What if more public participation can’t save American democracy? – Vox
This post is part of Polyarchy, an independent blog produced by the political reform program at New America, a Washington think tank devoted to developing new ideas and new voices.
American democracy is in a downward spiral. Well, really two downward spirals.
The first is the downward spiral of bipolar partisanship, in which both sides increasingly demonize each other as the enemy, and refuse to compromise and cooperate an escalating arms race that is now going beyond mere gridlock and threatening basic democratic norms.
The second is the downward spiral of distrust between citizens and elites, in which citizens treat corrupt and establishment as interchangeable terms. The public consensus is that politicians are self-serving, not to be trusted. In this logic, only more public participation can make politicians serve the people.
These two downward spirals are related. The less we trust politicians, the more we try to hold them accountable. But the more we try to hold them accountable the more we get intractable partisanship, because the we who are trying to hold politicians accountable are the same we who always do the most participating. The most engaged citizens, political scientists have known for years, are almost always the most partisan citizens, and/or those who have the most narrow and high-stakes interests in policy outcomes.
But to say we should participate less, and give politicians more freedom to operate without constant public input, seems off. It cuts against our well-developed, pro-democracy reflexes.
It also cuts against the conventional wisdom narrative weve heard for years: The reason that politics has gone batty is because the average citizen has no say. The average citizen is moderate, reasonable, civic-minded. The average citizen wants politicians to stop fighting with each other, and stop serving the interests of wealthy elites, and do whats right. If only the average citizen got better informed, participated more, and had more power, politicians would stop fighting, and start serving the people instead of the interests. Therefore, we need to find more ways to empower this average citizen.
Weve been waiting for this mythical average citizen to show up and claim her rightful place in our politics for quite a long time now. But like Godot, she never seems to arrive. As our politics drowns in a flood of bipolar partisan passion, it makes us all look like the proverbial statistician who drowned in a river that was, on average, 3 feet deep.
Slowly though, a new understanding is starting to emerge, that no matter how much we put our faith in public participation, this average citizen will not save us, and worse, that all our attempts to give power to the people may have distracted us from doing the things that might have made our democracy function better paying attention to the rules of our institutions and the role of political leadership.
The latest salvo in this reckoning is a new Brookings Institution paper from Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes, More professionalism, less populism: How voting makes us stupid, and what to do about it.
Rauch and Wittes bemoan that, for decades, the overwhelming trend has been disintermediation reducing the role of parties, professionals, and experts. For the authors, the movement to push aside intermediaries, such as the smoke-filled rooms where party elders brokered nominations and the closed committee meetings where members of Congress dickered, has not produced greater public confidence in the governments effectiveness or representativeness. Instead, it has made it harder for government institutions to function.
Efforts to open up the political process may come from a good place. But those who take advantage are almost always the wealthier, better organized, and most partisan not exactly the mythical average citizen reformers always envision taking advantage. As voters, we all make irrational, emotional choices (based on the groups which we belong to). We are myopic. We dont do trade-off well. We are all flawed humans.
Rauch and Wittes are building on some important recent political science work. Most prominently, they draw on Christopher Achen and Larry Bartelss widely discussed 2016 book Democracy for Realists, which marshaled impressive and almost irrefutable evidence that the folk theory of democracy that citizens hold politicians accountable through elections was based on a set of feel-good fantasies about citizen competence that just dont hold up under extensive scrutiny.
They also build on Bruce Cains equally important but less widely discussed 2015 book, Democracy More or Less, which thinks harder about what to do about the fact that average citizens are not and never will be either motivated or equipped to do all the things we expect of them. So whereas Achen and Bartelss concluding point is mostly to shrug their shoulders and say well, maybe we just need to accept that all politics is identity and group politics and build new normative theories of democracy, Cain moves much closer toward actual framework for doing just that what he calls the pluralist approach.
In Cains telling, this pluralist approach accepts the reality that there are empirical limits to citizen interest and knowledge and that interested individuals and organizations must inevitably carry out some representation. It prioritizes aggregation, consensus, and fluid coalitions as means of good democratic governance. It recognizes that good political design incorporates the informal patterns of governance as well as the formal processes of government. Moreover, it relies on democratic contestation between interest groups and political parties to foster accountability. (I advocate a similar approach in my 2016 paper, Political Dynamism.)
Rauch and Wittes also lean in this direction. They do not want to cut citizens out entirely. Participation, they write is a vital good to the political system that is not replaceable by other means: It provides the consent of the governed and the renewal of that consent on a regular basis Voters are not policymakers, but they are the force that gives authority to policymakers. Persistently low rates of voter turnout erode that authority.
