democracy

You Are the Only Person You Will Ever Totally Agree With

December 12, 2023 by Charlotte Spears

Charlotte Spears ’24 (DCI Fellow)

Long before I knew the difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives or what referendum meant, I helped my mother canvas for a state politician in Georgia. The politician was a young woman looking to represent a district in Atlanta. I could not tell you a single one of her policies, but something she said to me before we walked around her neighborhood and asked for votes has stuck with me. She said, “The only politician you will ever completely agree with is yourself.”

Many years later, I make a point to recite this quote to friends, classmates, and participants in the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative. I find it particularly helpful for a few reasons. The first reason was likely her intended message: it’s important to acknowledge that when voting, we can’t expect a politician to check every single box we demand of them. We may agree on eighty percent of pressing issues, but not all. This is an uncomfortable truth, but it aided her campaign by showing voters they did not need to completely agree with her in order to have a compelling reason to vote for her. (She did end up winning).

But the second reason is ultimately what has led this quote to stick with me. If the only politician you will ever completely agree with is yourself, then you are also probably the only person that you will ever totally agree with. There is no one on Earth that will ever side with you 100 percent of the time. So, when you step into a debate in a classroom or over drinks, be careful when grouping your peers into supporters and dissenters or into friends and foes. Because likely, you can agree with all of them on one thing and disagree with all of them on something else.

This mindset has changed how I participate in group conversations. Instead of ganging up on one person who thinks differently than the rest of the group, I try to find out what he and I have in common that will put us on the same side. From personal experience, it’s easy for someone else to do the same after it has been modeled. Eventually, conversations are no longer blue versus red, or male versus female, but a fluid mix of opinions and agreements. A healthy dose of humility in personal beliefs makes us realize that they aren’t necessarily widely held.

I have also seen this play out in the D Team deliberations that I facilitate. Some people can agree on their opinions regarding abortion but disagree on what type of speech should be regulated. Or, some people agree that abortion is morally bad, but disagree on whether or not the government should regulate it. There is very little hostility, if any at all, in these D Teams. And I believe it is due to the fact that people are free to agree and disagree with everyone. The more often these types of conversations are held, the more we realize the uniqueness of our own opinions, the less we group our opponents into a single box, and the less we commit ourselves to always and fully agreeing with a politician or an entire political party.

DCI’s Fall 2023 Deliberative Forum Recap & Recording: The Challenge for Democracy

October 26, 2023 by Sara Copic

On Thursday, October 19, the DCI hosted its 9th public Deliberative Forum, The Challenge for Democracy: To What Extent Should the U.S. and Other Democratic Nations Defend and Promote Democracy Around the World? For this event, we partnered with Davidson’s own Political Science Department and featured speakers with different global areas of specialization. Professors Bes Ceka, Shelley Rigger, and Ken Menkhaus presented their own views about democracy promotion and defense and focused on Europe, Asia, and Africa (respectively). We invite you to watch the recording of our panel below!

The Challenge for Democracy: To What Extent Should the U.S. and Other Democratic Nations Defend and Promote Democracy

Our Deliberative Forum didn’t end with the panel. After the panel discussion, 96 participants engaged with one another in small-group deliberations facilitated by the DCI’s Fellows, Senior Fellows, and others who have gone through our Deliberation Facilitator Training Program, including a few Davidson faculty members. We had a total of 18 small groups deliberating about the topic both online and in-person, drawing on our Deliberation Guide written for the event and engaging with one another on the forum’s central question.

Check out some photos and the short video of these discussions below.

Want to make sure you don’t miss our next forum? Follow us on your favorite social media site and subscribe below for DCI updates!

Panel at DCI Forum — The Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI) and Political Science Department Event – The Challenge for Democracy

A Democracy Worth Pursuing

September 24, 2020 by Tyler McLaren 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 result 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.

Party Conventions and…Deliberation?

