After reviewing all four historical perspectives, I find that in order truly have effective deliberation all of these factors are necessary. However, I believe that the experiences and information contributed by John Dewy, to have an informed public, to be the most effective. In his speech “Creative Democracy”, Dewey states that democracy is found in the people, rather than an institution. In an ideal democracy, or utopia, people an equal opportunity to live as they are and truly be free, without interference or judgment from other people. In this society people can openly deliberate about diverse issues and experiences without fear of retaliation. These deliberations can occur because their peers are aware and accepting of the different people living in the world.
At the same time, when I think of the United States today, and the way we live in our democracy, I believe that we are far from Dewey’s Creative Democracy. I think he is correct in saying that we need to be informed, as well as open and inviting of other people, in order to live a democratic life. However, lately, I wonder if we really do take the time to educate ourselves about different cultures, the candidates running for president or even our next door neighbors. It wish people were more willing to ask difficult questions and have uncomfortable conversations with their peers, so that we as a nation were more knowledgeable about issues greater than ourselves.
Likewise, according to Dewey, the current state of the world requires us to put forth more effort than before and “prove [that we] are worth of our heritage.” We have to prove that we want to be here by actively participating, because democracy lies in the individual. If each individual plays their part, and takes the time to participate, we can begin to openly deliberate issues within their community. These conversations can lead to potential solutions, and essential improve society for the better.
Kayla, I really liked your point about asking difficult questions and having uncomfortable conversations. I think that our society is obsessed with being “politically correct” in order to not offend anyone, but the only way for citizens to open eachother’s minds to other ways of thought is to have conversations that fall outside of our comfort zones. This speaks to a topic we touched on in class regarding our human tendency to congregate with only like minded people. It is important for us to step outside that box, and as a government put procedures in place that ensure that we, as citizens, as pushed to do so.
Kayla, you have explained democracy very organized way and your explanation was very clear. Yes, we as a citizen of nation , we should be well informed about democracy . Democracy helps to form a government and allocate power to to people of the country
As we have seen in our past lessons, deliberation is subject to variables that affect its quality. Each ideology presented by Aristotle, Madison, Lippmann and Dewey, essentially sets out to minimize these variables and create the most effective form of deliberation. Selecting two of these ideologies is extremely difficult because they all on some level accomplish the same goal. After reviewing the readings in detail, I believe that Dewey and Aristotle’s ideologies are absolutely necessary for effective deliberation.
Dewey’s belief that all citizens should have the capacity to deliberate and communicate is essential to our country. We should not just have to delegate certain officials to speak for the masses. While we do use an electoral college and elect state officials, I do see the need for average citizens to be able to understand the fine points of deliberation. An example of this is the establishment of labor unions. Groups that may have fallen between the cracks in Madison’s factions’ ideology are now able to advocate and express their needs with legislators in a coherent manor.
Lippmann’s belief that expert testimony is necessary is something that I support, but I believe that the American citizens could provide this testimony if they can deliberate effectively. The American population has various experts, created by their experience, geographical location or profession. While Lippmann does states that people generally have preconceived idea’s that affect deliberation, masters of rhetoric can remain objective. Ideally, if citizens and politicians could keep this balance designated experts could be pulled form the population and even remain fair while deliberating.
Aristotle’s claim that a strong leader is necessary is one that I support undoubtedly. The reading states that the leader must know all about the 5 main topics of deliberation. This leader will act almost like a filter. If two interest groups are arguing, the leader must be able to facilitate effective communication. He or she must keep the argument understandable for both sides as well as identify and discard any exaggerated or extremist claims. While you can help citizens learn the art of deliberation, the ability to calmly direct a conversation cannot be taught. It takes patients, timing and persistence. Not everyone is born with these qualities
You made a great point that Lipmann’s assertion that experts are necessary could easily be negated by having an informed public. I had not thought of it that way, but it is true that if the citizenry is educated and knowledgeable, the members would not be bogged down by stereotypical beliefs which would negatively influence their ability to remain objective.
