6. Glimpses Of The
Deliberative Public
The often tumultuous, always unstable democratic urge does not introduce a workable notion of the people, or of the public interest…. It leaves behind the underlying conditions it found: a political economy of self-seeking interests pushing ahead within a complex welter of political rules that advantage some citizens, disadvantage others, and seem almost invisible to all.James A. Morone, The Democratic Wish
American government embodies different political traditions. In the view of the historian James Morone, the clash between Thomas Jefferson's democratic populism and James Madison's liberal republicanism has continued through two centuries of political debate. Morone argues that American government embodies the Madisonian vision, yet the public periodically acts upon a "democratic wish" for "reform and change, a legitimate, populist counter to the liberal status quo." When successful, democratic reform begins with a political stalemate, in which existing institutions and elites thwart any efforts at change. Different social groups then answer a call for the people to come forward, and these diverse groups converge on a single set of ideas or symbols of change. The resulting institutional changes create the image of a united public, but that soon "evaporates into the reality of classes and interests scrapping for partisan advantage…. When the people and their consensus fail to materialize, the aspirations of the democratic wish are done in." The new institutions, however, remain. The new political conflguration may temporarily break up the preexisting stalemate, but the fundamental Madisonian rules remain the same—"a political economy of self-seeking interests pushing ahead within a complex welter of political rules that advantage some citizens, disadvantage others, and seem almost invisible to all."[1]
Any attempt to discern a truly democratic public voice must recognize the history of failed populist reforms catalogued by Morone. Thus far, the call for a deliberative public voice falls into the conventional pattern. Interest in public deliberation in the United States grew in response to an emerging critique of American politics: advocates of deliberation claim that elections have become shallow popularity contests that push "the people" out of the political process, and government has become tangled in gridlock because of the intense cross-pressures of interest groups and the partisan posturing required by conventional electoral strategy. The deliberative reform process is now in the second stage, in which various groups answer the call for "the people" and suggest different reforms of the political process. To add another chapter to Morone's history of failed populist reforms, the deliberative movement must now produce political institutions that reinforce liberal Madisonian political traditions, albeit unintentionally. New institutions and political processes that create additional layers of bureaucracy and complicated, ineffective avenues of public expression would flt nicely within the historical pattern.
These could be the results of the deliberative reforms under development, but this outcome is not inevitable. I argue in this chapter that modern experiments in deliberative discussion suggest that new forms of public voice could create more educated and active citizens and reveal popular and effective solutions to pressing national and local policy problems. What might such deliberation look like, and how could it avoid the pitfalls of past efforts to discern the public's will? To answer those questions, it is best to see how advocates of deliberation have tried to translate their democratic theories into practical methods of public discussion. I have grouped those efforts into three categories: deliberative civic education, community deliberation, and random sample forums. Each of these forms of discussion offers insight into the promise and problems of deliberative democratic reform.
DELIBERATIVE CIVIC EDUCATION
From the time of the colonies to the present day, educators and civic leaders have developed a variety of programs to create a democratic citizenry.[2] Many of these have used group discussion methods, because face-to-face talk provides direct experience with the deliberative element of the democratic process. Group discussions in America on local, state, national, and international policy issues include those sponsored
Modern examples of these programs include the projects of the Study Circles Resource Center and the National Issues Forums.[5] Established by the Topsfleld Foundation, the Study Circles Resource Center (SCRC) promotes citizen education in the United States and believes that study circles are an ideal method for such education. The number of people who annually participate in SCRC's study circles is not known, and the SCRC's promotional literature is more interested in the widespread use of all varieties of study circles than the use of SCRC materials per se.[6]
By the SCRC's deflnition, a study circle is "a participatory, democratic discussion group that focuses on a social or political issue."[7] Ideally, "individual members take responsibility for the study circle and ultimately control both the content of the discussions and the group process."[8] The SCRC hopes that organizing and participating in study circles will provide individuals with a broad range of skills and values conducive to democratic citizenship.
The SCRC conceives of study circles as a series of three to five small group discussions among five to twenty people focusing on a particular issue. Each session has a discussion leader who (a) ensures broad participation, egalitarian communication styles, mutual respect, and careful listening, (b) keeps the discussion focused and incisive, and (c) maintains a neutral posture in the discussion. Print and audiovisual materials provide a framework for each topic and are designed to spark spontaneous discussion.[9] For example, in 1994, the SCRC joined with ACCESS: A Security Information Service to publish In Harm's Way, a discussion guide on the use of U.S. military forces in international conflicts. The book is divided into four sessions, each of which outlines alternative views and introduces relevant facts and issues.[10]
As for the educational beneflts of participation, the SCRC claims that "the study circle … has a long track record of enhancing individual self-esteem, increasing communication skills, and encouraging selfdirected adult learning." Participation in study circles triggers "feelings of power and the capacity to effect change through education." The
The National Issues Forums (NIF) has much in common with the SCRC's method and mission, but it is more ambitious. The NIF is the flagship of current programs in deliberative civic education, and it has caught the attention of scholars who study political communication. According to an NIF self-study, by 1993 several thousand potential NIF conveners had received training in the NIF method at the annual Summer Public Policy Institute and similar regional institutes. The same study showed that many of these potential conveners had chosen to adopt the NIF approach: during 1993, for example, forums were probably convened by approximately 1,440 adult literacy programs, 2,600 high schools, and 1,360 civic organizations.[12]
Individual organizations and conveners use the NIF system for their own particular educational and institutional purposes, and this diversity is actively encouraged by the Kettering Foundation, which initiated the program in 1982. The foundation prides itself on the diversity of NIF settings and has published different NIF pamphlets for use in the Catholic community, colleges, and high school and adult education programs.[13]
The NIF's basic guidebook, Hard Choices, argues that the NIF serves many of the goals that participants themselves have when they attend forums. Citizens want to "overcome a personal sense of being without voice or power." They seek to play a more direct and effective role in politics by acting on "pressing problems in their communities" and changing the way "local, state, and national governments understand the public interest." Citizens hope to "learn how to make difficult choices" and "increase and improve the quality of public deliberation"
[14]
by making it "more sensible and constructive.