August 27, 2020 by Graham Bullock Leave a Comment

For those who have watched any of the Democratic and Republican National Conventions over the past two weeks, the notion of deliberative citizenship was probably not the first thing that came to mind. Facing the realities of the current pandemic, these events have completed their transformation into fully ritualized and performative exercises for the parties involved. This process began decades ago, arguably first with the decision to broadcast the convention live on the radio in 1924 and on television in 1940.¹ It was then accelerated by the primary/caucus system that made the outcomes of the conventions all but pre-determined.

But conventions have not always been so staged and predictable – the first Democratic Convention heard over the radio in 1924 required 103 ballots to determine its nominee (JohnDavis) and the first televised GOP Convention in 1940 nominated a surprise “dark horse” candidate (Wendell Wilkie).² Some commentators have lamented the loss of the deliberative element of conventions that drove this unpredictability but enabled a broader range of the party faithful to engage with one another on the future of their party.³ Before conventions were organized in the 1830s, presidential nominees were selected by each party’s congressional delegation of senators and representatives.⁴

Even the first conventions, however, were constrained by efforts to project unity and unanimity in preparation for the coming general election. The Chairman of the 1835 Democratic Convention, for example, asked for the proceedings to be “marked by a spirit of the utmost harmony and union” and that delegates “be willing to sacrifice all personal predilections and preferences.”⁵

Given these dynamics, how can we make sense of the role of party conventions? In theory, they are designed to enable parties and their members to exercise the three forms of civic agency that Danielle Allen outlines – “disinterested deliberation, prophetic frame shifting, and fair fighting.”⁶ They bring together people who share at least some interests to listen to each other and collectively plot a path forward, in terms of ideology, policy, and electoral strategy. They provide a platform for them to then share their vision with the broader public, and to continue the process of fighting – ideally following ethical norms of fairness – to win at the ballot box.

In reality, however, these forms of civic agency can often be in tension. Some prophecies may create strategic problems or not be accessible to deliberative exploration; deliberation can be seen as hampering the process of both frame-shifting and election-winning; and the short-term focus on racking up wins may undermine both deliberative and prophetic efforts. Great prophets may not make good deliberators or good strategists; great deliberators may have an aversion to both prophetic declarations and political battles, and great fighters may not always see the utility of either deliberation or prophecy.

Given these tensions, conventions may have bit off more than they could chew, and it was perhaps inevitable that they would shed at least one of these civic functions. Deliberation was the natural one to go, particularly as advances in communication technology enabled long-distance coordination on party priorities. Deliberation also can project a sense of discord and dissension among the ranks. Party members can deliberate with each other in person, over the phone, or now over Zoom – why do they need to do it at a convention?

But the unfortunate reality is that such “grassroots” deliberation is not that common. Polls have found that only 1 out of 4 people discussed politics in the last week with family or friends, over half have stopped talking about politics with someone and find it stressful and frustrating to talk about politics with people they disagree with, and nearly two-thirds feel the political climate prevents them from saying things they believe.⁷

This is a problem because democracy, in short, needs deliberation. It needs it not only between those who deeply disagree, but also among those who at least appear to agree on many things. Done poorly or ended prematurely, it can indeed reveal and exacerbate sources of tension and conflict. But done well, deliberation enables us to understand the experiences, emotions, and reasons that underlie each other’s political positions. It provides us with a space where we can share our prophetic commitments and can reveal to us why we should fight fairly with one another. And it compels us to seek out and implement new solutions that address all of our concerns, not just our own. But it takes time and planning, and it often seems expedient to prioritize action over talk.

Both talk and action are important, and sometimes action needs to come before talk. But it is also important to realize that talk can also be a form of action, and it is necessary to create any real sense of unity, whether it is within an organization, a school, a party, or a nation. Without such unity born out of meaningful deliberation, any action we take risks being reversed by those we never spent the time to truly talk with. And such lack of unity creates the conditions for the implementation of policies that threaten our democratic freedoms under the pretense of an illegitimate demand for order and a false claim of fraternity.

So conventions may not be, and may never have been, the best way to foster such deliberation, but we still need to find, or create, the forums in which we – as party members, as citizens, as human beings – can productively deliberate with one another. Our democracy depends on it.

Picture above from Cornell University Library