Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin argue that Americans can revitalize their democracy and break the cycle of cynical media manipulation that is crippling public life. They propose a new national holiday—Deliberation Day—for each presidential election year. On this day people throughout the country will meet in public spaces and engage in structured debates about issues that divide the candidates in the upcoming presidential election.
Deliberation Day is a bold new proposal, but it builds on a host of smaller experiments. Over the past decade, Fishkin has initiated Deliberative Polling events in the United States and elsewhere that bring random and representative samples of voters together for discussion of key political issues. In these events, participants greatly increase their understanding of the issues and often change their minds on the best course of action.
Deliberation Day is not merely a novel idea but a feasible reform. Ackerman and Fishkin consider the economic, organizational, and political questions raised by their proposal and explore its relationship to the larger ideals of liberal democracy.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Browse the best books of summer including blockbusters, beach reads, and editors' picks in our Summer Reading Store. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
Review
From the Publisher
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Customer Reviews
At the height of the Cold War, a majority of Americans could not correctly answer whether the Soviet Union was in NATO. It was not.
Prior to war with Iraq in 2003, half the public thought that Iraqis were among the 9/11 hijackers. There were no Iraqis.
When British citizens were polled recently on whether the nation's constitution is written or unwritten, a quarter answered correctly, a quarter incorrectly, and one-half confessed ignorance. The British "constitution" is unwritten.
Six decades of modern public opinion research establishes the general public's unawareness of important factual background to major civic and political debates. That's not snobbery. That's fact, and it's completely understandable. Time spent on public affairs competes with the need for information on more personal matters, such as price and quality of a home or car, in which ignorance can have a direct cost.
In contrast, no voter perceives a consequence for voting offhandedly. The outcome of a major election never hinges on a single ballot.
Today's political techniques exacerbate the problem of offhanded voting. The science of focus group and public opinion research enables political professionals to identify and exploit the power of different images and slogans, rather than listen to and address the voters' priority concerns. Candidates' time and campaign funds are devoted to efforts to take advantage of preconceptions, not on efforts to inform or engage.
The result is that the issues of greatest public interest, such as homeland security, education, health care, and social security, are treated by our politicians as topics for sound bite and image-making manipulation, rather than as priorities for debate and resolution.
Deliberation Day adapts an antiquated civic institution, President's Day, to provide voters the opportunity and motivation to make informed citizenship a larger part of their busy lives. By engaging every citizen better, Deliberation Day will transform the quantity and quality of information that is grist for public opinion. In a democracy, public opinion is king. The candidates, the media and political professionals all will adjust to its new demands.
Read Deliberation Day. Take a look at www.CitSov.org. Get involved in making it possible for everyone to participate thoughtfully in American politics.
Fishkin has conducted extensive deliberative polling -- sessions in which large groups representative of a society discuss a political issue in depth. He's found that positions shift dramatically, though not necessarily in a predictable direction, as a result of these sessions, that these shifts are the result of increased knowledge, and that participants' new positions have staying power.
Ackerman and Fishkin argue that Deliberation Day would better inform and involve a woefully ignorant public, in part through the effects it would have on candidates, the media, activists, and political parties. Testing a sound bite with a focus group would not predict its usefulness in winning over a public that would be deliberating the issue. Politicians would be obliged to develop positions that could withstand examination and substantive debate.
Deliberation Day activities would begin with a live televised debate between candidates answering questions from participants in an advance deliberation session. Written materials would also be provided by the candidates. Deliberators would discuss the issues in groups of 15 and take questions to plenaries of 500 at which local representatives of each campaign would respond to questions. Back in their smaller groups, deliberators would discuss their concerns further.
When I first heard of this idea, I loved it until I found out a televised debate would be involved. Anyone who watched the Democratic primary debates this season knows how few topics are raised, how little substance is produced, and how biased the affairs are toward the candidates the media prefers. I raised this concern with Ackerman, and he replied that his principal concern was that relying exclusively on written presentations would overly depress turnout.
I'm not sure I agree with that, but after reading this book I do agree with including the televised debate, provided it is not conducted by a media corporation with an interest in ratings and in the needs of major corporations, and provided it will - as the authors describe -- involve questions developed through the thoughtful dialogue of a large and representative group of citizens. In fact, televising such a debate would be a significant experiment in and of itself, which if properly promoted and made available would likely accomplish a good bit of what Deliberation Day is intended to do.
The design of Deliberation Day is well conceived by the authors and spelled out clearly in 219 pages of detail, including cost and logistics. I'm completely sold, but I have a few concerns.
First, how will the campaigns ensure that they have informed representatives in every location who can answer questions? In the recent primaries, I represented one of the Democratic candidates in debates in which some of the candidates were represented by volunteers or staff who repeatedly had to say "I'm sorry, I don't know where he stands on that." This was the case even in a debate in which the questions had been provided a week ahead of time. For Deliberation Day to work, the campaigns will have to take it seriously enough in its first run-through to organize a small army of better informed supporters.
Second, isn't the real issue the nominating processes, not the choice between the two nominees? What will happen if we all become informed and discover that there isn't much difference between the two candidates, and they're both ignoring some of our concerns? Will this force them to compete to meet our needs? Will Deliberation Day lead primary voters to look for different strengths in candidates than they do now? Or will a full frustrating day of deliberation confirm many people's current belief that there's no point in getting involved (except maybe for the $150)? After all, people already support many positions that I find admirable and well-informed but that we can't get our government to enact to save our lives.
Third, what about third and fourth parties? Ackerman and Fishkin largely avoid the topic and otherwise suggest that they would restrict candidates' involvement based proportionately on their parties' success in the previous election. But some discussion is in order here. If Deliberation Day can be expected to change many people's minds, is it not conceivable that they could make a third party actually viable? Or is it more likely that this exercise in civic participation will force one or more of the two major parties to address the concerns that have led to the development of other parties? I don't know, but I find the authors' avoidance of the topic uncharacteristically shortsighted.
Fourth, what makes this - any more than, say, media reform or campaign finance reform - something we can create in the absence of already having it in place? The source of hope for egalitarian ideas these days seems to be starting locally and working up to the state and national levels. Ackerman and Fishkin argue, however, that Deliberation Day must start with presidential campaigns, because the greatest number of people vote in those already. They are convinced that a less than stellar debut for Deliberation Day would put an end to the project. It's an excellent point, but not one I find a source for optimism. Getting this into John Kerry's platform would persuade me.
That may not be as far-fetched as it sounds. While Kerry avoids many issues on which he attempts a delicate balance intended to please all of the people all of the time, he also takes positions on complex issues that would benefit from discussion longer than 10 seconds. A presidential challenger ought to commit to putting Deliberation Day in place for his reelection attempt. Perhaps Kerry is the one to do it.
I'd like to add deliberation day to the 11 other vacation days that Americans use to pack the libraries and civic halls to memorialize heros. Read more
Listmania!
So You'd Like to...
Look for Similar Items by Category
- Books > Biographies & Memoirs > Leaders & Notable People > Political
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Elections & Political Process > Elections
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Ideologies & Doctrines > Democracy
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > International & World Politics
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Political Science
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > United States