As an educational process, the NIF has two basic aims: to help participants develop more informed and reflective judgments on current policy issues and, more generally, to teach the art of public deliberation. If it is successful, the NIF approach gives citizens the cognitive and social tools they need to build reasoned public policies upon real common ground.[15]
To achieve these educational goals, the NIF uses face-to-face group discussion. The guidelines in NIF manuals leave much room for variation, and the NIF Leadership Handbook openly acknowledges that "there is no one best way to organize a Forum." NIF discussions "can take many forms ranging from community-wide town meetings attended by the general public to small study circles sponsored by individuals or local organizations, such as book clubs or church groups, for their own members." NIF forums come in many shapes and sizes, but the approach may be best suited to a series of study circles with five to twenty people, "especially since we place some stress on encouraging
[16]
participants to ‘work through’ an issue.
No matter what the size of the group, the first step in the NIF process is reading an "issue book" prior to the forum or the first study circle. Each issue book provides relevant factual information, but the most important reason for reading the book is that it frames the issue in terms of three or four contrasting policy choices. For example, the Freedom of Speech issue book outlines three choices: government censorship, private industry self-censorship, and unfettered speech.[17] The book on American foreign policy distinguishes three options: abandoning global leadership to address domestic concerns, focusing on U.S. national security, or promoting democracy and human rights abroad.[18] In practice, not all NIF participants take the time to read the book. For this reason (and to refresh the memories of other participants), moderators often begin forums by reading a brief summary of the issue book or by showing a flfteen-minute videotape that comes with each book.
Next, the moderator establishes ground rules and explains the deliberative process to participants. The ideal NIF moderator will "explain the expectation that all those present will be both active listeners and active participants—it is their program."[19] This is crucial, because, as one NIF convener has lamented, "Citizens always come to forums expecting to vote on something…. They always want solutions—it's hard for them to accept the idea of just discussing the issue."[20] The NIF Institute provides a variety of wall posters outlining the NIF process, but moderators also can remind participants that after the forum, everyone should be able to:
(1) identify the range of realistic alternatives and move toward a choice; (2) make a good case for those positions one dislikes as well as the position one likes, and consider choices one has not considered before; (3) understand others have reasons for their choices and that their reasons are very interesting—not dumb, unreasonable, or immoral; (4) realize that one's knowledge
Some moderators then move participants through one more introductory stage before discussing the policy choices. These moderators encourage participants to identify their personal stake in the issue by asking questions such as, "Is this an important issue to you?" Or, "How does the issue affect people?" Questions such as these draw participants into the discussion and make abstract issues more concrete. For example, forum participants discussing the U.S. economy might tell brief stories about their own flnancial straits or the economic injustices they have witnessed in their communities.[22]
Moderators then lead the group into deliberation. During this phase, the moderator remains neutral, guiding but not directing the direction of discussion. Moderators encourage participants to connect choices with values, illustrate their ideas with stories or examples, consider hypothetical dilemmas, and explore the consequences of actions for different people. The discussion moves through each of the choices outlined in the NIF issue book, and participants weigh the pros and cons of each policy option.
After the moderator guides the group through one to three hours of deliberation, the forum or final study circle comes to the last stage. At this point, the moderator encourages participants to identify any common ground that they have discovered on the discussion topic. In the lingo of the NIF, this process is "harvesting a public voice." The NIF Leadership Handbook asks moderators to think of harvesting, "not as concluding, but as giving meaning to what you are doing. Participants describe the experience they just had, not report results." Moderators might ask participants, "What trade-offs are people willing to make to get what they want?" Or, "What makes this issue so difficult to decide? What is really at issue? … Is there enough common ground for action? What is unresolved?"
