Policy Perspective

A Golden Rule for Public Deliberation
by Fay Lomax Cook

Fall 2009, Volume 31, Number 1

Fay Lomax Cook

Angry shouts, boos, and jeers punctuated, and sometimes overwhelmed, more than a few discussions on healthcare reform across the United States this past August—a series of spectacles that might come to be known as the “Summer of Raucous Town Hall Meetings.”

Some commentators—especially on the Right—saw this as deliberative democracy at its finest: Citizens were going to the meetings to raise their voices and discuss an issue of vital importance to them and their communities. No one would argue against the view that citizen discourse and deliberation are integral parts of a healthy democracy. Yet recent research by my colleagues Larry Jacobs and Michael Delli Carpini and me places these particular outbursts in a decidedly undemocratic light.

In our new book, Talking Together: Public Deliberation and Political Participation in America, we lay out the results of the most comprehensive study ever undertaken on public discourse and deliberation. Conducted over two months in 2003 with a random, national sample of 1,501 U.S. citizens, our in-depth telephone survey maps how Americans actually deliberate—day in and day out—in their homes, in town halls, even online.

In our examination of the deliberative process, we studied a variety of formal and informal contexts where citizens come together to talk about policy issues, from calling up a friend or family member to organized meetings, Internet chat rooms, and e-mail exchanges. Perhaps most surprising is how widespread and vibrant deliberative engagement is: Eight out of 10 Americans said they participated in discussions of public issues, with one-fourth engaged in more taxing, formally organized, face-to-face group discussions, such as town hall meetings.

Not all public deliberation is created equal, however. In dissecting the deliberative process, we combed through the various theories that political scientists have proffered over the years to construct a cohesive framework. With it, one can distinguish five characteristics of public deliberation that can go in either democratic or undemocratic directions.

On the democratic side, public deliberation heeds all concerned voices, includes all relevant viewpoints, is rooted in logic and facts, forges a path to consensus, and strengthens the democratic process and policy outcomes. On the undemocratic side, public deliberation is exclusive, registers only elite voices that represent entrenched social and economic hierarchies, appeals to emotion and works to coerce, intensifies disagreement and divisions, and has either a null or negative effect on the democratic process and policy outcomes.

Viewed within this framework and in light of our in-depth exploration of deliberative forums, many of the August town hall meetings on healthcare reform clearly register on the undemocratic side of the spectrum. The angry shouting drowned out the voices of those too poor, too sick, too timid, or perhaps simply too well-mannered to jump into the fray. Even normally confident and outspoken representatives of Congress were cowed—or booed—into silence. Meanwhile, the loudest cries often came from representatives of vested, elite interests—such as insurance corporations and well-financed conservative groups, or those dispatched on their behalf. In the end, meaningful dialogue was mostly shot down in the crossfire.

Given what is at stake with healthcare reform, the conversation is bound to be complex, often frustrating, and divisive. Nonetheless, each American deserves the opportunity to respectfully voice his or her concerns and hear the opinions of others—both necessary steps to arriving at an inclusive consensus on the policies at stake. Perhaps this could be best summed up as a “Golden Rule” for public deliberation: “Deliberate with others as you would have them deliberate with you.”

Fay Lomax Cook is director of IPR and professor of human development and social policy. She co-authored Talking Together: Public Deliberation and Political Participation in America (2009, University of Chicago Press) with Lawrence Jacobs, University of Minnesota, and Michael Delli Carpini, University of Pennsylvania.