L'IMPEGNO POLITICO

L'IMPEGNO POLITICO

Quando un militante ascolta "l'altra campana"... diventa ancora più estremista.

IMHO: mai raccomandare l'impegno politico a un giovane.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/08/27/1804840115.short

ch 1+2+3+4 Partecipare o decidere?

Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy

Diana C. Mutz

Last annotated on Friday September 1, 2017

73 Highlight(s) | 73 Note(s)

Yellow highlight | Location: 2

Hearing the Other Side Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy
Note:TITOLO@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Yellow highlight | Location: 9

Drawing on her empirical work, Mutz concludes that it is doubtful that an extremely activist political culture can also be a heavily deliberative one.
Note:ATTIVISMO E DEMOCRAZIA

Yellow highlight | Location: 51

Preface
Note:PRE@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Yellow highlight | Location: 90

1 1 Hearing the Other Side, in Theory and in Practice
Note:1@@@@@@@@@@@

Yellow highlight | Location: 115

And despite the tremendous negative publicity that currently plagues American businesses, the American workplace is inadvertently performing an important public service simply by establishing a social context in which diverse groups of people are forced into daily interaction with one another.
Note:MIX SUL POSTO DI LAVORO

Yellow highlight | Location: 118

As I explain in subsequent chapters, my empirical work in this arena has led me to believe that there are fundamental incompatibilities between theories of participatory democracy and theories of deliberative democracy.
Note:TESI DELL INCOMPATIBILITÀ

Yellow highlight | Location: 125

Although diverse political networks foster a better understanding of multiple perspectives on issues and encourage political tolerance, they discourage political participation, particularly among those who are averse to conflict.
Note:LE CURVE ALLONTANANO DALLA PARTECIPAZIONE

Yellow highlight | Location: 132

it is doubtful that an extremely activist political culture can also be a heavily deliberative one. The best social environment for cultivating political activism is one in which people are surrounded by those who agree with them, people who will reinforce the sense that their own political views are the only right and proper way to proceed.
Note:LA MILITANZA FA PRENDERE SCERLTE SBAGLIATE

Yellow highlight | Location: 140

Studying a Moving Target
Note:TITOLO

Yellow highlight | Location: 140

Face-to-face discussions that cross lines of political difference are central to most conceptions of deliberative democracy.1 But many of the conditions necessary for approximating deliberative ideals such as Habermas’s “ideal speech situation”2 are unlikely to be realized in naturally occurring social contexts.3
Note:UTOPIA ALLA HABERMAS

Yellow highlight | Location: 157

As Mansbridge notes, “Everyday talk, if not always deliberative, is nevertheless a crucial part of the full deliberative system.”
Note:IL BAR

Yellow highlight | Location: 203

Avoiding What’s Good for Use?
Note:TITOLO

Yellow highlight | Location: 204

“Religion and politics,” as the old saying goes, “should never be discussed in mixed company.”
Note:MOTTO

Yellow highlight | Location: 206

Political talk is now central to most current conceptions of how democracy functions.
Note:POLITICAL TALK

Yellow highlight | Location: 213

For example, Habermas’s “ideal speech situation” incorporates the assumption that exposure to dissimilar views will benefit the inhabitants of a public sphere by encouraging greater deliberation and reflection.
Note:HABERMAS: ESPORSI ALL'ALTRO

Yellow highlight | Location: 217

Communitarian theorists further stress the importance of public discourse among people who are different from one another.
Note:COMUNITARIOSMO

Yellow highlight | Location: 222

Perhaps the most often cited proponent of communication across lines of difference is John Stuart Mill, who pointed out how a lack of contact with oppositional viewpoints diminishes the prospects for a public sphere:
Note:MILL

Yellow highlight | Location: 225

Likewise, Habermas assumes that exposure to dissimilar views will benefit the inhabitants of a public sphere by encouraging greater interpersonal deliberation and intrapersonal reflection.
Note:INTERPERSONAL

Yellow highlight | Location: 228

According to Arendt, exposure to conflicting political views also plays an integral role in encouraging “enlarged mentality,” that is, the capacity to form an opinion “by considering a given issue from different viewpoints, by making present to my mind the standpoints of those who are absent. . . .
Note:ARENDT

Yellow highlight | Location: 242

“Hence discussion rather than private deliberation would be necessary to ‘put on the table’ the various reasons and arguments that different individuals had in mind, and thus to ensure that no one could see the end result as arbitrary rather than reasonable and justifiable, even if not what he or she happened to see as most justifiable.”
Note:DISCUSSIONEVS RIFLESSIONE

Yellow highlight | Location: 253

Social network studies have long suggested that likes talk to likes; in other words, people tend to selectively expose themselves to people who do not challenge their view of the world.
Note:ESPOSIZIONE SELETTIVA DEI NUOVI MEDIA

Yellow highlight | Location: 261

What Is Meant by Diversity? Some Definitional Issues
Note:TITOLO. DIVERSITÀ

Yellow highlight | Location: 268

For purposes of this book, I use the term network to refer specifically to the people with whom a given person communicates on a direct, one-to-one basis.
Note:PARROCCHIETTA

Yellow highlight | Location: 284

But consider diversity–heterogeneity in the form that Robert Ezra Park first ascribed it to cities: “a mosaic of little worlds that touch but do not interpenetrate.”
Note:PERICOLO PICCOLI MONDI

Yellow highlight | Location: 293

As sociologist Claude Fischer suggests, “As the society becomes more diverse, the individuals’ own social networks become less diverse. More than ever, perhaps, the child of an affluent professional family may live, learn, and play with only similar children;
Note:PARADOSSO DELLA DIVERSITÀ

Yellow highlight | Location: 302

As discussed in Chapter 2, relatively few people think explicitly about the political climate when choosing a place to live, but lifestyle choices may serve as surrogates for political views, producing a similar end result.
Note:DOVE VIVERE... UNA SCELTA POLITICA

Yellow highlight | Location: 318

A Departure from Studying Political Preferences
Note:TITOLO

Yellow highlight | Location: 324

When those of dissimilar views interact, conformity pressures are argued to encourage those holding minority viewpoints to adopt the prevailing attitude. When those of like mind come together, the feared outcome is polarization: that is, people within homogeneous networks may be reinforced so that they hold the same viewpoints, only more strongly.
Note:CONFORMISMO/DIVERSITÀ E POLARIZZAZIONE/OMOGENEITÀ

Yellow highlight | Location: 328

Solomon Asch, whose reputation was built on studying conformity and its perils, acknowledged the capacity for something beneficial, something other than social influence, to result from exposure to oppositional views: The other is capable of arousing in me a doubt that would otherwise not occur to me. The clash of views generates events of far-reaching importance.
Note:ASCH