NIF moderators and conveners attribute a wide range of effects to the NIF process. They believe that the forums have the potential to change the way people view particular issues, as well as the way they view politics and their role as citizens. Open-ended and informal research on the NIF suggests that participation in deliberative forums can
(1) change participants' political opinions, (2) increase participants' political self-efficacy and their sense of community identity, (3) widen and
More systematic research has followed up on some of these claims about the NIF's educational impact. A questionnaire survey of 51 NIF participants in forums on public education found evidence of some of the self-reported cognitive effects identifled in earlier qualitative studies. Fifty-seven percent of respondents said that their "interest in education issues" increased after the forum, and 49 percent said that the discussion increased their "understanding" of those issues. With regard to opinion change, the modal responses were that respondents "changed their mind" about an aspect of education policy "once or twice" (51 percent) or had "second thoughts about a policy option" once or twice (61 percent). Forty-seven percent of respondents, however, said that they did not change their mind on the education issue. Overall, this study suggests that between one-third and one-half of forum participants do not perceive changes in their political opinions as a result of participating in NIF forums, and it also shows evidence of an increased interest in learning more about the discussion topic after the forum.[24]
The 1990–91 "research forums" sponsored by the NIF also found evidence of a cognitive impact. The research forums used three discussion issues—economic competitiveness, racial inequality, and abortion. A comparison of participants' pre- and post-forum responses to questionnaire items showed three patterns: an increase in knowledge about the issue, a greater willingness to compromise, and movement toward a more "moderate" policy choice.[25]
Further evidence of changes in participants' political opinions is provided by a study of the standard NIF questionnaires administered before and after many forums. This study reviewed the pre- and postforum ballots completed by several hundred NIF participants for seven different issues. The authors found that the NIF process had a signiflcant influence on the sophistication of participants' political opinions: after forums, participants' views were more reflned and internally consistent, and they exhibited less attitudinal uncertainty.[26]
A fourth study measured the behavioral and psychological impact of NIF participation by examining a sample of 149 adult literacy students,
Taken together, these studies show that the actual effects of NIF participation are not as far-reaching as the qualitative studies might have suggested. The NIF process does generally increase the sophistication of participants' political views, and it has other anticipated effects on political communication and some political attitudes. In addition, the studies suggest that NIF participation may inadvertently turn some people away from group-based political involvement.
Because the more "educational" forms of deliberation often remain disconnected from official policy debates and elections, they risk disconnecting participants even further from the workings of government. In the case of the NIF, some forum conveners have started to work with elected officials, and the Kettering Foundation, which originated the NIF program, has begun to examine how NIF conveners make those connections.[28] The SCRC has also begun to make a direct connection between study circles and government through its "community-wide programs" and congressional exchange initiative.[29] The civic educational orientation may have great value, but sponsors of both the NIF and study circles recognize that full deliberation requires a more direct connection between public discussion and public policies.
COMMUNITY DELIBERATION
Although deliberation might prove effective in the long run as a means of civic education, other deliberative forums have had more immediate goals. In cities across the United States, citizen groups have formed to deliberate on current public problems and suggest solutions. One example among many is Chattanooga Venture, which began a "visioning process" in 1984. For twenty weeks, a group of flfty citizen activists and volunteers deliberated about the most pressing problems in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Their final list of priorities and solutions included diverse structures and initiatives, such as a shelter for abused women
Whereas the Chattanooga group illustrates the use of deliberation among a core of concerned citizens, a nonproflt organization in Oregon demonstrates the potential impact of a more broadly based deliberative public voice. In 1980, a group of participants who met at a state health council conference decided that the state's health care problems required extensive public discussion. With the help of thirty community volunteers, they organized neighborhood forums to discuss health care rationing and curative versus preventive care. Over the next ten years, this group facilitated hundreds of face-to-face discussions across the state. In 1990, the state legislature created the Health Services Commission, which used the same process to obtain more "official" input into health care policymaking. A year later, the commission produced a list of health care priorities generated from citizen discussions.[31]
When deliberation emerges spontaneously within a community, it usually begins in the manner described in Chattanooga and Oregon. A group of concerned citizens come together to talk about their community, and their discussions radiate outward to friends and neighbors and other active citizens. The public voice that comes from these deliberations is often well-reasoned and articulate, but it is not always representative. To address this problem, some public officials and citizens organizing deliberative discussions make great efforts to draw into the conversation people who might otherwise not attend or speak up at public forums.
For example, when the city of Cupertino, California, contracted the Public Dialogue Consortium in 1996 to convene a series of open-ended public meetings, the consortium began with focus groups. It recruited focus group participants at random from lists provided by the city, and it structured the small-group discussions to maximize opportunities for both prolonged self-expression and attentive listening.[32] The focus groups set the agenda for the subsequent meetings, which addressed cultural diversity and public safety. Though relatively small numbers of citizens participated in the meetings, the intensive focus groups at least oriented the discussions toward the concerns of the larger community.[33]
Another difference between the Cupertino project and the ones in Oregon and Tennessee is that the Cupertino program began as a public
Some public deliberation bridges the grassroots and government approaches. Perhaps the best example is the Community and Education Workshop that took place in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1997. The Birmingham Community Education Department convened the workshop to bring together the perspectives and resources of citizens, nonproflt organizations, school officials, and the media. Principals from four schools put together neighborhood teams that included "a parent, a non-parent neighborhood representative, a PTA or PTO member, a neighborhood business leader, a student or teacher, and one or two others." The four groups met separately to discuss questions such as, "What must our neighborhood become or look like in order that our children have a greater chance of success in school?" and "What human capacities and strengths do we have to help us achieve our goals?" The groups tried to act on the ideas that these questions generated, then they regrouped four months later to assess their performance.