Id also call forth here an important and related 2016 Brookings Institution paper from Philip Wallach, The administrative states legitimacy crisis. It makes eloquent points about the need to balance public legitimacy with institutional expertise, advocating a middle ground that is neither populist nor technocratic.
Like Wallach, Rauch and Wittes also are also not willing to put complete faith in an insulated technocracy or political expert class. They note that better decisions come when specialist and professional judgment occurs in combination with public judgment (their italics).
This leads to the following conclusion: Who, then, should be in charge: the voters, or the professionals? The answer, of course, is both. In a hybrid system, they are forced to consult each other, providing distinct but complimentary screens.
But this poses an obvious problem: How can both be in charge? Rauch and Wittes, along with Cain and Wallach, point us toward the right direction: better intermediaries. But where are the models of better intermediaries?
In theory, better intermediaries (politicians, parties, interest groups) are capable of helping citizens collectively realize their interests in ways that they wouldnt be able to do individually.
But in practice, intermediaries may be just as likely to manipulate individuals for their own power, without necessarily helping them to realize their interests any better. In particular, Rauch and Wittess assertion that the leaders of political parties and congressional committees worry about the long-term health of their institutions, and so they often take a longer view seems at odds with considerable recent evidence. Certainly, in an ideal world, they would. But they havent for a long time.
Would the Republican Party be more moderate and problem-solving if only Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan had more freedom to wheel and deal behind the scenes, and more money to lord over more extreme members of their party, and more earmarks to win their complicity? I have a hard time imagining this. All I see is them pushing an extreme agenda themselves, while finding new and creative ways to defend a president who is blatantly unfit for office, and then attacking Democrats.
Perhaps we have a particularly pusillanimous and cynical set of leaders now because politics became too participatory and too transparent. But Id challenge Rauch and Wittes to offer a counter-factual political history, in which the parties dont polarize to their current extremes because there were fewer opportunities for citizen participation (while also accounting for the same underlying demographics and economic conditions, and the same campaign finance laws). Moreover, given the rise of post-materialist values that put a premium on self-expression everywhere in advanced industrial democracies West, I wonder if this would have even been possible.
Perhaps parties should take greater control of their nominating processes (a common argument these days). But keep in mind that in 1964, it was Republican delegates, not Republican primary voters, who chose Barry Goldwater, an extremist candidate. That was before parties made their public primaries binding, starting in 1972. Had Republican delegates, not primary voters, been in charge in 2016, its not clear who they would have chosen, since the party itself was quite internally split.
Most of the major American democratizing reforms happened in the early 20th century, not the late 20th century. Yet it wasnt until recent decades, when polarization and inequality both started to increase, that American politics went steadily downhill. And the past several decades have not exactly been a time of civic flourishing in America.
In short, while I agree that expanding citizen participation will not save American democracy, for many of the reasons Rauch and Wittes (and others) discuss, Im equally skeptical that previous efforts to expand citizen participation somehow caused American politics to go insane, as Rauch argued in a widely discussed Atlantic article.
Where do we go from here? Especially at a time when a new wave of citizen energy and participation are getting many excited.
First, its important to acknowledge the new citizen engagement for what it is: the familiar response of out-party partisans feeling threatened after losing an election. As left-leaning opponents of Trump, we might welcome this because finally, our side is getting energized. But lets not pretend this is the solution to our democracy in decline. This is still not the long-awaited coming of independent, rational, average citizens exercising independent, rational, judgment to save our democracy, nor will it ever be.
Second, lets come to terms with what political science has known for decades, some of which my colleague Chayenne Polimdio has written about here. Citizens as individuals have limited capacity. For democracy to work, they need intermediaries politicians, parties, interest groups to help them achieve power and representation. All politics is group politics, because we are all by nature group animals. It would be weird and unnatural if politics were otherwise. The idea of the individual, rational citizen is a myth.
Third, and this is the key point: We need to think harder about what good intermediation looks like. What are the conditions under which intermediaries help citizens collectively achieve meaningful representation? And what are the conditions under which intermediaries just exploit citizens for their own power? What are the conditions under which intermediaries work together to achieve compromise and consensus and legitimacy? And what are the conditions under which intermediaries tear each other apart and take down institutions with them? History is replete with examples across these spectra.
Absent good answers to the intermediation dilemma, the current downward spiral will continue. Politicians are not going to get along with each other and do the right thing when everything in the political system pushes them into zero-sum, bipolar competition for power. And making it easier for citizens to participate in their democracy as an end in itself is not going to do any good without more thought given to the all-important question of How?
