Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

Tyler McLaren

The Best We Have to Offer

by Leave a Comment

stack of books

By Ty McLaren, DCI Fellow

As a cohort of Deliberative Citizenship Initiative fellows, we recently began reading Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement in an Age of Unreason by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse, a pair of philosophers from Vanderbilt who focus on argumentation theory and democracy, respectively. Despite growing up in the age of hyper-individualism, the two authors suggest that we still derive much of what we believe from others. With each individual pursuing their own ideal truthful and good lives, it certainly comes as a surprise that we depend a great deal on others even though we so desperately do it alone.  Look no further than teachers, relatives, celebrities, experts of your respective field or job, and your peers to see that this is true. Simply put, our individual reality and understanding of that reality is heavily dependent on others and their ability to provide us reliable, accurate, sincere, and honest information. It is our duty to do the same for others.

Within the context of our nation’s current political and social narrative, this fact of human existence is terrifying–largely due to its damage from hyper-polarization and contempt. Deriving one’s understanding and perspective of the world seems like a good thing, particularly when individuals are exposed to all that the world has to offer. But when individuals isolate themselves, retreating back to partisan echo-chambers, biased news cycles, and peers with whom they only agree with, one misses out on the majority of information that the human experience has to offer. What is worse is that once this polarization and isolation sets in, our sense of reality becomes extremely manipulated. Due to confirmation and self-serving biases, we become convinced that “all opponents of our beliefs are silly, stupid, ignorant, unreliable, and evil.” Meanwhile, while we maintain close contact with those we passionately agree with, our understanding of the truth shifts further to the extreme in what is known in psychology as group polarization. As Aikin and Talissse put it, such “group polarization is caused by group dynamics, not reasons.”

Despite our shared pursuit of truth and virtue, who we choose to associate with has consequences, and continuing to subject yourselves to isolation, running from those we disagree with, and demonizing those we disagree with severs our connection with others and with our common goals as humans, perhaps never to be healed again as the rift continues to separate like tectonic plates. It seems as if our belief systems and our “truths” are beginning to seem completely incompatible.

This is why our work at the DCI is so important. Our D Teams and Deliberative Forums provide opportunities for individuals to break the current cycle of polarization and willingly engage with others with varying opinions on key issues. Just as many Americans have made the active decision to tune out, our work at the DCI is to encourage our community members to make the active decision to tune back in. Thus far, I have been thoroughly impressed by the vast array of perspectives and viewpoints I have been exposed to by our participants and by the enthusiasm I have observed. Although we focus on a small portion of the national reality, our grassroots approach seems like the most practical way to begin countering hyper-polarization by simply encouraging the best humans have to offer — our shared thirst for knowledge and the pursuit of truth.

A Democracy Worth Pursuing

by Leave a Comment

By Tyler McLaren, DCI Fellow

John Locke, a founding philosopher of liberalism, offered that, “Men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal and independent, [cannot] be […] subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent.” Why is it then, that in our American society, which is built upon liberalism and where this ideology is so highly regarded, so many citizens have abandoned their right to make their voices heard, to vote and to engage in civil discourse, when the peopleresult is a complete forfeiture of power to a government that does not serve their interests? Why would anyone give up this power and self-agency?

One may advance the common belief that our elected officials in Washington have not listened to the American people for decades, and that political engagement is a lost cause given the government’s complexity and polarization. Simply put, it is not the American people who have given up on democracy—the government has.

Dr. Daniel Layman, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Davidson College, offers that there is a favorable alternative to current practice both in Monday’s “Deliberation Nation – Why Deliberative Democracy is our Best Option” lecture and in his peer reviewed article, Robust Deliberative Democracy.

Layman contends that if we choose to deliberate with our fellow citizens on policy issues, instead of participating in the bargaining and bickering which has become the norm, we all have a say in politics, we all exercise our right to be equal and independent, and we are all truly free. Democracy is a team effort, and if we are to save it from apathy, disengagement, marginalization, and polarization, no players can be on the sidelines.

Skeptical? I was too before Layman moved from a utopian depiction of deliberative democracy to expose us to two core problems with deliberative democracy, which he then refuted— restoring faith in his argument, and by extension, the likelihood that we could pull this off.

First, there is a knowledge problem. If the average citizen does not know the name of their senator, what makes us think they have the knowledge to debate about contentious issues in our country? Deliberative democracy, however, does not require excessive knowledge —it is based on moral deliberation. Morals are plentiful and diverse in the American polis. We should therefore be able to define the moral parameters within which acceptable policy can be made.

Second, there is the incentive problem. Many Americans have little incentive to take politics seriously and are disinclined to devote time, energy, and resources to a political process that yields little in their favor. Yet deliberative democracy does not ask citizens to abandon their own self-interest in favor of others. Instead, it asks our citizens to conceptualize their self-interest and their ability to voice their needs as centrally dependent on their freedom from arbitrary government or others’ personal wills. It makes little logical sense, then, why anyone would subject themself to such unfreedom, under this assumption.

With a strong case as to why deliberative democracy is not just manageable, but worth managing, we must begin thinking about how we can make it possible for our citizens to begin  “sharing reasons” with one another and accepting others’ offerings to arrive at some common ground first, and then the most rationally supported policy becomes possible. Efforts promoting deliberation are a good start, but are often limited to those fortunate enough to receive a college education.  If deliberative democracy is to work, everyone must be invited to the table. Deliberative forums must be accessible, inviting, and come at no cost to the participants. Deliberation cannot privilege those who fit the mold of what politics is “supposed” to look like; everyone must have the ability to express their reason in their own way.  For this reason, I’m excited about the DCI’s current efforts and future plans to partner with local organizations to host deliberation opportunities for all members of our community, regardless of their background.

Although there is much work to be done, I have faith in the American people’s ability to find common ground not because they have to, but because it is important to their freedom.