Yellow highlight | Location: 344

Acknowledging the legitimacy of oppositional arguments is warned against in a popular test preparation book: “What’s important is that you take a position and state how you feel. It is not important what other people might think, just what you think.”
Note:CONTRO L'ASCOLTO DEL ALTRO

Yellow highlight | Location: 348

Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy?
Note:TITOLO

Yellow highlight | Location: 369

The thesis of this book is that theories of participatory democracy are in important ways inconsistent with theories of deliberative democracy. The best possible social environment for purposes of either one of these two goals would naturally undermine the other.
Note:TESI DEL LIBRO... CHI SI CFR NN HA VOGLIA DI PARTECIPARE

Yellow highlight | Location: 371

Like the cover of this book, the pinnacle of participatory democracy was, to my mind, a throng of highly politically active citizens carrying signs, shouting slogans, and cheering on the speeches of their political leaders.
Note:IL PROTOTIPO DEL MILITANTE

Yellow highlight | Location: 375

This was participatory democracy as I had known it. There was a level of enthusiasm and passion borne of shared purpose, and a camaraderie that emerged from the sheer amount of time spent together.
Note:PIACERE DELLO STARE CON I PROPRI SIMILI

Yellow highlight | Location: 379

it was politics as a way of life, to paraphrase Dewey.
Note:DEWEY… IL MILITANTE... TUTTO È POLITICA

Yellow highlight | Location: 383

These partisans could easily be admired for their political knowledge and their activism, but they would be rather like what John Stuart Mill called “one eyed men,” that is, people whose perspectives were partial and thus inevitably somewhat narrow. As Mill acknowledged, “If they saw more, they probably would not see so keenly, nor so eagerly pursue one course of enquiry.”
Note:IL MILITANTE COME UN POLIFEMO

Yellow highlight | Location: 391

Could deliberation and participation really be part and parcel of the same goal? Would the same kind of social and political environment conducive to diverse political networks also promote participation? The chapters that follow attempt to answer these questions.
Note:ENTUSIASMO E PONDERATEZZA POSSONO CONVIVERE?

Yellow highlight | Location: 453

2 Encountering Mixed Political Company With Whom and in What Context?
Note:2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Yellow highlight | Location: 573

political discussants tend more toward political agreement than disagreement.

Note | Location: 573

SI DISCUTE TRA SIMILI

Yellow highlight | Location: 591

Not surprisingly, political discussion becomes more frequent as relationships become more intimate.
Note:SI DISCUTE TRA INTIMI

Yellow highlight | Location: 645

Nonwhites are significantly more likely to engage in cross-cutting political conversation than whites. And as income increases, the frequency of disagreeable conversations declines. Exposure to disagreement is highest among those who have completed less than a high school
Note:PIÙ SEI RICCO PIÙ APPREZZI IL TUO SIMILE

Yellow highlight | Location: 671

As shown in Figure 2.4, those most knowledgeable about and interested in politics are not the people most exposed to oppositional political viewpoints.
Note:IL PARTIGIANO INFORMATO

Yellow highlight | Location: 680

cross-cutting political networks are more common among political moderates.
Note:MODERATI PIÙ INCLINI AL CFR

Yellow highlight | Location: 696

the homogeneity of the network reinforces those same views.
Note:IL RINFORZO

Yellow highlight | Location: 719

Those highest in voluntary association memberships are least likely to report cross-cutting political conversations.
Note:IL MLITANTE PARTECIPA DI PIÙ E SI CFR MENO

Yellow highlight | Location: 827

So long as people are encouraged to have bigger networks, the promise of cross-cutting exposure will be fulfilled, at least so the argument goes.
Note:ATTENZIONE AD UN ILLUSIONE COMUNE

Yellow highlight | Location: 832

The number of like-minded discussants increases with network size to an even greater degree, from .61 to 2.41, that is, by 1.80.
Note:AMPLIARE LE RETI NON SERVE: LE GRANDI RETI VITTIME DEL CONFORMISMO

Yellow highlight | Location: 849

Finally, the line marked by triangles in Figure 2.8 illustrates the ratio of agreeable to disagreeable discussants, again by network size. Here the extent of agreement climbs steeply from one- to two-discussant networks, the opposite of the model prediction, then declines back to initial levels with networks of size three, and further toward heterogeneity at size four.
Note:SI CAMBIA IDEA SOLO A QUATTR OCCHI... RETI PICCOLE E DIVERSIFICATE

Yellow highlight | Location: 881

Environments are traditionally understood as external, exogenous factors that impose constraints on people’s ability to exercise selectivity: “Contexts are structurally imposed, whereas networks are individually constructed.”
Note:MENTRE LA RETE È SCELTA IL CONTESTO È DATO

Yellow highlight | Location: 996

According to this indicator, the United States is similar to Italy and Greece on the basis of the top panel of Figure 2.10. In all three countries just under 60 percent of respondents report a partisan first discussant, that is, one who is known to favor a candidate or party.
Note:USA ITALY GREECE... LE PIÙ POLARIZZATE

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,056

The heterogeneity of a person’s network is not even a positive function of his or her amount of political conversation more generally.
Note:CONFRONTO E PARTECIPAZ NN SONO CORRELATE... IL CFR È OCCASIONALE E CONTESTUALE... RIGUARDA CHI NN SI INTERESSA DI POLITICA

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,158

3 Benefits of Hearing the Other Side
Note:3@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,160

Theorists extol the virtues of political talk, foundations spend millions of dollars to encourage people of opposing views to talk
Note:VIRTÙ DECANTATE

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,255

There are obviously dozens of empirically testable hypotheses embedded in the assertions of deliberative theory. Unfortunately existing survey data provide few opportunities to test them.
Note:MA LA TEORIA È POCO TESTATA

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,266

Communication environments that expose people to non–like-minded political views were hypothesized to promote (1) greater awareness of rationales for one’s own viewpoints, (2) greater awareness of rationales for oppositional viewpoints, and (3) greater tolerance.
Note:I TRE SUPPOSTI BENEFICI DEL CFR

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,273

Green, Visser, and Tetlock
Note:AUTORI CHE CONFERMANO IL PRIMO BENEFICIO

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,295

studies unambiguously demonstrate that contact reduces prejudice, but not surprisingly, prejudice also lessens the amount of intergroup contact people have outside the laboratory.
Note:IL RUOLO DEL PREGIUDIZIO

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,315

people who have had to learn how to “agree to disagree” in their daily lives better understand the need to do so as a matter of public policy.
Note:CHI SI CFR COL DIVERSO IMPARA A FARLO

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,317

the extent of interpersonal contact across lines of religion, race, social class, culture, and nationality has been found to predict nonprejudicial attitudes toward groups not involved in the contact,
Note:cccccc

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,327

quite a few empirical relationships have been attributed to exposure to non–like-minded political perspectives.
Note:POCHI TEST SPECIFICI X LA POLITICA

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,336

The extent to which people are exposed to differing views also has been invoked in explanations for why women tend to be less tolerant than men, and why those in urban environments are more tolerant than those in rural areas.
Note:DONNE CITTADINI CAMPAGNOLI UOMINI

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,354

Figure 3.1 illustrates this proposed chain of events whereby exposure to people of differing political views increases awareness of rationales for differing viewpoints and thus increases political tolerance. This link is further supported by theorists such as Mead and Piaget
Note:DIVERSITÀ=>TOLLERANZA?