My current view is that nature of the two-party system, which is quite unique to America among advanced industrial democracies, deserves much more blame than it has received. American parties have always been institutionally weak by comparative standards, because the two-party system forces parties to be large big-tent coalitions.
In our current politics, party leaders have compensated for this by turning up the negative partisanship, tearing down the other side to just be the lesser of two evils. Multi-party systems generally produce stronger parties, because parties are freer to more directly represent different groups in society. In a multi-party system, parties cant survive simply by being the lesser of two evils.
But heres the bottom line: Weve collectively spent decades trying to call forth this mythical average citizen and empower her to save our democracy. Weve made no Plan B for the possibility that she is indeed a myth. Were now realizing she is indeed a myth. Its now time to come up with that Plan B, and fast.
Visit link:
What if more public participation can't save American democracy? - Vox
- Lost Jefferson letter on arms and democracy resurfaces for Fourth of July sale - The Guardian - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- This July 4, Lets Resolve to Win an Actual Democracy - Jacobin - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- What to the Slave Is the 4th of July?: James Earl Jones Reads Frederick Douglasss Historic Speech - Democracy Now! - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- Democracy on the brink? Nearly 3 in 4 Americans say yes - Salon.com - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- This Week in Democracy Week 24: Trump Goes From Islamophobic Attacks on Mamdani to Antisemitic Tropes About Bankers - Zeteo - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- Faith, Democracy, and the Catholic Duty To Stay Involved - The Fulcrum - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- Katie Drummond: Democracy in the US is under threat. And that threat is facilitated by technology and the makers of that technology - EL PAS English - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- Hundreds attend pro-democracy rally on the Fourth of July in Sioux Falls - Argus Leader - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- Activists sound alarm over US cuts to programs providing internet access and promoting democracy in Iran - CNN - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- Explained: Where SCOTUS' Nationwide Injunctions Ruling Leaves the Cases Against Trump - Democracy Docket - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- Opinion | The Secret to Saving Democracy in the US Is a New Kind of Civics Education - Common Dreams - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- Vermont Representative Becca Balint convenes a panel to discuss democracy and the Constitution ahead of July 4 - WAMC - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- Talking Europe - Access to documents is crucial for transparency and a strong democracy: EU Ombudswoman - France 24 - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- Defend Democracy Against Bombardments on the Elections Front A Three-Part Series - The Fulcrum - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- Democracy in Dialogue project at BPL provides education and creative expression | The Hawk Eye - Burlington, Iowa - Daily Gate City - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- Democracy Gave Us This. There Has To Be a Better Way. - The Nation - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Hong Kongs light fades as another pro-democracy party folds - The Conversation - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- How America forgot the best way to defend its democracy - vox.com - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Democracy in action: Self-determination in William & Marys residence halls - W&M News - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- What Democracy Promised Us and What We Got Instead - The Fulcrum - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- This July 4, the nations top trial lawyers warn of threats to democracy | Opinion - Bergen Record - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Is the growth of executive power a threat to constitutional democracy? - Brookings - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Opinion: Lets look beyond the fireworks and recommit to democracy - Bangor Daily News - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Capitalism and democracy are weakening reviving the idea of calling can help to repair them - The Conversation - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- DOJ Sides With Wyoming in Proof of Citizenship Voting Lawsuit - Democracy Docket - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Progress in key areas would benefit Trinidad and Tobago democracy, says Commonwealths final report on 2025 parliamentary elections -... - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Making Democracy Work: Having the right to choose with the Death with Dignity Act - TBR News Media - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Palestine Action isnt a danger to British democracy but this repressive government is | George Monbiot - The Guardian - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Not a Done Deal: After Senate Passes Big, Ugly Bill, Progressives Fight to Stop It in the House - Democracy Now! - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Koreas democracy and alliance with the U.S. are in good hands, not in peril - Washington Times - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- EU Should Act Against El Salvadors Dismantling of Democracy - Human Rights Watch - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Democracy's Discontent: Why Are We So Polarized, and What Can We Do About It? - Ideastream - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Another Tale of Two Uncle Sams: Mamdanis Unexpected Win and Hope for a Democratic Democracy - Counterpunch - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- The Tech Elites Takeover of Crypto is a Growing Threat to European Democracy - Tech Policy Press - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- We at Mountain Dew Would Like to Apologize for Our Role in the Destruction of American Democracy - McSweeneys Internet Tendency - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Descent into Kleptocracy: The Corruption of America and Trumps systematic looting of Democracy - Milwaukee