Liam Mann

Liam Mann ’27 (DCI Fellow)

In an age where transparency is expected and media dominates political life, the broadcasting of Congressional proceedings appears to be both inevitable and necessary. Televising congressional proceedings seems to be a great way for citizens to understand what is going on in the government as well as hold their representatives accountable. Representatives are also given the opportunity to speak about issues concerning their constituents. However, while televising Congress has increased public access, it has also reshaped how legislators deliberate—with significant consequences for the quality and sincerity of debate.

The House of Representatives began televising its sessions in 1979, and the Senate followed in 1986 with C-SPAN (a government operated television channel) coverage. Letting the people see how laws are made was seen as a way to improve public outreach and increase transparency. The expectation was that this would foster civic engagement, encourage better behavior from legislators, and enhance the legitimacy of government. In many ways, it worked. Americans could now see their representatives in action, and important Congressional events, such as impeachment hearings and the Iran Contra hearings, were viewable by the entire country. This helped lead to more dialogue and understanding around pertinent issues.

However, the camera does more than record; it alters behavior. Members of Congress, aware of their on-screen presence, often tailor their speeches not to persuade their colleagues, but to impress viewers back home or find sound bites and viral clips to increase their relevance. This shift turns deliberation into performance. In the modern social media sphere, the emphasis on short-form content incentivizes representatives to not deliberate but instead to grandstand. As philosophy professors Justin Tosi at Texas Tech University and Brandon Warmke of Bowling Green State University (2020) discuss in their book on the topic, grandstanding is “when you do or say something for the very purpose of impressing others with how righteous you are.”   

This phenomenon is now common in Congress and makes achieving compromise more difficult, ultimately hurting the lawmaking process, and in turn, the American citizen. Only 34 bills were passed in 2023, the first year of the 118th Congressional session (which lasts 2 years), less than one bill per week. This was the lowest number of bills passed in the first year of a session since the Great Depression (LoCascio et al).

Moreover, broadcasting can deter informal negotiation. Some of the most productive legislative work happens behind closed doors—in committees, in hallway conversations, or over lunch. These moments of privacy allow lawmakers to speak candidly, compromise, and build trust across the aisle. When this deliberation is televised, it becomes more difficult to deliberate and evolve one’s position, as it can be seen as “losing” an argument, lacking backbone, and not staying true to your party.

Of course, these issues are not supposed to imply that the television of Senate proceedings should be outright banned. Americans should have the ability to know how their representatives are advocating for them and understand the legislative process. However, it is vital to recognize how media can affect the behavior of those lawmakers. 

It is difficult to find balance between transparency and actually getting work done that helps America. From a cultural perspective, it is clear that our legislators should grandstand less and deliberate more. How to do so is more difficult. How do Americans incentivize our politicians to behave in their best interests? For starters, I believe that participating in deliberative sessions and putting into practice the deliberative dispositions in our own lives is a fantastic start. Without working with others ourselves, it is difficult to believe that the “other side” is ever willing to cooperate; it is difficult to believe that a middle ground ever exists. Knowing the benefits of deliberation firsthand will hopefully encourage constituents to demand the same out of our representatives, whether we voted for them or not.

LoCasio, Joe et al. 2024. 118th Congress on track to become one of the least productive in US history. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/118th-congress-track-become-productive-us-history/story?id=106254012

Tosi, Justin and Brandon Warmke. 2020. Why We ‘Grandstand’ and Why It Matters. Public Affairs Council. https://pac.org/impact/why-we-grandstand-and-why-it-matters

By Liam Mann ’27 (DCI Fellow)

Last year, DCI Fellow Declan O’Donoghue wrote a blog post about Jubilee Media’s “Middle Ground” and “Spectrum” series on YouTube. Middle Ground groups together people from opposing sides (examples: minimum wage workers and millionaires, ex-felons and cops, fit men and fat men), while Spectrum groups people from the same background (teen moms, high schoolers, men) to engage in discussions about their differences in thought, as well as find common ground. These series include some of the most-watched videos of their kind available on YouTube.

Recently, Jubilee has started a new series called “Surrounded.” In these videos, 20 people from one side of the political spectrum sit in a circle around 1 person from the other side who is an established politician or debater with extensive experience explaining their viewpoints. A claim that the central person makes is stated to the audience, and a timer ticks down. Once the timer beeps, a clock starts, and the most motivated of participants rush to the center seat to debate the claim. While the person who reaches the seat first explains their viewpoint, participants not involved in the debate can raise red flags to signal that they want the participant seated to be replaced. When more than half of the participants have raised flags, the participant is removed. This continues until the clock runs out of time, where the central debater then makes a new claim and the cycle repeats. After the claims (5 total) have been exhausted, the person at the center chooses a member from the circle to deliberate a topic of the circle member’s choosing for a 10-minute period.

The “Surrounded” series offers a new and innovative mode of discourse to a wide audience. However, I believe that its structure is less constructive and less deliberative than either “Middle Ground” or “Spectrum.” It is more of a series of mini debates in which participants try to attack each other’s arguments rather than explore the topic in a more deliberative fashion. Why is this the case? First, the red flag policy is not conducive to a productive exchange of ideas. If circle participants feel like their person is “losing” the argument, they will likely vote that person out. This may prevent significant points and ideas from being made. The red flag policy may also make it more difficult to advance conversations and for participants to change their minds. Participants may also have been more likely to engage in anti-deliberative practices, such as interruption and snide comments, to maximize their time debating.

Secondly, the 20-person structure led to great inequality of speaking time. Because participants had to rush to the middle chair to get their voice heard, the most motivated deliberators got much more time to talk than others. In fact, there were many deliberators in the videos that never spoke at all. This led to less diversity of opinion, as many people came up to the middle chair multiple times with the same logic and lines of reasoning (although they could not come up multiple times in the same question).

Third, the structure lacks a facilitator and guidelines that encourage participants to adopt more deliberative dispositions and engage in a respectful exchange of ideas. Rather than encouraging everyone to be open-minded and listen to learn from each other, the model opens the door for personal attacks and creates a more adversarial “win-or-lose” atmosphere focused on listening to re-load and respond.

I thought the best part of the video structure was the 10 minute debate that concludes each session. The central deliberator in both videos chose people that had engaged in challenging conversation and brought up good points. In addition, the prevention of red flag removal in this stage led to the continuation of idea-changing conversation instead of sudden interruption.

“Surrounded” offers a quite entertaining viewing experience, and many clips have gone viral across various social media sites. While “Surrounded” has many issues that limits the quality and amount of productive engagement that occurs, there were bright spots in the videos. Ultimately, Jubilee can hopefully continue to make videos that promote better public discourse to a wider audience and have a role in positively shaping our nation’s political climate.