In looking at how the Health Care debate has progressed I was reminded of the work by Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson on what they have called Deliberative Democracy. I will use their latest book, Why Deliberative Democracy, as the source for my current comments.
The authors state (p 7):
"…we can define deliberative democracy as a form of government in which free and equal citizens (and their representatives) justify decisions in a process in which they give one another reasons that are mutually acceptable and generally accessible with the aim of reaching conclusions that are binding in the present on all citizens but open to challenge in the future."
Gutmann and Thompson then apply their definition to three examples of which I will discuss. They are:
1. Iraq War: In essence their argument was that the process failed to meet the requirements of a deliberative democracy by delimiting the discussion and having certain issue inadequately revealed and discussed. They contend that the debate should have lasted longer. In my view there were other issues as well. One was that the "Bush Doctrine" of a pre-emptive war was not fully understood by the populace, albeit the US had done this before, yet not to this scale. Second there was a strange tension in the US between the lingering strain of 9/11 and the massive separation politically of anti-Bush and everyone else in the electorate. I here argue that the political separation was "anti-Bush" and everyone else because I believe that those not anti-Bush were not necessarily pro-Bush, just anti-anti-Bush. One then wonders in such an environment how the above definition could ever function in the first place.
2. California Governor Recall Referendum: They then critique the 2003 California Referendum on the Governor and basically state that the Referendum process is inherently flawed. They state without any basis in fact that "Because neither the procedure nor its results could be said to be democratic in the simplest procedural sense….judicial intervention to correct some of the defects may be called for…" (p 60) This is amazing because the Referendum process is in and of itself a full Democratic process, rant with chaos and confusion, yet a process where one person and one vote counts. It may make California look like Italy but alas it may truly be such. Gutmann and Thompson disdain the true chaos of democracy if one takes their words at face value.
However one of the more concerning comments in this section regarding California is the Gutmann comment on Educational systems for she seems to believe that the function of educational institutions is to train people to think correctly. Furthermore to train them to think cohesively in a manner compliant with her definition of deliberative democracy. She states:
"To prepare their students for citizenship in a deliberative democracy, schools should aim to develop the capacities of the students to understand different perspectives, communicate their understandings to other people and engage in the give and take of moral argument with a view toward making mutually justifiable decisions." (p 61)
This is highly laudable but she seems to mean that in the context of certain strictures and world views.
3. Cervical Cancer Testing: The authors then discuss a case as to whether an HMO should be made to pay for a patients test for cervical cancer which goes beyond the standard Pap test. Here they apply the principles of deliberative democracy to having a free and open discussion including the HMO to decide this. One may look at this in another manner, namely if the test gives one more comfort, then one may just pay for the test themselves and not demand that the HMO do so. Or better one may choose another plan which may already pay for it. This argument for deliberative democracy is trumped by a simple economic rule: if something has perceived value to me then I can and should pay for it. It is not one where I am owed something and if I just haggle long enough I will get it. Thus this third example is specious at best.
Now how does this apply to the current Health Care debate. I believe that it is spot on. At least with Iraq there were confrontational hearings and an across the board vote with a large majority in favor. In Health Care it is like pulling hen's teeth to get the copy of the bill, it is discussed behind closed doors in an exclusionary manner, it is much less democratic that any other such process and it will have a down the middle party vote. One could not think of a less deliberative democratic process. Those opposing it are almost always called traitors by the other side and the attempt is to marginalize them. One may then ask, where are the Gutmanns and Thompsons on this issue, for here is a truly critical issue calling for deliberative democracy.
The authors state (p 7):
"…we can define deliberative democracy as a form of government in which free and equal citizens (and their representatives) justify decisions in a process in which they give one another reasons that are mutually acceptable and generally accessible with the aim of reaching conclusions that are binding in the present on all citizens but open to challenge in the future."
Gutmann and Thompson then apply their definition to three examples of which I will discuss. They are:
1. Iraq War: In essence their argument was that the process failed to meet the requirements of a deliberative democracy by delimiting the discussion and having certain issue inadequately revealed and discussed. They contend that the debate should have lasted longer. In my view there were other issues as well. One was that the "Bush Doctrine" of a pre-emptive war was not fully understood by the populace, albeit the US had done this before, yet not to this scale. Second there was a strange tension in the US between the lingering strain of 9/11 and the massive separation politically of anti-Bush and everyone else in the electorate. I here argue that the political separation was "anti-Bush" and everyone else because I believe that those not anti-Bush were not necessarily pro-Bush, just anti-anti-Bush. One then wonders in such an environment how the above definition could ever function in the first place.
2. California Governor Recall Referendum: They then critique the 2003 California Referendum on the Governor and basically state that the Referendum process is inherently flawed. They state without any basis in fact that "Because neither the procedure nor its results could be said to be democratic in the simplest procedural sense….judicial intervention to correct some of the defects may be called for…" (p 60) This is amazing because the Referendum process is in and of itself a full Democratic process, rant with chaos and confusion, yet a process where one person and one vote counts. It may make California look like Italy but alas it may truly be such. Gutmann and Thompson disdain the true chaos of democracy if one takes their words at face value.
However one of the more concerning comments in this section regarding California is the Gutmann comment on Educational systems for she seems to believe that the function of educational institutions is to train people to think correctly. Furthermore to train them to think cohesively in a manner compliant with her definition of deliberative democracy. She states:
"To prepare their students for citizenship in a deliberative democracy, schools should aim to develop the capacities of the students to understand different perspectives, communicate their understandings to other people and engage in the give and take of moral argument with a view toward making mutually justifiable decisions." (p 61)
This is highly laudable but she seems to mean that in the context of certain strictures and world views.
3. Cervical Cancer Testing: The authors then discuss a case as to whether an HMO should be made to pay for a patients test for cervical cancer which goes beyond the standard Pap test. Here they apply the principles of deliberative democracy to having a free and open discussion including the HMO to decide this. One may look at this in another manner, namely if the test gives one more comfort, then one may just pay for the test themselves and not demand that the HMO do so. Or better one may choose another plan which may already pay for it. This argument for deliberative democracy is trumped by a simple economic rule: if something has perceived value to me then I can and should pay for it. It is not one where I am owed something and if I just haggle long enough I will get it. Thus this third example is specious at best.
Now how does this apply to the current Health Care debate. I believe that it is spot on. At least with Iraq there were confrontational hearings and an across the board vote with a large majority in favor. In Health Care it is like pulling hen's teeth to get the copy of the bill, it is discussed behind closed doors in an exclusionary manner, it is much less democratic that any other such process and it will have a down the middle party vote. One could not think of a less deliberative democratic process. Those opposing it are almost always called traitors by the other side and the attempt is to marginalize them. One may then ask, where are the Gutmanns and Thompsons on this issue, for here is a truly critical issue calling for deliberative democracy.
Posts