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,402

As shown in Figure 3.2, the number of rationales that people could give for their own positions were, not surprisingly, significantly higher than those they could give for opposing views.
Note:TURING TEST NN SUPERATO

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,417

Effects on Awareness of Rationales for Own and Oppositional Views
Note:ttttttt

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,436

counter to what theorists such as Mill have proposed, there was no compelling evidence that exposure to non–like-minded views had an impact on awareness of rationales for people’s own political perspectives.
Note:CONTRO MILL... LA GENTE CHE SI CFR NN SI CHIARISCE MEGLIO LE PROPRIE RAGIONI

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,445

exposure to oppositional viewpoints significantly increases awareness of legitimate rationales for opposing views.
Note:TOLLERANZA

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,481

As shown in Figure 3.4, people who have a civil orientation toward conflict are particularly likely to benefit from exposure to non–like-minded views.
Note:BENEFICI X L ESTREMISTA

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,504

As shown in Figure 3.5, the size of the cognitive and affective effects on tolerance was modest, and the two effects were very similar in size. But together they produced a sizable effect on tolerance. If one generally perceives those opposed to one’s own views to have some legitimate, if not compelling reasons for being so, then one will be more likely to extend the rights of speech, assembly, and so forth, to disliked groups.
Note:ESPO E TOLLERNZA

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,597

As Figure 3.6 shows, among those high in perspective-taking ability, mean levels of tolerance were higher when subjects were exposed to rationales for oppositional views. However, among those low in perspective-taking ability, tolerance levels were lower when subjects were exposed to oppositional views.
Note:TOLLERANZA... AUMENTA NEGLI EMPATICI

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,662

Does the composition of people’s social networks have meaningful consequences for political tolerance and democratic legitimacy? My answer to this question is yes, on the basis of evidence to date. Although these findings do not support the argument that more deliberation per se is what American politics needs most, the findings lend supporting evidence to claims about the benefits of one central tenet of deliberative theory: that the perspectives people advocate when they talk about politics must be contested.
CONCLUSIONI

4 The Dark Side of Mixed Political Company
Note:4@@@@@@@@

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,750

plenty of evidence points to the potential for negative outcomes as a result of communication
Note:IL LATO OSCURO DELLA COMUNICAZIONE

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,758

Hibbing and Theiss-Morse, who argue in Stealth Democracy that deliberation is either bad for, or, at the very least, not beneficial for democracy.1 They base their argument on evidence from voluntary associations and from planned deliberative events in which diverse people are brought together to interact, with the goal of reaching consensus. Consistent with my findings, they suggest that voluntary groups tend to avoid potentially controversial topics in favor of more practical tasks,
Note:I NEGATIVISTI AD OLTRANZA... LA DISCUSSIONE È UNA PERDITA DI TEMPO... NN SI GIUNGE MAI A UNA COMCLUSIONE

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,769

I dislike arguments with my husband, but I cannot, as a consequence, claim we would be better off not having them.
Note:MEGLIO EVITARES I RADICALISMI

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,782

But the “dark side” I mention in the chapter title is not about failed cross-cutting interactions; instead it refers to situations in which cross-cutting exposure succeeds in making people more aware of oppositional views.
Note:IL VERO LATO OSCURO... QUANDO L ALTRO CI INFLUENZA

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,785

Failure through Success: The Political Costs of Mixed Company
Note:ttttttt

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,793

theories hint at the potential drawbacks of cross-cutting exposure for one democratic outcome in particular – political participation.
Note:CROLLO DELLA PARTECIPAZIONE POLITICA

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,796

“cross-pressures.”
Note:IL CONCETTO CHE ESPRIME LA PARALISI

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,801

Lazarsfeld
Note:gggggg

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,804

The People’s Choice was the first study to suggest that conflicts and inconsistencies among the factors influencing an individual’s vote decision had implications for political participation:
Note:L AMTESIGNANO

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,814

“vacillation, apathy, and loss of interest in conflict-laden issues.”
Note:SI VACILLA E SI RINUNCIA

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,826

Although most research attention was focused on the instability of voting choices in cross-pressured groups, some researchers also observed that cross-pressured voters tended to make later political decisions and tended to express lower levels of political interest than those in more homogeneously supportive social environments.
Note:SWING.... MA SOPRATTUTTO RINUNCIA

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,841

Whatever Happened to Cross-Pressures?
Note:tttttttt

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,966

By declaring themselves outside or “above” politics, people avoid taking potentially controversial positions, avoid pressure from those who might attempt to change their minds, and, most importantly, they help to preserve social harmony.
Note:TIRARSI FUORI

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,985

To Be or Not to Be Ambivalent?
Note:tttttt

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,987

First, political inaction could be induced by the ambivalence that cross-cutting exposure is likely to engender within an individual.
Note:AMBIVALENZA.... PRIMO EFFETTO PARALIZZANTE DEL CFR... LE CONVINZIONI SI INDEBOLISCONO

Yellow highlight | Location: 2,046

Ambivalence also has been tied to having more balanced or even-handed judgments about political issues.43 For example, simultaneous awareness of conflicting considerations
Note:CONFLITTO INTERIORE

Yellow highlight | Location: 2,053

Social Accountability: Political Action versus Chickening Out
Note:tttttttt

Yellow highlight | Location: 2,055

Social accountability may also play a powerful role. In my own social environment, I have become increasingly aware of potentially offending others through even relatively innocuous political actions such as the display of bumper stickers.
Note:ALTRO ELEMENTO DI PARALISI: IL CONTROLLO SOCIALE

Yellow highlight | Location: 2,116

New Evidence for an Old Theory
Note:tttttttt

Yellow highlight | Location: 2,141

Figure 4.2 summarizes the strength of the relationship between cross-cutting exposure and the likelihood of voting in presidential and congressional elections,
Note:CFR E PROB DI VOTARE

Yellow highlight | Location: 2,206

But Why Do Cross-Pressures Matter?
Note:tttttttt

Yellow highlight | Location: 2,209

How can we tell whether it is ambivalence driving people’s avoidance of politics or a desire to maintain smooth social relationships with others?
Note:QUALE DEI DUE FATTORI PESA DI PIÙ?