Independent - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- On this July 4th, celebrate our democracy and tend toward the light | Column - Tampa Bay Times - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Election Matters 2025: Year in Review: Democracy Litigation in SCOTUS and the States - WisconsinEye - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- The Make America Healthy Again report shows how AI can undermine the US Official Record, and democracy - LSE Blogs - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- New Lancaster Museum to Explore Reconstruction Era and the Fight for Democracy - WITF - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- The Institutions Protecting US Democracy Have Turned Into Traps - Bloomberg.com - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Dissatisfaction with democracy remains widespread in many nations - Pew Research Center - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Poll: Most feel democracy is threatened and political violence is a major problem - NPR - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Poll: What Americans think about the state of democracy and how Trump is doing - VPM - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- The last Hong Kong pro-democracy party that held street protests disbands - CNN - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- They Demanded Democracy. Years Later, They Are Still Paying the Price. - The New York Times - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- New poll finds about three-quarters of Americans say democracy under threat : Trump's Terms - NPR - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Ford Foundation selects Yale dean and democracy scholar Heather Gerken to succeed Darren Walker - ABC News - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Why democracy hinges on respect for the court and the rule of law - Deseret News - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Bill Moyers journalism strengthened democracy by connecting Americans to ideas and each other, in a long and extraordinary career - The Conversation - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Poll: What Americans think about the state of democracy and how Trump is doing - KUOW - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Damaging and Deadly Heat Domes Nearly Tripled, from Europe to the U.S.: Climatologist Michael Mann - Democracy Now! - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Poorly led, strategically inept and shorn of democracy. Now I truly fear for this Labour government | John McDonnell - The Guardian - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- More Americans think the U.S. is in a constitutional crisis than think the U.S. is a democracy - YouGov - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Five years on, Hong Kongs national security law extinguishes last standing pro-democracy party - The Guardian - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Comprehensive Road Repairs Begin on Democracy Boulevard, Expected to Last 10-12 Weeks - The MoCo Show - - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- We the People includes all Americans but July 4 is a reminder that democracy remains a work in progress - WSOC TV - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Right to Democracy and the America the Beautiful for All Coalition Stand with American Samoa in Opposing Unilateral Proposals for Deep Seabed Mining -... - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- In-Depth Exploration of Participatory Democracy and Local Governance Practices in Spain - United Nations Development Programme - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Information overload: Can we keep our minds and our democracy? - Lowy Institute - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Democracy Forward Boosts Appellate Bench With Latest Hires - Law360 - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Tens of Thousands Flee Gaza City as Israel Issues New Forced Evacuation Orders - Democracy Now! - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Poll: What Americans think about the state of democracy and how Trump is doing - New Hampshire Public Radio - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Top justice decries injury to democracy as hecklers disrupt hearing on Shin Bet appointment - The Times of Israel - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- One of Hong Kong's last major pro-democracy parties disbands - BBC - June 29th, 2025 [June 29th, 2025]
- Hong Kong's last active pro-democracy group says it will disband amid security crackdown - Reuters - June 29th, 2025 [June 29th, 2025]
- The last Hong Kong pro-democracy party that held street protests disbands - AP News - June 29th, 2025 [June 29th, 2025]
- Forging a future for democracy: Highlights from International IDEA's 30th Anniversary - International IDEA - June 29th, 2025 [June 29th, 2025]
- The last Hong Kong pro-democracy party that held street protests disbands - goSkagit - June 29th, 2025 [June 29th, 2025]
- Zohran and democracy: Three days that shook the world - Salon.com - June 29th, 2025 [June 29th, 2025]
- Palestine Action is part of Britain's proud history of protest. Proscribing it is an assault on democracy | Suresh Grover - The Guardian - June 29th, 2025 [June 29th, 2025]
- The last Hong Kong pro-democracy party that held street protests disbands - Citizen Tribune - June 29th, 2025 [June 29th, 2025]
- South Koreas democracy in the shadow of the far-right - Pearls and Irritations - June 29th, 2025 [June 29th, 2025]
- Democracy dies at midnight in Ohio Statehouse: Letter from the Editor - Cleveland.com - June 29th, 2025 [June 29th, 2025]
- Bob Vylan and Kneecap have exposed a disturbing truth about our democracy - The i Paper - June 29th, 2025 [June 29th, 2025]
- US state department told to end nearly all its overseas pro-democracy programs - The Guardian - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- Banning the opposition is no way to revive Bangladeshs democracy - The Economist - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- US to slash nearly all funding for overseas pro-democracy initiatives: Report - Middle East Eye - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- 'It's not really giving democracy': NYC student journalists on the year that was - Gothamist - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- In a Democracy, Protest Is Good for the Soul, Even if It Does Not Change Anyones Mind - The Fulcrum - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]