The Gate City neighborhood group, for instance, met many of its initial goals and decided to continue meeting every month, even after the official workshop had ended. Since the workshop, the Gate City group's continuing deliberations and collaborations have resulted in many small successes, such as those shown in box 2.
| SOURCE: Higgins 1998: 9. |
A Summer Sports/Day Camp: Held for Gate City youth in the Gate City School gymnasium. Operated in the first part of the summer by New Life Harvest Ministries, a husband and wife team that lives in the Marks Village housing site. Run the second part of the summer by Holy Roses Church. ― 122 ― A Vocational/Literacy Training Center: Mt. Moriah Baptist Church is acquiring a vacant warehouse in the neighborhood to turn into a youth job skills center. Holy Roses has agreed to donate carpentry equipment and other materials. A Gate City Cleanup Effort: Seventy-five Gate City students along with ACT members fllled 120 garbage bags with litter from the streets of Gate City. Being An apostle Foundation donated the bags. City Councilman sponsored food and door prizes. Holy Roses designated cleanup routes. Local auto dealer provided each child with $5 gift certiflcate to Toys ‘R’ Us. The Gate City School Career Day: In the past, career day had been run entirely by Gate City school officials. This year, ACT team members reached out to area businesses and brought in eight additional presenters. A Gate City Home Repair Effort: The team obtained money from the city to purchase paint and materials for home improvements in the neighborhood. The Metro Changers, a group of skilled tradesmen affiliated with the Baptist Association, painted six homes, put on one roof, and made one home handicap accessible. A Neighborhood Business Owner's Breakfast: The team organized and convened a breakfast for Gate City business owners. They will discuss economic development efforts taking place throughout the city and invite in officials to discuss the kinds of steps Gate City might take to strengthen its economic base. |
Damon Higgins, who developed a case study of the Gate City neighborhood, summarized it this way: the Gate City "team" illustrates "what can happen when the citizens of a neighborhood and their school officials think of ways to partner together…. The team appears to be creating the conditions required for a sustained culture of civic participation around education in its neighborhood.[35]
Though I make a clear distinction between community deliberation in Gate City and more educational programs, like the NIF and the SCRC, the actual method of deliberation is not always so different. Many towns have conducted "living room meetings" resembling informal study circles to reflect upon their community's future.[36] Other cities and towns, such as Trinidad, Colorado, have used an NIF choice format and discussion process. This was the model for a 1994–95 community convention on economic development. Dozens of citizens from the small town of Trinidad came together to discuss possible paths for the town's future. After weighing the costs and beneflts of controlling growth, the citizens looked at a variety of directions in which they
These examples of community deliberation demonstrate how face-to-face meetings among neighbors and fellow citizens can build effective coalitions among active citizens and public and private organizations. In small but important ways, these groups can improve community life through coordinated voluntary activities, philanthropy, and policy initiatives. Some of these groups even attempt to influence public representatives. Steeped in the tradition of adversarial labor organizing, Communities Organized for Public Service (COPS) in San Antonio, Texas, combines internal deliberation with grassroots lobbying. By introducing local elected officials to the group's large and activist membership, COPS gives representatives an explicit or implied threat of collective rejection before asking them for assistance. Though the rhetoric of such organizations might not explicitly link their "accountability sessions" with public officials to elections, officials seeking reelection cannot fail to see the connection. COPS has used this approach to improve San Antonio's infrastructure, schools, and job-training programs, all of which required government assistance.[38]
Even when public meetings are deliberative, articulate, and potentially influential, this form of public voice usually is not representative. More precisely, the informal gatherings and official meetings described above could not make strong claims that they represented the perspectives of the larger public. Their deliberations were by no means exclusive: they used focus groups, numerous statewide meetings, and extended neighborhood social networks to draw in diverse participants, and none of the examples cited above actively excluded any interested citizens. On the other hand, those who participated in the deliberations were usually members of the public known for their civic interest and involvement. What if these citizens have values and concerns that are different from those who are more withdrawn, uninterested, alienated, or simply busy? Even if the two groups have similar interests, would the "inactive" citizens trust their more active peers to reach the same deliberative conclusions as the inactives would, if they had deliberated? Without a fully inclusive group of participants, community deliberation
RANDOM SAMPLE FORUMS
To address the representation problem, some advocates of public deliberation have created what I call "random sample forums." In this view, the virtue of public opinion polling is its reliance upon representative random samples of large publics. If deliberation wishes to meet the modern standard of representation, which has been set by such polls, it needs to incorporate the same principle of random sampling.[39]
In the 1970s, public policy planners and citizen activists in the United States and abroad experimented with different forms of random sample forums, largely unaware of one another's efforts. In Minnesota, Ned Crosby developed the Center for New Democratic Processes to promote the use of the Citizen Jury deliberation process. In Hawaii, Ted Becker and Christa Slaton used their concept of a "televote" to present a quasideliberative public opinion to delegates at the Hawaiian Constitutional Convention. In Britain, Granada TV used face-to-face random sample assemblies, called the "Granada 500," to deliberate upon candidates and current issues. In Germany, Peter Dienel developed random sample "planning cells" to bring representative, deliberative citizen input to government agencies and officials drafting rules and laws.[40]
Contemporary experiments in deliberation with random samples range from simple one-day local events to national spectacles. Ordered from the most modest to the most elaborate, the three U.S. examples I discuss below are citizen conferences, citizen juries, and the National Issues Convention.
CITIZEN CONFERENCES
In 1996, the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department commissioned a public opinion survey on the state's road system. The poll provided the Transportation Department with insight into the public's views on many important planning issues, but the department wanted to develop a deeper understanding of how the public thinks and talks about transportation. In the past, the department had held numerous public meetings, but few people attended. Those who did attend usually had speciflc, personal concerns about potholes, truck routes, bike paths, and other narrow issues.