Yellow highlight | Location: 2,245

This pattern provides strong evidence that for many people avoiding political involvement is a means of avoiding interpersonal conflict and controversy.
Note:QUIETO VIVERE

Yellow highlight | Location: 2,251

When the analysis takes into account both ambivalence and social accountability, cross-cutting exposure no longer has any significant effects on participation. This finding suggests that collectively these two theories do a good job of accounting for the sum total of effects
Note:I DUE EFFETTI SPIEGANO TITTO

Yellow highlight | Location: 2,254

Social Accountability in Public and Private Participation
Note:ttttttt

Yellow highlight | Location: 2,255

one surprising pattern of results is that the size and strength of effects from cross-cutting exposure appear to be independent of whether the political act itself is private, as is the act of voting, as opposed to more public types of political acts.
Note:SOFFRE ANCHE LA PARTECIPAZIONE PRIVATA.... NN SOLO QUELLA PUBBLICA

Yellow highlight | Location: 2,326

The results in this chapter suggest that people entrenched in politically heterogeneous social networks retreat from political activity mainly out of a desire to avoid putting their social relationships at risk. This interpretation is supported by the fact that it is those who are conflict avoidant, in particular, who are most likely to respond negatively to cross-cutting exposure
Note:NON METTERE A RISCHIO LA PACE SOCIALE

Yellow highlight | Location: 2,332

Tragedy or Triumph?
Note:ttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Location: 2,334

Most would not chastise citizens for backing off from political participation because they are ambivalent toward candidates or policy positions. Few would blame citizens for their lack of decisiveness
Note:CONSEGUENZE MORALI TRA I DUE MOTORI

Yellow highlight | Location: 2,339

On the other hand, political withdrawal caused by a fear of the possible responses of others in one’s social environment will strike most as more problematic in terms of what it says about American political culture.
Note:cccccccc

Yellow highlight | Location: 2,348

It is difficult to fault citizens for valuing smooth social interactions and wanting to get along with diverse others on a day to day basis. Because political interactions evoke anxieties and sometimes threaten social bonds,
Note:MA ANCHE LA PACE SOCIALE È UN VALORE

Yellow highlight | Location: 2,353

Americans have evolved a means of maintaining social harmony across lines of political difference by relegating their desires to have their own way, and their right to speak their own minds, to secondary status.
UN VALORE SOCIALE PERSEGUITO CON LA NON MILITAMZA

Una difesa dela militanza

The Moral Distinctiveness of ‘Party ID’ By Nancy Rosenblum

***

The canonical history of political thought is a record of relentless opposition to parties as institutions and moral disdain for partisans. Parties do have one classic defender, Edmund Burke.

IL PARTITO: ISTITUZIONE ODIATA

On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship

UN LIBRO A DIFESA

one is that parties are “unwholesome parts” that disfigure what should be a perfectly unified political community; another accepts political pluralism but sees parties as fatally divisive, magnifiers or creators of cleavage and conflict.

TASSONOMIA DEGLI ANTI PARTITO

Whether the aspirational perspective is subversive Socratic questioning, Humean impartiality, or a transcendent “view from nowhere,” it is the antithesis of a partisan perspective.

LA FILOSOFIA DA SEMPRE CONTO LA MILITANZA

Proponents of democratic deliberation, for example, favor specially created deliberative polls and citizens’ juries removed from conventional political arenas, with participants chosen to represent “lay citizens and nonpartisans.”

UN' ALTERNATIVA

that parties are convenient mechanisms for “reducing the transaction costs” of democracy while still insisting that voters should be nonpartisan.

QUEL CHE SI CONCEDE AL PARTITO

The Luster of Independence

A “no preference” response on a survey of political attitudes is widespread throughout advanced democracies, but the proud self-designation “independent” is unique to the United States. The positive moral resonance of independence here owes to a civic ideal of self-reliance as a virtue in economic and social life.

LA SUPERIORITÀ MORALE DELL' INDIPENDENZA

In Judith Shklar’s formulation: citizens [must] “be independent persons in both their political and civil roles, who give and withdraw their votes from their representatives and political parties as they see fit.”

JUDITH SHKLAR

To be clear: the core of independence as a political identity today is antipartisanship rather than antipartyism.

PARTITI E PARTIGIANI

“Escape from the Deadly Groove”

Progressives introduced the influential view that where the partisan is seduced or bought, the independent is a free agent. The supporters of party organizations were characterized as ignorant, inert, set in some “deadly groove”

L'ORIGINE PROGRESSISTA DEL VALORE DELL'INDIPENDENZA

“Far from being more attentive, interested, and informed, independents tend as a group to have somewhat poorer knowledge of the issues, their image of the candidates is fainter, their interest in the campaign is less, their concern over the outcome is relatively slight.”… “Pure independents” are the least interested in politics, the most politically ignorant, the lightest voters.

L'EVIDENZA: INDIPENDENZA=INDIFFERENZA

Partisans spend more not less time attending to politics and have more hooks for taking in new information. Unanchored, independents’ considerations are more likely to be chaotic and ad hoc than partisans’. They participate less.

UN CONFRONTO SPIETATO

For one, “escape from the deadly groove” does not make the independent bravely Thoreauian… There is no warrant for casting independents as Humean impartial observers, either…

There is no warrant for casting independents as Humean impartial observers, either

Nor is there warrant for viewing independents as peculiarly sensitive to Mill’s “half-truths” and to the dynamic by which every position derives its utility from the deficiencies of the other, so that truth is “a question of the reconciling and combining of opposites… and it has to be made by the rough process of a struggle between combatants fighting under hostile banners.”

LA FUGA DAI PARTITI NON È SUFFICIENTE

independents are cast as the beneficiaries and carriers of the corrections that emerge from the clash of objections by “persons who actually believe them, who defend them in earnest, and do their utmost for them.”

L' INDIPENDENTE COME PARASSITA DEL MILITANTE

Weightlessness

“We partisans” organize and vote with allies, not alone. If Ignazio Silone is right that the crucial political judgment is “the choice of comrades,” independents do not make it. Independents are as detached from one another as they are from parties. They are not sending a coordinated message… Independents do not assume responsibility for the institutions that organize public discussion… Atomism is an overworked metaphor, but it applies to independents:

GLI INDIPENDENTI NON SI COORDINANO E NON HANNO PESO

Teddy Roosevelt warned against “the deification of independence,” and what he called “mere windy anarchy” is the perennial anxiety of those who imagine independents as the hope for democratic reform.

TEDDY ROOSVELT CONTRO GLI INDIPENDENTI

I’ll give the last word on this point to Edmund Burke, who said it first: “In a connexion, the most inconsiderable man, by adding to the weight of the whole, has his value, and his use; out of it, the greatest talents are wholly unserviceable to the publick.”

BURKE SULL'ARGOMENTO

Inclusiveness

At its most basic, partisanship is identification with Democrats from Florida to California and with political competition at every level of government. No other political identity is shared by so many segments of the population as measured by socioeconomic status or religion, and partisans are not clumped tightly together on an ideological spectrum.

