An enterprising student writes:
bq. I am planning to write a book (albeit, in the distant future) about what obstacles there are to a deliberative, transparent, and civil discourse in public policy in America…At the moment I’m just gathering sources in regards to congress, the electoral process, partisans (parties, lobbyists, think tanks), the media, and the electorate to see how they each undermine deliberative, transparent, and civil discourse in public policy. Is there any way to do it or are we pretty much screwed?
A poignant question, especially given how quickly the discourse about health care reform went off the rails. I had three initial thoughts.
First, are the three standards — deliberative, transparent, and civil — actually at cross-purposes? For example, does transparency — which likely ensures that elite debates are in the public’s view — lend itself to deliberation and civility, or to bitter argument and insults? Would we actually be better off if more policymaking occurred behind closed doors? Moreover, does ensuring some species of deliberation guarantee that civility will result? Couldn’t deliberation simply degenerate into verbal fisticuffs? I think it’s tough to achieve all three criteria simultaneously.
Second, if I were to address the various actors (Congress, voters, etc.), I would start by thinking hard about their incentives? Do members of Congress have an incentive to deliberate, transparently and civilly? Why or why not? Do voters? Should the media try to encourage civil deliberation, even if that’s not what it’s audience is buying? As you can see, I’m a little skeptical that these actors do or even should care about the quality of the discourse (although maybe not so skeptical as to call us “screwed”).
Third, leaving aside incentives, should we really care about the apparent quality of deliberation? Put it this way: what if Obama and a Democratic Congress, despite nasty and rancorous debates that made “You lie!” look like garden-party chit-chat, managed to ram through a series of bills that made the country better off — the economy grew rapidly, health outcomes improved, the air and water were cleaner, the country was at peace, etc., etc. Would the means by which these goals were achieved — which entails very little transparency, civility, and deliberation — negate the ends?