The University of New Mexico Institute for Public Policy (IPP) suggested that the department sponsor a series of random sample forums on long-range transportation planning. The "citizen conferences" were intended to provide a clear window into how average New Mexicans think about transportation when provided with essential background information, exposed to diverse perspectives on the issue, and given time to deliberate upon a set of policy options. To achieve this purpose, each conference was designed as a day-long public meeting centered around a group of six to twelve adult citizens, selected at random to represent the diverse views and demographics of a region of the state. Each of these "citizen advisers" voluntarily agreed to participate at the conference and received a $200 honorarium.[41]
Before coming to the conference, each citizen adviser read a brochure outlining the purpose of the conference. The brochure explained that the conference would give citizens the chance to tell the Transportation Department how it should spend "$40 million of each annual budget from 2005 to 2020." The three main spending options presented were (1)minimal maintenance of the maximum number of highway miles, (2) major improvements of key stretches of highway, and (3) development of regional and statewide public transportation. Box 3 shows the details of these policy options, as the brochure described them.
The majority of the budget of the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department (NMSHTD) is committed to road maintenance, and the budget has already been set through 2005. However, the Department has not yet decided how to spend $40 million of each annual budget from 2005 to 2020, and the Department is asking for advice on how to spend that money, which amounts to a total of $600 million spent over flfteen years. The NMSHTD has explored several different ways it could use this $600 million to address New Mexico's transportation problems. As required by federal law, the Department has tried to flnd solutions that respect the needs of commercial and recreational motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The Department must also respect the concerns of rural communities, metropolitan areas, and Indian tribal governments in New Mexico, as well as the impact of transportation policies on society, the economy, and the environment. Taking these issues into consideration, the Department can use its available funds in at least three different ways. Each of these three policy choices comes with certain advantages and disadvantages. |
― 126 ― |
| Choice 1: Extending the Life of State Highways |
If the NMSHTD followed Choice 1, New Mexico would maintain as many highway miles as possible. Given current budget projections, the State would probably be able to maintain 5,000 miles of highways at minimum standards. When necessary, these 5,000 miles of roads would be reconstructed, a procedure that completely rebuilds a road to ensure its long life. Choice 1 would also continue to resurface 3,000 miles of state roads to extend their lives for several more years. Because these roads would not be reconstructed, they would eventually wear out, but the process would be more gradual. However, there would not be enough funds to resurface the remaining 4,000 miles of state roads. The NMSHTD would only be able to repair these roads, fllling potholes and making other minor repairs. This choice might be most valuable for those parts of the state that want highways maintained for as long as possible. All three policy choices acknowledge that 7,000 miles of state road will ultimately wear out, but Choice 1 maintains the health of these roads for a greater number of years. Critics of Choice 1 point out that the State has more than enough highway to meet its current needs. The population of New Mexico is moving toward the metropolitan areas along the Rio Grande River, and it is unwise to devote so much of the Department's highway funds to the roads with the least traffic. Other critics point out that this choice continues to rely on roads as the only solution to New Mexico's transportation problems. In the end, it only delays the decay of roads the State can't maintain forever. |
| Choice 2: Improving Major State Highways |
If the Department picked Choice 2, it would turn 3,000 miles of road over to local and county governments, which may or may not be able to maintain them. The Department would repair another 4,000 miles of road, which would eventually wear out and become local or county roads. These actions would save the State millions of dollars, which it could then devote to improving the 5,000 miles of most heavily traveled roads in New Mexico. Choice 2 would improve these roads by widening their lanes and shoulders, straightening some curves, adding safety rails, and conducting more regular maintenance, such as road resurfacing and repairs. Smoother and safer roads would reduce traffic congestion, wear-and-tear on vehicles, and highway accidents. Wider shoulders would also make highway travel easier for bicyclists. Some critics of Choice 2 argue that local and county governments will not maintain the roads turned over to them by the State of New Mexico, so the State should continue to resurface and repair these roads as long as possible. Other critics say that improving the major roads will only encourage more people to use them, so the highways will remain congested. |
| Choice 3: Improving Statewide Public Transportation |
The difference between Choice 2 and Choice 3 is that the third choice would reconstruct but not improve the 5,000 miles of major roads in New Mexico. ― 127 ―
Instead, Choice 3 would devote millions of dollars to improving the statewide public transportation system.The primary civilian means of transportation is a car with one driver and no passengers. These are called "single occupancy vehicles" or SOVs. An alternative to the swarm of SOVs on our roads is a strong statewide public transportation system. This system would use vans to connect cities and towns to a stream of busses that would travel along the interstates and principal highways. Many people would drive a short distance to "park and ride" lots, where they would board a bus for the rest of their journey. The NMSHTD might also promote "ride pools" in which people regularly driving to the same destination share a single car or van. Although this choice would not improve the quality of New Mexico's major roads, it would make long-distance transportation more affordable for people without cars. It might also make roads safer because every bus or van on the road might replace a dozen cars. Critics of Choice 3 argue that the state has a responsibility to maintain its roads—the transportation system that New Mexicans know best. Habits change slowly, and if citizens do not use the new public transportation system, the state will have wasted millions of dollars on something travelers don't want. In addition, a public transportation system does nothing to improve the roads that trucks and other commercial vehicles rely upon. Rather than investing in new kinds of transportation, critics argue, we should improve the road system we already have. |
Each citizen conference began with a morning question-and-answer session in a public auditorium. There the citizen advisers asked policy questions of a panel of experts and concerned citizens. The panel members were selected by the Transportation Department in consultation with the IPP to ensure that the panelists represented a broad range of opinions and expertise on transportation in New Mexico. At the end of the morning session, advisers heard brief comments from members of the audience who wished to add to the dialogue between advisers and panelists.