It is very hard to choose only one perspective to agree on. All four are essential characteristics that constitute an effective deliberation. In order to create an effective deliberation, it requires all different levels of people to contribute. People at different level in a society offers different outlooks and information that will help in the deliberative process.
If i had to choose one, i would have to agree more with Aristotle. He stated that a wise leader is important for an effective deliberation. The ultimate goal of deliberation is happiness according to Aristotle and a wise leader is essential for that. During a deliberation, information may become twisted, lost, or missed. A wise leader would be able to make sure the goal of the deliberation is met.
John Dewey argue that he would take the citizens over any expert or government. I think his argument is not completely valid. Different issues requires different approach. Experts are needed on major issues such war, and some expert are not necessary in issues such as working conditions in a factory because the one who understand the condition the most are the workers.
The political system of today are lacking in all areas that was mentioned. The two parties are very polarized and thus, making things very hard to complete. The main expert knowledge that informs the public is the news. The different news stations are very biased. People are not able to form their own opinions because they reply on the news for information.
Jocelyn you brought up the most critical problem: it seems like our political system of today is lacking in all four areas. However, due to the constraint of the resources, we cannot satisfied all needs of individuals and the development of a sound system must be incremental and a long-term process.
Expert knowledge is what the specialists advise on a particular area to the government. News, most of which are so biased, delivered to the public is not considered to be expert knowledge. The biased information presented to the public also causes the public not well informed.
While all four theories are have their place in a strong, deliberative democracy, I think Dewey’s theory of an informed public is the most necessary. I thought one of the most poignant lines in his speech was “we have the habit of thinking of democracy as a king of political mechanism that will work as long as citizens were reasonably faithful in performing political duties.” More so than ever citizens operate under the assumption that democracy works because the founding fathers wrote documents saying that it will.
“Reasonably faithful” was a striking phrase in this speech that felt very accurate to today. Informed citizens are are an integral part of a successful deliberative democracy but only if those citizens are active, participating members of society. Today, I think citizens feel as if they are informed – sharing accurate or inaccurate information within their social networks, but fewer and fewer citizens get out to vote with each election or play a role in an active local matters. In looking up the formal definition for citizen, I was surprised to learn it has two distinct definitions:
1. a person who legally belongs to a country and has the rights and protection of that country
2. person who lives in a particular place
I think that Dewey had in mind the first definition, implying that citizens must be informed and involved in their country because they are granted the rights and protections of that nation. However, today I think informed citizenry takes on a meaning closer to the second. People have a feeling of ownership in this country and may feel confident that they are informed, but they’re only “reasonably faithful” to their duties as a citizen of the country.
It truly is difficult to determine which of the four methods studied here is the MOST important in terms of guaranteeing effective deliberation. I originally was convinced that Dewey’s notion of having an informed public was the most crucial because in a democracy, the power is in the hands of the public. An informed and knowledgeable body of citizens is necessary to ensure that the officials elected truly are the ones best suited to serve the country. My assuredness in choosing Dewey’s stance as the most vital started to waver as I made it through the readings though. Dewey himself even says that the current political structure was formed through a “group of men extraordinarily gifted in political inventiveness”. I interpreted this to indicate that a successful government that incorporates effective deliberation needs not only a leader, but also one that is an expert in the political realm. This seems to hold especially true at the inception of a new governmental structure, which I believe is when effective deliberation is most important, as it is the time when the foundational structure, guidelines, and laws ensuring a proper balance of power, are being laid down for years of future citizens to follow. To that end I have likened this to the human body: all four of the aforementioned aspects of government need to exist and work together in a cohesive manner in order for there to be effective deliberation, just like the body cannot function without the heart pumping blood through our veins, nor can that heart continue to work properly if the lungs are not filtering oxygen into our blood, and vice versa. These systems go hand in hand and the outcome is most beneficial when they are all working together.