LA MILITANZA TI IDENTIFICA

Comprehensiveness

The second element of an ethic of partisanship and ground for appreciation is attachment to others in a group with responsibility for telling a comprehensive public story about the economic, social, and moral changes of the time, and about national security.

LA MILITANZA TI COORDINA DANDO RILEVANZA AL TUO SFORZO

Inclusiveness and a comprehensive account of what needs to be done are only possible if “we partisans” demonstrate the disposition to compromise. Compromise with fellow partisans acknowledges the larger “we.” We have only to think of political purists to underscore compromisingness as a moral disposition.

LA MILITANZA TI INSEGNA A RINUNCIARE ALLA TUA PUREZZA

The Achievement of Partisanship

drawing the lines of division and shaping the system of conflict that orders democratic deliberation and decision.

IL LAVORO DEL MILITANTE

Creating lines of division is the achievement of partisanship, the heart of introducing “power into the political world.” Politically salient positions are unlikely to be cast as Mill’s “serious conflict of opposing reasons” unless partisans do the work of articulating lines of division and advocating on the side of the angels.

GREAT DIVIDE

“the clash of political beliefs, and of the interests and attitudes that are likely to influence them,” which Rawls and other political philosophers concede is “a normal condition of human life,”

MOLTI TEORICI MINIMIZZANO LA COSTRUZIONE DEL GREAT DIVIDE

parties crystallize, coagulate, synthesize, smooth down, and mold. Creativity in politics is rarely a subject of political theory, and then it is identified with founding moments or constitutional design, higher law-making or transformative social movements, and not with “normal politics.”

MAURICE DUVERGER SU QUESTO PUNTO

The Moral Distinctiveness of ‘Party ID’

While thinking they should speak to everyone, partisans do not imagine they speak for the whole or that their victory is anything but partial and temporary.

IL MILITANTE HA COSCIENZA DI ESSERE PARTE

Skeptics of my appreciation of partisanship can be forgiven today. For several decades, party leaders often appear to want to destroy one another as an effective and legitimate opposition— even to the extent of trying to criminalize political differences.

LA CRIMINALIZZAZIONE DELL’AVVERSARIO POLITICO GIUSTIFICA IL DISPREZZO VERSO I PARTITI

What we need is not independence or bipartisanship or post-partisanship but better partisanship.

DI COSA ABBIAMO BISOGNO

Responses on Political Theory, Idealism, and Extremism - Partisanship and Political Theory

democratic politics cannot be carried on by men and women who take the independent or impartial standpoint democratic theorists typically invoke as most likely to produce good public reasoning and fair outcomes.

DIFENDERE I PARTITI È DIFENDERE LA DEMOCRAZIA. POCHE ALTERNATIVE

the dominant strands: deliberative theory, neo-republicanism, and “epistemic democracy.”… If they allow that parties are a practical necessity for organizing elections and legislatures, partisan citizens are not.

TRE CONCEZIONI CONTEMPORANEE. NESSUNA METTE AL CENTRO IL PARTITO

One of the main thrusts of Angels is the intersection between partisanship and deliberation— an absolutely crucial question in a “mixed regime.” I argue that parties themselves are arenas for deliberation; the internal workings of parties require it… Consider a moderate position that democratic theorists might take. If we understand the value of parties in the Millian sense of shaping lines of political division and staging “trial by discussion” (where does this fit in Fishkin’s typology?), we could assign partisans a modest role….

LA MILITANZA SI SPOSA BENE CON LA DEMOCRAZIA DELIBERATIVA

As Nadia Urbinati emphasizes in an earlier response to Angels, ideally parties are stable institutions that create ongoing connections between partisans and representatives.

I PARTITI FACILITANO LA COMUNICAZIONE

Leave aside my view that all politics is partisan whether or not there is a formal party system. Leave aside my view that wherever we have pluralism we will have partisanship, again, even if we do not have parties.

LA PARTIGIANERIA È INESTIGUIBILE

democratic theory today has little to do with political organization or action. It has little to do with the day-to-day business of building political associations, setting political agendas, choosing comrades, or influencing electoral and policy outcomes.

LE TEORIE CONTEMPORAMEE NON CRITICANO IL PARTITO. LO TRASCURANO

respondents have picked up on my juxtaposition of partisanship and independence. In addition, I create another division: between partisanship and other forms of political association— social movements, interest groups, “public-interest” advocacy groups, and voluntary associations in civil society that episodically enter politics.

A COSA CONTRAPPORRE IL PARTITO?

Partisans take sides on comprehensive matters of national interest. Many partisans are also advocates of particular issues, but as partisans they are more. So zealousness on behalf of a party is different from uncompromising zeal on behalf of guns or consumer protection.

MA IL PARTITO RESTA UNIVERSALISTA

One of the important aspects of parties in comparison with other forms of political association is that they are relatively open and changeable:

IL PARTITO È CONTENDIBILE

Lindsey believes that partisanship has evolved from concrete, personal political loyalty toward an affiliation based on ideology, and he judges this an improvement.

LA DEGENERAZIONE DEI PARTITI E’ INNEGABILE

After all, the origin of important European parties (socialists, Christian Democrats) was quite different; as a generalization, European parties began as ideological parties and are converging increasingly on American-style umbrella parties.

AMERICANIZZAZIONE O EUROPEIZZAZIONE? PARITO PRAGMATICO O IDEOLOGICO?

Good Enough vs. Ideal Citizens and Partisans

he echoes the disparagement of partisans on the basis of bias, ignorance, and inattention to the public interest. I’ll address the question of zeal or extremism in the next section. But how many responses from contributors address partisanship specifically, rather than citizens in general who have run amok and are selfish, inattentive to the public interest, lazy, ignorant, or biased?… It is not hard to build up a discouraging list of negatives, summed up by Larry Bartels as “unenlightened self-interest.”

L'OBIEZIONE DI LINDSAY

The comparative question is whether partisans are better or worse than others on the score of ignorance, bias, and falling off from virtue. Empirical studies suggest that on every dimension they are better than nonpartisans.

LA VERA QUESTIONE… E LA RISPOSTA EMPIRICA

The common thrust is that attitudes do shape party id, and that changing political attitudes alter political orientation. Partisanship is active, alive to the connection between preferences or attitudes and party positions. Revisionists have absolved partisans of the arbitrariness of the claim that “partisans are partisan because they think they are partisan.” Whatever deficiencies political scientists uncover, the appeal of revisionism is to tie party id to reflection on experience and responsiveness to events and therefore to undercut “blind partisanship.”

