Middle Democracy
From Internet: Knowledge and Community
- Hoyle Hodges
- Internet: Knowledge and Community
- Response for 2 Feb 2011
- Middle Democracy
- At the foundation of democratic institutions, according to both proceduralists and constitutionalists, lie fundamental moral ideas that are or should be widely shared.
(Gutmann and Thompson, Arguing About Political Philosophy, pg 101) Gutmann and Thompson lay out a very logical look at the shortcomings of both Procedural and Constitutional approaches to democracy. They also make a great case through reason and logic for a type of “middle democracy” or deliberative democracy for finding and making morally justified decisions within the democratic process. Procedural democracy defends popular rule as the fairest way of resolving moral conflicts (Gutmann and Thompson, Arguing About Political Philosophy, pg 93) this is true only in the simplest definition of majoritariansim, while ignoring completely the moral position of the minority. Constitutional democracy broadens the search for substantive values that can be included in a common perspective to resolve moral disagreements. (Gutmann and Thompson, Arguing About Political Philosophy, pg 98) Constitutionalists come closer to resolving moral conflicts in a justified way, when their approach is taken as theory or as an abstract. They run into trouble when those trying to interpret those abstract principles of justice cannot agree on what the correct interpretation is, often not even knowing how to interpret them. I really like the deliberative democracy proposed by the authors, I believe that the Internet and technology could be used in a positive way to formalize a deliberative process that could open further the door to moral decisions within our democratic tradition in the United States. Middle Democracy is the land of everyday politics (Gutmann and Thompson, Arguing About Political Philosophy, pg 101) This is the place where we should be trying the hardest to resolve the moral issues that laws and policies do not at this time adequately address and we are left with an “activist judiciary” to resolve them in a less than satisfactory manner for all involved. Institutionalized moral arguments within the legislative process may slow down the pace of decision making and cause much gnashing of teeth and bearing of claws from the all too often narrow interest group and professional lobbyists that currently inhabit the deliberative space. By using the technology of the internet all citizens could present their moral values and positions on proposed legislation, yes this would be imperfect, and yes it would not always render a morally justified decision or policy. Nationwide deliberation on key issues with a means of pure citizen input is available to us, but would entail a major shift in the status quo of our elected officials. Part of what we see in the widespread opposition to Obama care for example is the way in which it was enacted. Backroom horse trading and bargaining, a rushed timeline to vote before officials had a chance to read the bill, much less citizens or health care providers. With Congressional approval rates hovering around the low teens and single digits it is time for both the Left and the Right to implement a deliberative process. This is probably the only way that we will see the legitimacy of our legislators increase, and be able to have the kind of civil interaction that is so necessary to reduce the vitriolic rhetoric that dominates what passes for deliberation in our society today. Middle Democracy could serve as the “third space” for our political community if given the chance.
