A True Voice of Reason
"Deliberative democracy is a system of popular government that fosters rule by the informed and reasoned judgments of citizenry, by what Madison called 'the cool and deliberate sense of community'," says Joseph M. Bessette in his book A Mild Voice of Reason.
Throughout this work he delineates a line between two types of the "public voice," one based on a short term timeline, the other over a longer more informed one. The latter of the two being the more desirable because it rests upon a larger base of information and a more well informed constituency; this is the only voice "fit to rule." It is however, difficult to draw a clear line between what is a "short" period of time and what is a "long" period of time, and should both time periods be regarded as the same on all issues. Are not some issues easier to solve then others, or are we expected to make every decision as equally difficult to make as the most difficult which plague our country.
The American constitutional system, as I have said before, is a fickle entity in itself. It is almost an amalgam of contradictory ideals rolled into one solidified document. It was written in such away that feared majorities and protected the minority voice, it was also written in a way that was supposed to slow the process of legislation and action taken by the government to force a more comprehensive and deliberative communication on the problems facing the nation. Majority, popular, and emotional sway were supposed to be stemmed by the mere structure of our government; for "passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction," as Kahlil Gibran would say.
A problem arises however with the consideration of American political culture and how it clashes with the ideals of the constitution. We always want the best solution, but are rarely willing to sacrifice the amount of time it would take to get it. America has never been a country interested in plans or programs implemented over a long time frame. We have always valued that which was quick and practical -- partly a leftover and forever lasting sentiment of the frontier days, what 'does' work as a converse to what 'should.' In the most idealistic sense, a deliberative democracy would be most desirable, but not just any deliberative democracy, one that could and would come to comprehensive conclusions and solutions to our problems.
"The point here is not to dispute the capacity of American citizens to reach sound judgments about their own interests, the public good, or justice, but rather to clarify the impediments to public deliberation about the details of national policies and thus the necessity for large institutional role in determining and fashioning 'the cool and deliberate sense of community,'" says Bessette. But really, it is almost an exercise in time management. I cannot blame the lack of deliberation solely upon the back of time. Time does not always produce better results, in some cases, when problems go ignored or unanswered, problems become more severe. In some cases, too much talking will simply further complicate and issue.
The elimination of spontaneity is a difficult path for an American to walk. We're culturally impatient creatures; sooner is always better then later, and later is better then never at all. But simply because a path is difficult does not mean we should disregard the ideal. However, it is a requirement that at the end of a long deliberative debate, conclusions are drawn; otherwise the whole process was pointless. The amount of time the government usually takes to move is an annoyance to the American populace because some problems require responses that are quick and decisive.
American has the power of a giant amongst ants, but we also have the speed of one. Many feel that our "deliberative democracy," has done little more then stagnate good bills, but truly the point is to stagnate all bills both good and bad, in an effort to come to the best conclusion. So we risk not passing good bills in order to prevent the majority of bad ones up for consideration. These are all values I honor, but I do not feel that our government should be allowed to take no action over an unreasonably long period of time. It gets to a point when we have to ask, how much time is enough.
How long should we deliberate for if we come under attack, if our economy is on a serious decline, if social security fails sooner then expected? I don't value the idea of acting out of ignorance, but I do value action. The luxury of time isn't something that we always have and given the amount of time, will we possess the ability to deliberate well? This of course is a given point as a base of Bessette's argument, "that our governing institutions must have the capacity to deliberate well, to make informed and wise judgments about public policy; and that those deliberations must be firmly grounded in the interests and desires of the American citizenry." But if this is the case, what is wrong the American majority making the decisions, since congress, our main governing body is made up of surrogate representatives of the constituency. If the people feel you should act then why not act.
America is a large balancing act: we balance time and action, the majority and the minority, short verse long and bad verse good. We want it all, and it for this reason we quest for progress toward a better society, even if we know for a fact "perfection," will never be reached. It is the very offices of congressional representatives that make them selfish in their goal for legislation. If congresses roll is to "refine and enlarge the public views," so that national policy reflects a "cool and deliberate sense of community," and these are base points of a deliberative democracy then we have failed.
The framers of the constitution had a most honest faith in the development on the congressional office in America. Are congressmen and women as a whole responsible lawmakers who "reason together about common goals"? No. They are selfish individuals concerned about reelection and the small portion of the population over which they preside.
I'm not sure if we can always make the right decision for the right time, but I am sure most of the time we need to make decisions and we need decision makers. With the our current level of emphasis upon deliberation, will we ever obtain a government that uses "the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest?" That is the ideal, it is the theory, it is the perfection for which we strive; it is the goal we look toward, but the concept which is difficult to live out with the current feelings of our system. A greater understanding of