UNA VERSIONE RIVEDUTA E CORRETTA DEL PARTIGIANO: IL PARTIGIANO È SINCERO E INTERESSATO

Partisans do absorb information and revise opinions and don’t reflexively view party leaders or programs in a positive light. The “biased learning” hypothesis is rejected by Green, Palmquist, and Schickler.

IN FONDO ANCHE UN MILITANTE IMPARA. ANCHE IL MILITANTE, DENTRO DI SE’, SA QUALI SONO I SUOI PUNTI DEBOLI

“we can expect a disjuncture between what voters think of parties and the degree to which they identify with partisan groups.” As some readers will doubtless recognize from their own experience, partisan hearts and minds are not always in sync.

CUORE E TESTA DEL MILITANTE

“I believe there is an inverse relationship today between one’s commitment to both the truth and the public interest and one’s commitment to partisanship.”

OBIEZIONE: IL PARTIGIANO NON È MAI PARTIGIANO DELLA VERITÀ

Understanding Extremism

Lindsey also brings up zealousness— always a simmering element of anti-partisanship.

L'ACCUSA: PARTIGIANI=> ESTREMISTI

We should not allow this concern to trump our concern for the more widespread, enduring, and dangerous phenomenon of apathy and disengagement.

ATTENZIONE: TERZISTI=>APATICI

One example of this mindset is the faith often seen in the ability of random citizens in nonpolitical contexts to arrive at policy decisions in the public interest.

UNA FEDE INGENUA

Extremism, I argue, is a deviation from the three elements of my ethics of partisanship. Specifically, extremism refers to failure to take responsibility for mobilizing voters.

L'ESTREMISMO IN REALTA’ È UNA VIOLAZIONE DELL ETICA MILITANTE

the values or positions that partisan extremists advance are not necessarily outside the mainstream or off-center, as the spatial model would suggest. Extremism is a matter of modality. “Extremism” says that values and programs are advanced in a temper, at a register, and in a mode that is unyielding.

L’ESTREMISMO E’ SOLO UNA MODALITA’. ESISTE ANCHE L’ESTREMISMO QUALUNQUISTA

COMMENTO PERSONALE

Non so se accogliere la contrapposizione proposta “partigiano/indifferente”. Mi sembra più naturale il confronto tra modalità diverse di affrontare la politica, in questo senso chi non partecipa sta fuori. Inoltre, ci sono molti modi di impegnarsi nella vita civile, l’impegno politico è solo uno tra i tanti possibili. Per la gran parte di noi è auspicabile un impegno civile alternativo: per esempio arricchirsi facendo bene il proprio lavoro.  Detto questo, anche “creare un interesse” puo’ essere un valore. Io stesso, se mi guardo indietro, registro il fatto che la passione nasce spesso da una militanza, per quanti errori possa portarsi dietro un atteggiamento fazioso. Esempio: uno si avvicina al calcio grazie al tifo, e poi magari diventa un vero intenditore. Diciamo allora che occorre distinguere tre gradi di relazione con la politica: 1) indifferenza 2) militanza 3) indipendenza. Il terzo grado è il più nobile e – nel mondo ideale – il più diffuso. Ma per giungervi bisogna passare quasi sempre per il secondo.

CHAPTER 3 POLITICAL PARTICIPATION CORRUPTS - Against Democracy by Jason Brennan

CHAPTER 3 POLITICAL PARTICIPATION CORRUPTSRead more at location 1009

Note: 3@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Edit

Mill hoped that getting citizens involved in politics would induce them to take on broader perspectives, empathize with one another more, and develop a stronger concern for the common good. He hoped political engagement would develop their critical thinking skills and increase their knowledge.Read more at location 1013

Note: MILL: PARTECIPARE APRIRÁ LE BS MENTI Edit

1.Civic and political activity requires citizens to take a broad view of others’ interests, and search for ways to promote the common good. This requires long-term thinking as well as engagement with moral, philosophical, and social scientific issues. 2.If so, then civic and political activity will tend to improve citizens’ virtue and make them better informed. 3.Therefore, civic and political activity will tend to improve citizens’ virtue and make them better informed.Read more at location 1017

Note: L EDUCATION ARGUMEMT Edit

Nineteenth-century historian and author of Democracy in America Alexis de Tocqueville also advanced it, though with many reservations.Read more at location 1022

Note: TOCQUEVILLE SI UNISCE TIMIDO Edit

In this chapter, I maintain that most common forms of political engagement are more likely to corruptRead more at location 1028

Add a note

THE EDUCATION ARGUMENT DEPENDS ON THE FACTSRead more at location 1034

Note: t Edit

The education argument is popular among philosophers and theorists, but is not really a philosophical argument.Read more at location 1035

Note: AEA VA VERIFICATO SUL CAMPO Edit

Instead, the education argument is a social scientific one.Read more at location 1037

Note: c Edit

Whether it in fact produces those results is something we can, in principle, test using social scientific methods.Read more at location 1038

Note: c Edit

One must provide strong empirical evidence that when citizens participate more, they will tend to take a broad view of others’ interests,Read more at location 1044

Note: c Edit

what forms of participation are supposed to ennoble and educate.Read more at location 1047

Note: PROBLEMA: CHE PARTECIPAZ? Edit

Now suppose we don’t know how to measure what participation does to us, and so we just don’t know whether Mill is right or wrong. In that case, we should still not accept the education argument. Just as we should not accept, without proper evidence, that the paleo diet makes us healthier,Read more at location 1050

Note: CHI HA L ONERE DELLA PROVA? Edit

MERE PARTICIPATION DOES NOT IMPROVE KNOWLEDGERead more at location 1053

Note: t Edit

Chapter 2 demonstrated that people who are more interested in politics are both more likely to be well informed and more likely to participate. That evidence implied that voters know more not because they vote;Read more at location 1056

Note: CHI VOTA SA DI PIÙ XCHÈ APPASSIONATO NN PERCHÈ PARTECIPA Edit

Many philosophy departments try to convince people that they should major in philosophy because it will make them smarter. As a matter of fact, philosophy majors get the best overall scores on the GRE, and some of the best scores on the LSAT, MCAT, and GMAT.6 Philosophy majors tend to be smart. Yet test results, by themselves, provide no evidence that philosophy makes anyone smarter. The problem is that students choose their majors; the majors aren’t chosen for them.Read more at location 1060

Note: ANALOGIA Edit

we already have strong evidence of a selection effect. High school students who say they intend to major in philosophy have higher average SAT scores than those who are drawn to any other intended major, except physics.Read more at location 1068

Note: c Edit

Some governments force citizens to vote, and this allows us to test whether getting citizens to vote causes them to acquire greater levels of knowledge.Read more at location 1075

Note: ESP CRUCIALE: DOVE IL VOTO È OBBLIGATORIO LA CONOSCENZA È PIÙ ELEVATA? Edit

The test results are negative. Political scientist Sarah Birch, in her comprehensive book Full Participation, reviews nearly every published paper examining whether compulsory voting improves voters’ knowledge. She concludes that it does not.Read more at location 1076