After taking a break for lunch, the citizen advisers then retired to a deliberation room for the afternoon. Aided by an IPP moderator, the advisers reviewed the three different long-range transportation policies that the department could pursue.[42] When they chose to do so, they also had the chance to consult further with any panelists or department officials, who were seated in an adjoining room and watching the deliberation on closed-circuit television. Toward the end of their afternoon session, the advisers attempted to develop a set of written policy recommendations, which they drafted with the assistance of the moderator.
At 4 P.M., the advisers returned to the public auditorium and held a press conference to present their recommendations. One of the advisers read aloud the citizens' recommendations, then the advisers answered questions from the public and media in attendance. Advisers responded to queries about the details of their recommendations, the policy options that they did not choose to recommend, and the nature of their experience at the citizen conference.
The most common view expressed at the citizen conferences was that New Mexico should focus its energy on maintaining the existing network of state highways. As the Gallup citizen advisers said in their final recommendations, "We believe that the State of New Mexico should maintain as many of the state roads as possible through resurfacing and repairs. Many state roads need improvements, but first we have to maintain the road system we have. Even the least traveled state roads are still serving a purpose and are important to people living in rural parts of the state." The citizen advisers in Albuquerque, Roswell, and Las Cruces shared this view.
However, at the Taos and Santa Rosa citizen conferences, the citizen advisers recommended that New Mexico devote more funds to improving major highways. "The Transportation Department should focus on improving its most heavily-traveled state highways and pay for these improvements through a gradual reduction in its maintenance of less critical state roads," the Taos advisers wrote.
Two other recommendations emerged from the citizen conferences. First, advisers recommended that the State of New Mexico enlarge the road fund through increased revenues (e.g., an increase in the gasoline tax, increased trucking fees, etc.) or by permitting the Transportation Department to buy goods and services without paying gross receipt taxes. Second, some citizen advisers recommended reducing truck weight limits on New Mexico's highways.
What was the ultimate impact of these conferences on policy and public officials? Because the conference participants opposed planning and funding public transportation at the state level, it is likely that their recommendations undermined the efforts of government officials and activists who promote state-level public transportation programs. Prior to the conferences, advocates of such programs might have claimed that
James Kozak, the Transportation Department official who oversaw the conferences, argued that their main impact on public officials was to restore their faith in the competence and wisdom of the general public. The citizens arrived at policy recommendations that, from the department's perspective, were realistic and clear expressions of the public's basic concerns about highway transportation.[43] Because the conferences were not linked to elections in any way, however, they had no appreciable influence on public officials beyond their persuasiveness as the only clear recording of a representative, deliberative public voice on transportation policy.
CITIZEN JURIES
From the perspective of the Transportation Department, one of the virtues of the citizen conferences was that they were a quick and inexpensive method of public deliberation. By contrast, the inspiration behind the conferences was the citizen jury model, which uses a much more elaborate deliberative process.[44] In a citizen jury, participant selection follows a carefully designed set of demographic and attitudinal quotas, deliberation takes place over four or five days, and sometimes regional juries select members for subsequent meetings.
The citizen jury process earned its name because it was "based on the analogy of a jury," as opposed to a public opinion poll, explains its founder, Ned Crosby. Just as juries can resolve criminal and civil disputes by hearing evidence and argument, deliberating, and presenting verdicts, so citizen juries go through the same stages to suggest resolutions to public policy problems. The Jefferson Center for New Democratic Processes, which Crosby founded, has conducted dozens of innovative citizen jury projects on a wide range of local, regional, and national issues, ranging from organ transplants to the federal budget.
A 1995 jury on hog farming in Rice County, Minnesota, is a good example of the citizen jury process. Faculty and students at Carleton and St. Olaf Colleges, with Crosby's assistance, designed a jury to address the contentious issue of how the county government should regulate the private large-volume pig feedlots common in the area. Speciflcally, the jurors answered six questions:
- What aspects of hog feedlots are beneflcial to, or appropriate for, Rice County?
- What aspects of hog feedlots are detrimental to, or inappropriate for, Rice County?
- Should hog production in Rice County be regulated? If so, how and why?
- If hog production should be regulated in Rice County, should the number of animal units per farm be limited? If so, should the limit be 500, 750, or 1000 (or more) animal units?
- What should be the future of hog production in Rice County?
- What should be the role of local government in the regulation of animal production?[45]
Twelve paid jurors, selected at random within Rice County, were asked to answer those questions after reflecting on the issue for a full week. On Monday, they listened to testimony from academic experts and administrators on hog production methods, demographics, zoning, and regulations. Jurors had the chance to ask questions of these witnesses, and the jurors also met with their moderator to make certain that they understood the six questions they would have to answer. Tuesday and Wednesday, jurors heard from farmers, community members, professors, and administrators, who discussed the economic, environmental, and social effects of hog farming, as well as local zoning and regulation. Thursday morning, jurors deliberated on the six questions, and in the afternoon, they reviewed and then presented their final recommendations.
