Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

Fellow Posts

Debate and Deliberation: Commonalities and Contrasts Through the Lens of the First Presidential Debate of 2020

by Leave a Comment

Donald Trump and Joe Biden at presidential debate

By Cadie McNaboe, DCI Fellow

On September 29th, countless Americans tuned in to watch the first presidential debate between President Donald Trump and Former Vice President Joe Biden. For those who persevered through the antagonistic comments and arguments with the moderator, Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, it was clear that it was impossible to call the back and forth exchange a deliberation, and unlikely to term it a debate. NBC anchor Lester Holt, right after the debate had closed said, “If hearing that this debate is over was music to your ears, you may not be alone … I’m at a bit of a loss for words here to describe what we’ve just witnessed.”  I stand in agreement with him.

While this is only my third round of presidential debates (that I remember-it’s distinctly possible my parents set me in front of the TV to watch the debates as a child), my years of competing in debate taught me about the rigidity and rules of debating, none of which were present in this debate. The DCI defines debate as structured discourse that is oriented towards highlighting differences and exposing weaknesses; with previous presidential debates, it also has been utilized to signify an alignment towards policy and an opportunity for a “winner” to emerge through their use of political prose and powerful rhetoric. This debate, with its insults, interruptions, and cross-talk intended only to derail the moderator’s questioning, should be considered more of a reality-TV scene than anything else.

Deliberation, on the other hand, has something else to offer the American public. Based on cooperation rather than competition, deliberation seeks to build collective and individual understanding, and works to bridge the divides across the political spectrum so frequently apparent at the national level. Going beyond the constraints of debate’s binary pro-con style, deliberation calls for good-faith arguments, ones that seeks to understand our commonalities rather than our differences.

Through deliberation, with its use of an active facilitator, connections can be woven, and viewpoints can be shared through the strategic use of stories, statistics, productive cross-talk and thoughtful consideration of new perspectives beyond our own. This non-adversarial approach builds on the unique perspectives each deliberator holds, and their inherent power to share their perspective with others.

Deliberation also stands to provide an opportunity to enable action after its closing. In a debate, participants would shake hands (pre-COVID), get the judge’s feedback and “scoresheets” and then proceed to move to the next topic of concern. Instead of positing a temporary topic of  concern, deliberation allows and encourages voluntary action as a relevant part of the deliberative process. Communication around these contentious issues is essential but does little without action tied to it.

This is why after each D-Team meeting or deliberative forum, the DCI sends out Beyond the Deliberation, a compilation of tangible action pathways for participants to consider if they feel inspired to pursue any of them. These pathways, with ways to get informed, get connected, and get involved, contribute to the autonomy of each deliberator, who can individually and collectively continue the work our democracy requires. After watching the first presidential debate, it’s easy to feel unsure about the state of our country, but if instead of a reason to forfeit anything related to politics, we must use that debate as a call for cooperation as a collective response. If we do that, then we are empowered and also well positioned to begin the lifelong work of deliberation and action – for the benefit of ourselves and our democracy.

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.