Note: NO Edit

In a related work, political scientist Annabelle Lever recently reviewed the empirical studies on compulsory voting, and concluded that it had “no noticeable effect on political knowledge or interest [or] electoral outcomes.”Read more at location 1080

Add a note

DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACYRead more at location 1084

Note: t Edit

Many advocates of the education argument will be nonplussed by these results. They would say that for participation to educate and enlighten us, it’s not enough to vote. We need to talk.Read more at location 1085

Note: OBIEZ. PARTECIPARE NN È VOTARE MA PARLARE Edit

Deliberative democracyRead more at location 1087

Add a note

Hélène Landemore says, “Deliberation is supposed to … [e]nlarge the pools of ideas and information, … [w]eed out the good arguments from the bad, … [and lead] to a consensus on the ‘better’ or more ‘reasonable’ solution.”10 Bernard Manin, Elly Stein, and Jane Mansbridge contend that democratic deliberation is a process of training and education.11 Joshua Cohen claims “the need to advance reasons that persuade others will help to shape the motivations that people bring to the deliberative procedure.”Read more at location 1091

Note: APOLOGIA DELLA DEM DELIBERATIVA Edit

Habermas says deliberators should observe the following rules: •Speakers must be consistent; they must not contradict themselves. •Speakers must treat like cases alike. •Speakers should use terms and language in a consistent way so as to make sure they are all referring to the same things. (There should be no equivocating or switching definitions in ways that would interfere with communication.) •Speakers must be sincere; they must assert only what they believe. •Speakers must provide reasons for introducing a subject or topic into the discussion. •Everyone who is competent to speak should be allowed into the discussion. •Speakers should be allowed to discuss any topic, assert whatever they like, and express any needs—so long as they are sincere. •No one may coerce or manipulate another speaker.Read more at location 1103

Note: c Edit

WHAT DELIBERATION DOES TO US DEPENDS ON OUR PSYCHOLOGYRead more at location 1117

Note: t Edit

If people are sincere, rational, offer reasons for their views, give every voice proper respect, and so forth, then of course deliberation will educate people. If people were to follow Habermas’s or Cohen’s rules, then they would deliberate the way vulcans would deliberate. Of course deliberation would educate and enlighten them.Read more at location 1127

Note: LA DISCUSSIONE NEL MONDO IDEALE Edit

But as philosopher Michael Huemer comments, deliberative democracy so described looks like fantasy: “If there is one thing that stands out when one reads philosophical descriptions of deliberative democracy, it is how far these descriptions fall from reality.Read more at location 1130

Note: UNA FANTASIA SPERICOLATA Edit

Habermas and Cohen say that citizens must advance reasons for their proposals.Read more at location 1133

Note: PRIMO PUNTO: GIUSTIFICARE LE PRIPRIE PROPSTE. MAI RICHIESTO A NESSUNO Edit

But in actual democracies and deliberation, no one is literally required to state reasons for their policy proposals.Read more at location 1135

Note: c Edit

What matters are rhetoric, sex appeal, and promoting the team.Read more at location 1143

Note: c Edit

As I discussed in chapter 2, political psychology shows that most of us are much more like hooligans than like vulcans. We suffer from a number of biases, including: Confirmation bias: We tend to accept evidence that supports our preexisting views. Disconfirmation bias: We tend to reject or ignore evidence that disconfirms our preexisting views. Motivated reasoning: We have preferences over what we believe, and tend to arrive at and maintain beliefs we find comforting or pleasing, or whatever beliefs we prefer to have. Intergroup bias: We tend to form coalitions and groups. We tend to demonize members of other groups, but are highly forgiving and charitable toward members of our own groups. We go along with whatever our group thinks and oppose what other groups think. Availability bias: The easier it is for us to think of something, the more common we think that thing is. The easier it is for us to think of an event occurring, the more significant we assume the consequences will be. We are thus terrible at statistical reasoning. Prior attitude effect: When we care strongly about an issue, we evaluate arguments about the issue in a more polarized way. Peer pressure and authority: People tend to be influenced irrationally by perceived authority, social pressure, and consensus.Read more at location 1144

Note: LA CATERVA DI BIAS CHE CI AFFLIGGE Edit

EMPIRICAL WORK ON DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACYRead more at location 1159

Note: t Edit

In a comprehensive survey of all the extant (as of 2003) empirical research on democratic deliberation, political scientist Tali Mendelberg remarks that the “empirical evidence for the benefits that deliberative theorists expect” is “thin or non-existent.”19 In her survey, Mendelberg finds: •Deliberation sometimes facilitates cooperation among individuals in social dilemmas, but it undermines cooperation among groups. When people self-identify as members of a group, including as members of political groups, deliberation tends to make things worse, not better.20 (Remember that in the real world, people tend to self-identify as members of a political group.) •When groups are of different sizes, deliberation tends to exacerbate conflict rather then mediate it.21 (Note that in realistic circumstances, political groups tend to be different sizes.) •Deliberation does tend to make people more aware of others’ interests. Nevertheless, other empirical work shows that if groups simply state their preferences without any discussion, this is just as effective as stating their preferences with discussion.22 So deliberation per se isn’t itself helpful in this case. •Status seeking drives much of the discussion. Instead of debating the facts, people try to win positions of influence and power over others.23 •Ideological minorities have disproportionate influence, and much of this influence can be attributed to groups’ “social appeal.”24 •High-status individuals talk more, are perceived as more accurate and credible, and have more influence, regardless of whether the high-status individuals actually know more.25 •During deliberation, people use language in biased and manipulative ways. They switch, for example, between concrete and abstract language in order to create the appearance that their side is essentially good (and any badness is accidental) while the other side is essentially bad (and any goodness is accidental). If I describe my friend as kind, this abstract language suggests that they will regularly engage in kind behavior. If I say that my enemy donated some money to Oxfam, this concrete language leaves open the question of whether this kind of behavior matches my enemy’s character and could be expected again.26 •Even when prodded by moderators to discuss controversial matters, groups tend to avoid conflict, focusing instead on mutually accepted beliefs and attitudes.27 •When a discussant mentions commonly held information or beliefs, this tends to make them seem smarter and more authoritative to others, and thus tends to increase their influence.Read more at location 1162

Note: EVIDENZA DEI BENEFICI DELLA DISCUSSIONE: MINIMA O INESISTENTE Edit

Deliberation works best on “matters of objective truth”—whenRead more at location 1190

Note: c Edit

During “other times”—when citizens debate morals, justice, or social scientific theories meant to evaluate those facts—“deliberation is likely to fail.”Read more at location 1192

