Dialogue with libertarians--waste of time?
Each day my RSS reader picks up anything new to do with deliberative democracy, amongst many other things. I don't think many people realise that your Google, BlogLines, Technorati and del.icio.us searches, to name a few, can be dynamically activated in your RSS reader.
This is good because instead of just subscribing to those who share my beliefs, I stumble across those who don't. That is important for several reasons. First, I want to be exposed to alternative ideas and determine their merit for myself. Often the frameworks from which they come are quite alien to me and I need to see them at their source, not filtered through somebody who doesn't share the beliefs. Second, I want to see where my beliefs sit in the whole marketplace of ideas. How can I defend my beliefs if I don't have at least some understanding about what I'm up against? Third, perhaps I can learn something from other perspectives that will shift me from what in retrospect would appear to be "small thinking".
And so it was that I fell upon "Deliberative Democracy" Dementia by James Bovard. It is published in the May issue of The Freeman, the journal of
My active blog search immediately picked up libertarian commentators (here and here) who agreed with the author. Another blogger weighs in with the argument that any form of collective political endeavour is an anathema. Again, the claim is based on the false premise that deliberative processes coerce participants into a happy state of consensus. In fact, consensus is rare and the outcome of these processes is meant to inform the power structure and lead to innovative action, not acquiesce to predetermined ends.
I'm not in America, where individual rights and their protection are explicitly promoted through the constitution. But even in Canada and Australia, countries I'm familiar with, individualism is a claimed feature of our times. However, conformity seems to be the order of the day, especially through the normalising influence of television. In that context, deliberative processes hardly seem threatening!
So after exploring the "gunner" perspective, with all its anger and defensiveness, it's pretty clear that middle ground is hard to find when it's reviled.
[Update} I had a very useful exchange with one of the libertarians linked to above. Go take a look.
This is good because instead of just subscribing to those who share my beliefs, I stumble across those who don't. That is important for several reasons. First, I want to be exposed to alternative ideas and determine their merit for myself. Often the frameworks from which they come are quite alien to me and I need to see them at their source, not filtered through somebody who doesn't share the beliefs. Second, I want to see where my beliefs sit in the whole marketplace of ideas. How can I defend my beliefs if I don't have at least some understanding about what I'm up against? Third, perhaps I can learn something from other perspectives that will shift me from what in retrospect would appear to be "small thinking".
And so it was that I fell upon "Deliberative Democracy" Dementia by James Bovard. It is published in the May issue of The Freeman, the journal of
The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), one of the oldest free-market organizations in the United States, was founded in 1946 by Leonard E. Read to study and advance the freedom philosophy. FEE's mission is to offer the most consistent case for the "first principles" of freedom: the sanctity of private property, individual liberty, the rule of law, the free market, and the moral superiority of individual choice and responsibility over coercion.The purpose of this article is to deride Deliberative Democracy. It primarily targets academics who write about and promote deliberative democratic theory. However, in every single instance the author either mis-defines, distorts or misrepresents what DD is about. Here are some examples:
Deliberative Democracy is different things to different people—but the common thread is that we will gather and be coached on how to discuss politics.This implies that DD is a control mechanism under which some normative form of niceness is forced upon or expected of citizens, that citizens should be told how to behave and think about politics, as if that is the underlying agenda of DD. The author then claims that academics place "public reason" at the centre of DD processes, but then derides the term as nebulous and illusory. But whilst some theorists (eg. Habermas) do look to some idealised rational deliberative situation, most practitioners know that deliberation relies on the full range of human expression and articulation, not just rigorously logical discourse.
...professors imply that Deliberative Democracy would allow citizens the chance to take the reins of state.No, that is Direct Democracy. Rather, most deliberative academics and practitioners see DD initiatives reinforcing existing constitutional structures.
Deliberative-Democracy advocates stress the need to assume good motives and good faith in deliberations about government. People are supposed to begin assuming that politicians are honest and benevolent, and then discuss how much additional power they should receive to improve other people’s lives.I honestly don't know where this assertion comes from. Deliberationists are just as aware as the rest that some politicians and government officials muck around and they should be removed. In many deliberative events, it is the very expertise of scientists or the machinations of the executive which are directly interrogated. Often it is recognised that the perspectives, frameworks and motives of those who exercise power do not align with those of the citizens upon whom their decisions affect. The recommendations of such events often call for a devolution of power.
The Deliberative-Democracy fad is a reminder of the circular nature of much of political science. Someone comes up with a phrase—others watch and see that it “flies”—and then the race is on to milk the slogan for as many journal articles and books as possible—to use it to snare funding for conferences and, ideally, even for research institutes dedicated to the notion.This is nothing more than pejorative. Unlike the author, most academics seriously question the merits of DD and don't slag others as being disingenuous.
Deliberative Democracy is a recipe for docility masquerading as a formula for activism. Deliberative Democracy aims to pacify citizens, not leash politicians. Being permitted to talk about politics is no substitute for being free.This implies that DD is some form of social engineering that removes rights from citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth. DD practitioners see DD as activating citizens. That dialogue could be the antithesis of freedom is just absurd. If you persist with the victimised believe that everyone else has the power to diminish your freedom, then of course talking won't help.
Deliberative Democracy is a good example of how pretenses (sic) of idealism can sanctify servitude. "Lofty thinking" works out well for professors while common citizens fall into the manholes their schemes leave open. The professors’ latest fix is little more than "attitude adjustment" for the American people. Deliberative Democracy will not lighten their chains, but will permit them to initialize their own fetters.And finally, we have completely unfounded fear mongering, as if academia is striding to be the new masters of the universe. There is also the implication that most people are too stupid to determine their own fate. Right, who needs friends then?
There is no substitute for more Americans with the wisdom and the courage to demand that government obey the Constitution and respect their rights.This is the final sentence in the piece, which is a restatement of the libertarian evangelism.
My active blog search immediately picked up libertarian commentators (here and here) who agreed with the author. Another blogger weighs in with the argument that any form of collective political endeavour is an anathema. Again, the claim is based on the false premise that deliberative processes coerce participants into a happy state of consensus. In fact, consensus is rare and the outcome of these processes is meant to inform the power structure and lead to innovative action, not acquiesce to predetermined ends.
I'm not in America, where individual rights and their protection are explicitly promoted through the constitution. But even in Canada and Australia, countries I'm familiar with, individualism is a claimed feature of our times. However, conformity seems to be the order of the day, especially through the normalising influence of television. In that context, deliberative processes hardly seem threatening!
So after exploring the "gunner" perspective, with all its anger and defensiveness, it's pretty clear that middle ground is hard to find when it's reviled.
[Update} I had a very useful exchange with one of the libertarians linked to above. Go take a look.
Post a Comment