It seems that the majority of the replies have sided with Informed Citizenry as the the most crucial element in the deliberative process. While all four viewpoints from the readings raise important points, I’m tempted to side with Madison — for without structure guaranteeing checks and balances (not just our Constitution, more the overall point that humanity’s failings counter balance each other), Aristotle’s strong leader is a despot, Lippmann’s expert class is the ruling elite, and Dewey’s informed citizenry is impotent. It was interesting to note also that Aristotle and Dewey seemed most optimistic about human nature, and Madison and Lippmann share a less rosy view of our ability to govern ourselves soundly if given the opportunity.
In thinking about the four historical perspectives of deliberation being discussed here, I feel that there is certainly value to be derived from all four. However, I am strongly inclined to favor the views of Madison and Dewey over Aristotle and Lippmann. Understand that, at the end of the day, Aristotle’s and Lippmann’s views on the matter are fundamentally anti-democratic in nature, and will lead to either one man (in the case of Aristotle) or a select group of elites (in the case of Lippmann) dominating deliberation and the decision-making process, very likely to the exclusion of the viewpoints of everyone else. That is no proper way to have decision-making done in a society.
Now, to break things down further, Dewey’s faith in the citizenry itself is certainly nice in theory. It is all inclusive, allowing for the public at large to be involved in the deliberation process, for a broad spectrum of opinion to be considered. At best, though, this can only really work amongst a relatively small population. The deliberation process can get out of controll and be rendered useless with a larger group containing many viewpoints, especially when the group in question is largely not well informed on the issues at hand.
That is why I ultimately side with Madison’s view on deliberation. I feel that this process would work best in a structured environment containing checks and balances, where small factions would argue and deliberate amongst each other and check the power and influence of one another, keeping any one individual or group from truly taking too much power or control. As seen through history, although this viewpoint is imperfect, it has been shown to be the best and most realistic way to hold a decision-making process, especially in a large, diverse nation like the United States.
I’ll join many of peers in asserting that John Dewey’s perspective is the most important out of four important viewpoints on the healthy conduct of democracy. Yes, we need effective institutions, wise leaders, and expert knowledge, but all of those are for naught if we don’t have an informed citizenry. Wise leaders emerge in our elections and are selected by the citizens. Experts are incorporated throughout our bureaucracy and are called to share their knowledge through testimony before Congress. And our institutions both guarantee continuity and channel the power of America’s engaged citizens.
The need for strong institutions and thus a strong system is a close second to the need for informed citizens, and has really been the underpinning for America’s success. Our system is designed to respond to the people’s will while allowing for multiple mechanisms to halt momentary surges in public opinion. The Supreme Court obviously does this through lifetime appointments and tremendous jurisdiction over the issues, as does the Senate with only a third of its members being up for election at any time. Washington called the Senate the ‘saucer intended to cool the House’s urges’ (apparently people used to swirl their coffee/tea in their saucer before they took a sip) and he was right. We see this even now as both parties have been thwarted by the Senate’s pesky 60-vote threshold. It’s easy to get frustrated by it, but consider the good that speed bump does.
Further, consider the alternative. I would argue that Weimar Germany had plenty of experts, wise leaders, and an informed citizenry comparable with even our own, but it did not have an effective system. It was the manipulation of that lousy system which allowed the Nazis to rise to power “democratically” in spite of all the other necessary ingredients being in place.
Actually as I’ve conducted this dialectic I now feel Madison’s point on a strong system may be the key. It’s hard to pick just one of these factors as being paramount, but I would submit that most (if not all) societies have both experts and wise leaders available to them. They also all have the capacity, at the very least, to behave as an informed citizenry (surely the United States does not have a monopoly on that point). But they do not all possess a brilliant system of government. That’s the difference, and it’s what’s made America great.
