February, 2009

Dissensus on Consensus

by James Fishkin
The Conversation
February 24th, 2009

Henry Farrell misreads me. Reason-based collective will formation and consensus are not the same thing. Deliberative Polls self-consciously avoid any promotion of consensus. That is why the results are collected in confidential questionnaires, or secret ballots, to avoid the distorting social pressure of consensus-based forms of deliberation. And that is why I dispute the common [...]

Read: Dissensus on Consensus

Deliberation and Dissensus

by Henry Farrell
The Conversation
February 20th, 2009

In principle, I’m happy to see that James Fishkin has found some common ground between advocates of deliberation and advocates of partisanship. This is a significant shift on his part — much of his previous work is not, to put it mildly, laudatory of partisans and partisanship. But in many ways I’m not. I’m not [...]

Read: Deliberation and Dissensus

Partisanship and Deliberation: Can’t Have One Without the Other

by James Fishkin
The Conversation
February 19th, 2009

I think this dialogue has helped bridge some areas of discussion that rarely intersect — deliberative democracy and partisanship. Actually, the discussion makes clear that each needs the other. Consider two possibilities: deliberation without partisanship and partisanship without deliberation. In a world of many partisans, deliberation without partisanship would be unrepresentative because it would leave [...]

Read: Partisanship and Deliberation: Can’t Have One Without the Other

Partisanship in Everyday Life, and as an Organizing Principle of Democracy

by Nancy Rosenblum
The Conversation
February 19th, 2009

I picked up from correspondence with Jason Kuznicki and several of the comments an interest in pressing the uses and value of partisanship outside of political parties. The term “partisan” refers to advocates and activists in any cause, of course. We see these partisans everywhere. As I suggested earlier, partisans of social movements, activists in [...]

Read: Partisanship in Everyday Life, and as an Organizing Principle of Democracy

A Brief Reply to Rosenblum

by Brink Lindsey
The Conversation
February 17th, 2009

Nancy’s response is a model of judicious, careful, and thoughtful argument. I don’t find much in it to disagree with. Which raises the question: why are our overall evaluations of partisanship so different? We both see a mix of good and bad in both partisanship and antipartisanship, so why does she end up siding with [...]

Read: A Brief Reply to Rosenblum

A Brief Reply to Farrell

by Brink Lindsey
The Conversation
February 12th, 2009

Henry argues that my criticisms of partisanship are valid enough, but that the vices I identify (ideological blinkers, differing standards of judgment for comrades and rivals) aren’t specific to party ID. I agree completely! The problems I discuss go to basic aspects of the human condition: namely, confirmation bias on the one hand and ingroup [...]

Read: A Brief Reply to Farrell

Rosenblum’s Partisanship: Not Very Partisan?

by James Fishkin
The Conversation
February 12th, 2009

Nancy Rosenblum seems to have a view of partisanship that is not very partisan. She criticizes me for connecting partisanship with the desire to win elections and to mobilize voters. If partisans are not interested in those things, and if political parties are not focused on winning a Schumpeterian “competitive struggle for the people’s vote,” [...]

Read: Rosenblum’s Partisanship: Not Very Partisan?

Responses on Political Theory, Idealism, and Extremism

by Nancy Rosenblum
The Conversation
February 11th, 2009

Partisanship and Political Theory Most of my thoughtful, empirically well-armed respondents have joined the conversation as social scientists. I will try to say something about the arguments and evidence they marshal in a moment. But first I want to remind readers of Cato Unbound that my turf is political theory. On the Side of the [...]

Read: Responses on Political Theory, Idealism, and Extremism