In the end, the jurors reached agreement on every question put before them. They recognized a wide array of costs and beneflts associated with hog farming, and they believed it was essential to regulate feedlots, both large and small. In effect, the jury rejected the question, "How large is too large?" Instead, the jurors wrote, "It doesn't matter how many animal units you have; it's what you do with them and the manure." According to the jurors, hog farms of any size should be subject to random on-site inspections to ensure compliance with state guidelines, inspect manure management practices, and to check the health of the pigs. In answering their "charge," the jurors also made other speciflc recommendations about zoning, permits, and ownership.
Though representative, deliberative, and articulate, the citizen jury on hog farming shared the same problem as the citizen conferences: it
Some citizen juries, however, have focused directly on elections and candidates. A 1976 presidential jury evaluated the issue stands of Jimmy Carter and President Gerald Ford. Teamed with the Minnesota League of Women Voters, the Jefferson Center also held juries on the 1989 St. Paul, Minnesota, mayoral race and the 1990 Minnesota gubernatorial primary and general elections. In 1992, the center also joined with the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters to convene citizen juries on the views of Republican Senator Arlen Specter and his Democratic opponent, Lynn Yeakel.[48]
The Pennsylvania effort was the most ambitious and influential. Specter used its flndings in television campaign ads, and the Philadelphia Inquirer praised the process and presented its flndings in detail even though it endorsed Yeakel. On election day, Specter prevailed with 49 percent to 46 percent of the vote despite a vigorous Yeakel campaign, which spent over $5 million dollars and attacked Specter's actions during the conflrmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. It is impossible to determine the extent to which the jury results influenced the election, but the important point is that the Pennsylvania citizen jury demonstrated how a random sample forum can have direct electoral implications.[49]
DELIBERATIVE POLLING AND THE NATIONAL ISSUES CONVENTION
James Fishkin had an even more ambitious plan when he created the 1996 National Issues Convention (NIC) to showcase his method of deliberative polling. Fishkin argues that the best way to bridge a large national public with the deliberative ideal of face to-face-democracy is to
Fishkin failed to engineer a "deliberative poll" in the 1992 U.S. presidential election, but with the help of Granada Television, he conducted such a survey in Manchester, England, in 1994. Drawing on the success of the 1994 poll, Fishkin succeeded in orchestrating a national poll in the United States. On January 18, 1996, 459 randomly selected strangers from across the United States converged on Austin, Texas, to attend the National Issues Convention. Participants spent most of the next three days in small group discussions of U.S. foreign policy, the economy, and "the American family." In face-to-face groups of ten to twenty persons each, participants shared their perspectives and weighed the pros and cons of alternative policy choices that had been spelled out in a preconference brieflng book.[51]
The deliberation that took place in these small groups of citizens was not remarkable. Having observed three of the small groups in person, I witnessed both searching discussion and unfocused rambling, as one flnds when observing other forums and study circles.[52] Box 4 shows one of the many exchanges that took place during the NIC, and the only noteworthy aspect of the dialogue is that its participants came from different backgrounds and had different points of view. Given that citizens tend to engage in political conversation with like-minded peers, this fact alone is important.[53] Beyond mere conversation, however, analysis of transcripts of NIC discussions shows that participants spent much of their time weighing conflicting facts, ideas, and policies. More than one-third of the comments recorded included some form of self-examination or criticism, and 7 percent "examined the group through the eyes of some other party."[54] The small group discussions at the NIC
| SOURCE: Gastil 1996. Pseudonyms are used for the NIC participants. |
At one point, two assertive and conservative white participants, Scott and Ron, shifted the discussion to macroeconomic problems. Scott argued that unemployment can be good because it holds down inflation. As he elaborated on this point, his choice of terminology revealed a formal background in economics. Ron added to Scott's comments by stating this view more starkly: "Poverty is good. It creates an incentive—something to strive for." Jason, the most vocal African-American participant, was stunned. As he retorted, the three young African-Americans sitting across from him nodded and made it clear that they shared his disbelief. "This must be a cultural difference," Jason said with intentional understatement. Trying to reframe Ron's words to make them compatible with his own view, Jason asked, "Are you saying that the rich need to have poor in order to stay rich?" Scott rejected this awkward invitation to agreement and simply added, "The rich get to keep their loot. That's democracy. It's in our constitution." Stepping out of her neutral role, the moderator joined in the discussion as a participant. She said, with obvious cynicism, that the basic purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to protect property rights. Lewis, a young African-American man who had not spoken previously, said that it's not easy to flnd work. In his own case, he explained, he has to go through a job service to look for work, and he often winds up with temporary jobs. Alan, another relatively quiet participant, picked up on the emerging theme of greedy business people and referred to his own boss (and the boss' son, who is rising in the ranks "faster than seems fair"). Alan said that his boss spends proflts on expensive trips to clubs and resorts. "Why can't he invest those dollars back in the employees and the company?" Alan asked. "But he made the company," Mark answered the rhetorical question. "He earned the right to do that." "Okay, but it's rude," Alan responded. On this point Mark agreed: it may be legal to brag about one's riches and squander them on luxuries, but that doesn't make it right. With others making a brief comment at times, Jason and Scott continued to disagree, slowly moving their focus toward progressive versus flat tax rates. After Scott asserted that taxes on the wealthiest five percent of Americans provide forty-three percent of all federal revenue, Jason began to understand that he and Scott agreed about what a "fair share" of the tax burden means. Jason ― 134 ―