In my opinion, wise leadership, sound procedures, expert knowledge, or an informed public are important guarantee of effective deliberation but an informed public is the most important because, a public that knows the subject matter is more likely to make better decision. John Dewey and to some extent Lippman brings up the point of how citizens and politicians must know the facts before they make judgement. To make these judgments, they must be free to think and understand the information. Dewey mentions that people should gather in their neighborhoods to talk about what is actually happening and express their opinions without “conquering” each other. In some ways this takes place in the polis, where people gather to debate issues in a meaningful and intelligent manner that brings thoughtful answers and question. Without an informed public, deliberation would be about who crafts his language the best to suite the audience which is happening in today’s politics.
With all due respect to all the four great thinkers, I would like to choose one of them to follow before answering this question. I humbly accept the fact that I neither possess more knowledge nor my opinion intend to demean any of the other three thinker’s philosophy. As I mentioned in my post on “12 angry man”, that both emotion and logic is necessary and in my opinion they are equally important. There have been endless debates for hundreds of years to prioritize one of them, which I oppose. In my opinion a well-built system is very necessary which will govern a person’s emotional and logical tie and ensure guaranteed effective deliberation. Hence this statement confirms the fact that I choose sound procedure offered by a well-built system, which is the thought of James Madison. On that note, I don’t cancel the importance of Aristotle’s wise leadership, Lippmann’s expert knowledge or Dewey’s informed public. As it is clear from the topic that we are not choosing one out of the four option and we are not cancelling any other thought while doing so. Its just the fact that which one I consider to be the most important and my choice is James Madison’s well-built system and the sound procedures it offers while I respect other options to be important as well.
From the history we know that there are many wise leaders rose and fell. But it’s the intention that is the key role player. A wise leader can be biased which may lead to chaos and misery. Expert knowledge can solve a problem or provide solution but it may often overlook the public interest. The authority often forget that the utmost duty is the well being of the general people and nothing can stand taller than that. Informed citizens are always asset to any country but too many smart people make it very difficult to be united under one cause. Frankly I think all these three elements existed in the past where deliberation failed instead of the presence of these features. I think a well-built system is the best achievement of human civilization, which can eventually offer wise leaders, expert knowledge and informed citizens. Saying that, I also agree with the fact that, there is still no system that can be considered completely flawless but things will get better in the centuries to come.
In Federalist Paper 10, James Madison wrote about how power balance can be maintained among factions and how prevention can be imposed when one stronger faction might want to take over another weaker faction. The bottom line is, if a republic is large and consists of many factions, no faction should have the strength to pose threats to be the more dominant one. In Federalist Paper 51, Madison emphasizes on the fact of system of checks and balances to ensure liberty. This reflection can be seen in the constitution of United States which was primarily authored by Madison and include specific set of procedures to ensure that government offer effective deliberation and more focus was on the legislative branch. The primary purpose of the Government is to govern people, but Madison focuses on the fact to govern the Government itself. A wise leader can go rogue, expert knowledge can ignore public interest rather it may serve the rouge leaders vision and informed citizen may not possess enough power to stop a dangerous decision imposed by their wise leader. Hence, I believe sound procedures offered by a well-built system guarantee an effective deliberation while I admit that the best scenario may occur when a well-built political system is accompanied by a republic consists of wise leaders, experts and informed public.
Jerin Choudhury
Checks and balances is the most vital assurance for effective deliberation for several reasons, not principally because a well-built political system that comprises checks and balances confirms involvement in deliberations by a variety of people who hold several unlike viewpoints.
One of the key factor to an effective deliberation is to include many people and Madison had believed that the more people take in a democracy would avoid the influence of corruption or in other words, from one faction or their ideas from heavily influencing the conclusion made by the federal government, thus protecting the publics various 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 effect that they may have through their influence. For example, checks and balances save minority groups from prosecution by larger ones. Minority groups remain unbroken since they receive safeguard from the government increase 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 development, and thus larger groups gradually tend to split themselves up into smaller groups with more in common about their unique combined idea.