Note: c Edit

MendelbergRead more at location 1201

Add a note

the use of reasoned argument to reinforce prior sentiment is a widespread phenomenon that poses a significant challenge to deliberative expectations.Read more at location 1202

Note: DOMINA LA RAZIONALIZZAZIONE Edit

Other reviewsRead more at location 1212

Add a note

Deliberation tends to move people toward more extreme versions of their ideologies rather than toward more moderate versions.Read more at location 1214

Note: DISCUTERE POLARIZZA Edit

Deliberation over sensitive matters—such as pornography laws—frequently leads to “hysteria” and “emotionalism,”Read more at location 1216

Note: ISTERIA ED EMOTIVITÀ Edit

Deliberation frequently causes deliberators to doubt there is a correct position at all. This leads to moral or political skepticism or nihilism.Read more at location 1222

Note: DISCUTERE RENDE NICHILISTI Edit

Deliberation often makes citizens apathetic and agnostic about politics,Read more at location 1224

Note: DISCUTERE RENDE AGNOSTICI Edit

During deliberation, citizens frequently change their preferences and reach consensus only because they are manipulated by powerful special interests.Read more at location 1227

Note: LA DISCUSSIONE CI RENDE PIÙ MANIPOLABILI Edit

Consensus often occurs only because citizens purposefully avoid controversial topics,Read more at location 1229

Note: SI DISCUTE EVITANDO LE QUESTIONI SPINO Edit

Rather than causing consensus, public deliberation might cause disagreement along with the formation of in-groups and out-groups.43 It can even lead to violence.Read more at location 1231

Note: SPESSO LA DISCUSSIONE POLARIZZA E FOMENTA IL DISSENSO Edit

Some deliberative democrats advocate replacing or at least supplementing mass voting with “deliberative polling.” In a deliberative poll, one brings together, say, a thousand citizens to deliberate about a given topic. The citizens are selected at random, although the poll’s organizers try to ensure that the demographics of the deliberative body are similar to those of the community or nation as a whole. The organizers give the deliberators relevant informational sources, such as news articles, social scientific papers, and philosophical arguments for various sides. A moderator helps spur participants to deliberate and do so properly. The moderator tries to ensure that people stick to the topics at hand and that no one dominates the conversation. There is some evidence that this kind of moderated deliberation can work, at least in the laboratory and even in some real-world scenarios.Read more at location 1240

Note: IL METODO DEL DELIBERATIVE POLLING Edit

In the end, I am an instrumentalist about the choice between democracy and epistocracy. If democracy with deliberative polling (with whatever abuses and flaws it suffers) turns out to produce better results than the best form of epistocracy (with whatever abuses and flaws it suffers), then I’ll advocate democracy with deliberative polling.Read more at location 1256

Note: POLLING ED EPISTEMOCRAZIA. MISURARE E SCEGLIERE Edit

WHY A NEUTRAL RESULT IS A NEGATIVE ONERead more at location 1261

Note: t Edit

It would be tempting in that case to conclude that deliberation is pointless and ineffective, but at least not harmful.Read more at location 1265

Note: LA CONCLUSIONE DI ALCUNI: IL MET DELIB NN FUNZIONA MA NEMMENO DANNEGGIA Edit

a neutral result is usually a negative one.Read more at location 1268

Add a note

What is rational for you to believe or not depends on the evidence available to you. Imagine a child has led a sheltered life, with no exposure to history, geology, biology, physics, or cosmology. They believe, on the basis of their young Earth creationist parents’ testimony, that the universe is six thousand years old and that all animals were created six thousand years ago. But suppose this child then takes sixteen years of classes in history, geology, biology, physics, and cosmology. Along the way, they get to sequence DNA, re-create Gregor Mendel’s pea experiment, handle fossils, and the like. After sixteen years of intense study, though, suppose they continue to believe the world is six thousand years old and that all animals were created as they currently are. In this case, from an epistemological standpoint, they got worse. After all, they encountered an overwhelming amount of evidence confirming evolution and disconfirming young Earth creationism. They should have changed their mind, but didn’t.Read more at location 1271

Note: RAZIONALITÀ: GLI ARGOMENTI IMPLICANO UNA RETTIFICA. CHI NN RETTIFICA COMMETTE UN ERRORE CHE NN COMMETTE CHI NN DISCUTE. DISCUTERE PEGGIORA LA NS SITUAZIONE Edit

when deliberation has no effect on citizens’ beliefs or their degree of credence in their beliefs, we should generally interpret this as showing that deliberation made them worse, from an epistemic viewpoint.Read more at location 1289

Note: LA DISCUSSIONE RISCHIA DI RENDERCI PEGGIORI Edit

“PEOPLE JUST AREN’T DELIBERATING THE RIGHT WAY”Read more at location 1298

Note: t Edit

One might expect that most deliberative democrats would advocate deliberation cautiously or with reservations, only in those cases where we had solid evidence it works.48 On the contrary, deliberative democrats tend to be nonplussed by the empirical results described above.Read more at location 1304

Note: IL DELIBERAZIONISTA DI FRONTE ALLA CONFUTAZIONE EMPIRICA: PERPLESSO PRENDE TEMPO IPOTESI AD HOC Edit

They tend to assume the benefits of deliberation will be revealed in due time.Read more at location 1307

Note: c MA SOPRATTUTTO LA GENTE NN DISCUTE IN MODO CORRETTO Edit

people aren’t deliberating the right way—theRead more at location 1313

Note: c Edit

LandemoreRead more at location 1314

Add a note

Deliberative democrats can rightly assert that the research hasn’t falsified their views, because people aren’t deliberating properly.Read more at location 1318

Note: LOGICAMENTE LA POSIZIONE TIENE Edit

If they say, “Sure, actual deliberation messes people up, but proper deliberation would improve their character and knowledge,” that’s not much different from stating, “Sure, actual fraternities mess men up, but proper fraternities would improve their character and scholarship.”Read more at location 1365

Note: PENSIAMO AL PAPA CHE DIFENDE LA CHIESA DICENDO: LA CHIESA CHE SBAGLIA NN È VERA CHIESAS QUINDI LA CHIESA CATTOLICA NN È IMPUTABILE. SOSPETTO? Edit

CONCLUSION: AGAINST POLITICSRead more at location 1373

Note: t Edit

Sometimes it is better for a person’s epistemic character if they remain ignorant and apathetic.Read more at location 1374

Note: MEGLIO L GNORANZA CHE IL SAPERE DEFORME. MEGLIO NN PECCARE SENZA TENTAZIONI CHE PECCARE IN TENTAZIONE Edit

For these reasons, we have strong presumptive grounds against encouraging more and more citizens to participate in politics, spend time thinking about politics, watch political news, or engage in political deliberation.Read more at location 1376

Note: MEGLIO NN INTERESSARSI DI POLITICA, RENDE IRRAZIONALI AUMENTANDO LE NS COLPE Edit