said that he could now support the flat tax—so long as the rich pay their percentage just like everyone else.With this final topic, Scott, Jason, Lewis, and the other active group members had steered the group all the way from a discussion of human greed to the flat tax. Although the rambling group conversation sometimes wandered into a thicket of irrelevancies, its innocent meandering permitted participants to stumble upon points of agreement. A conservative participant acknowledged the problem of corporate greed, but not due to the force of an unrelenting colleague's argument. And a liberal came to see virtue in the flat tax, which just popped into the conversation. |
The actual deliberation—or lack thereof—at the NIC merits careful study. Scholarly writing about what took place at the NIC has, however, focused almost entirely on the method and results of the deliberative poll of the participants. The poll began with a traditional door-to-door survey of a random national sample of households, and 72 percent of those initially contacted by interviewers took part in the pre-NIC survey. Of those 600 respondents, only 50 percent made the trip to Austin. That resulted in a 36 percent response rate, which falls well below the standards of professional polling organizations in the United States.[55] The National Opinion Research Center, which administered the survey, made a concerted effort to persuade a higher percentage of respondents to come to Austin, but the free round-trip ticket, a $325 honorarium, and regular contacts by paid liaisons were not enough for many respondents, some of whom remained skeptical about the NIC's purposes.[56]
Though the low response rate raised questions about the representativeness of the sample, demographic and attitudinal data suggest that the NIC attendees were similar to the national population in most respects.[57] Given this resemblance, one might infer that changes in the attendees' attitudes reflect what the larger public would believe if it had deliberated in the same manner. Deliberation did have a modest effect on the attendees' views, when taken as a whole. Of the 81 survey items asked before and after the NIC, the direction of majority opinion shifted seven times, and a total of twenty items showed statistically signiflcant changes in overall response.[58] For example, the flat tax fell out of favor, with support dropping from 44 percent to 30 percent. Before the NIC, 63 percent said that the states should take charge of welfare programs, but only 50 percent maintained that conviction after the
Beyond these issues, changes were also apparent in attendees' attitudes toward public officials. After deliberating on issues and addressing questions directly to Republican presidential candidates and Vice President Al Gore, the percentage of attendees who believed that "public officials care a lot about what people like me think" rose from 41 percent to 60 percent. Remarkably, even audiences who watched the NIC from the comfort of their living rooms experienced a slight boost in political efficacy, as evidenced by their increased disagreement with the statement, "People like me don't have any say about what the government does."[60] After studying the survey of NIC participants' experiences, an observer, Tom Smith, concluded: "For almost all of the delegates, the NIC was a positive, moving experience. For some it was an epiphany that they felt would transform their lives, making them better citizens, changing them into more complete Americans…. Overwhelmingly, it was empowering, making them believe that they could and should make a difference.[61]
As envisioned by Fishkin, the results of the NIC deliberative poll are important because they could set the course of the primary election for president. By revealing the policy views and priorities of the deliberative public, the NIC could influence how the media covers the election and how candidates campaign. Daniel Merkle, director of the Voter News Service, found that 194 stories mentioning the NIC appeared in major
U.S. newspapers during the two weeks following the convention, and NIC sponsors ultimately tallied over 500 articles. PBS devoted several hours of live coverage to the convention, and although NBC and CBS ignored the convention, CNN and ABC ran in-depth segments on it. Nielsen ratings for the convention were low and well below those of comparable presidential debates; overall, the NIC did not have a clear, direct effect on the conduct and media coverage of the primary election.[62]
INTO THE REALM OF THE POSSIBLE
Nevertheless, the NIC had a signiflcant effect on how the media think about citizens and public forums. The NIC demonstrated that, under
Above all else, the NIC has brought random sample forums from the world of science flction into the realm of the possible. The underlying concepts and purposes, as well as the practical methods, of deliberation with random samples of a general public are now well known in many academic and professional communities. Though random sample forums differ considerably from civic education programs and the numerous community forums across the United States, the NIC has also helped to legitimize these more spontaneous and informal methods of public deliberation. In return, as the SCRC directors Matt Leighninger and Martha McCoy explain, the "small, heroic changes" that take place in study circles and community forums "show us that bigger changes are possible."[64] Because of these programs, hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of U.S. citizens now recognize careful, respectful deliberation as a legitimate and often desirable method for addressing community and political conflicts.
What has yet to happen is for public deliberation to flnd its way into the mainstream electoral process. Experiments like the NIC and citizen juries have proven that citizens can deliberate meaningfully on candidates as well as issues, but deliberation and elections remain largely unconnected in American politics.[65] In the next two chapters, I argue that this separation is neither ideal nor inevitable. By combining the electoral reforms introduced in chapter 3 with the deliberative methods presented above, it is possible to record a public voice that is not only representative, deliberative, and articulate, but also influential in contemporary American elections. If the strong voices of deliberative forums can tie themselves to a credible threat of collective rejection of unrepresentative elected officials, government will hear those voices as clearly as any other.