Debate in the Public Sphere

People are not perfect, so any idealized model of democratic citizenship will ultimately fall short in practice. In this week's readings, Delli Carpini supports the necessity of information in a democracy, and Kulinski and Quirk seem to agree by pointing out the problems with mass opinion theories. On the other hand, Lodge et al and Gaines et al think that the information-based model sets impossible standards, thus setting citizens up to miss the mark. They suggest that detailed knowledge may not be necessary for individuals to perform their democratic functions.

The on-line model of recall and the idea that people interpret facts in partisan ways resonate most with my experience of people's political opinions. Many individuals seem to have generalized opinions that match up with their previous beliefs and some of the information in the media, without the ability to recall details. While this reality might be functional in terms of getting people to vote because they feel familiar with politics, the lack of deep comprehension stifles debate for the average citizen.

Learning from debate requires both specific facts and an open mind. One cannot simply say "My impression is the candidate X will do a good job." Instead, they must be able to recall and use specific issue points to justify their argument. When facts are present, people have to be willing to understand them from a variety of possible viewpoints. Putting "spin" on information so that it suits your beliefs automatically closes you off to the possibility of sharpening your mind.

The ability to debate politics with others is not necessary for voting. However, it should be a goal in democracies, because it helps bring out the best policies through testing. An information-based model for citizenship is required to make debate happen.