Overdoing Democracy

In 2011 I completed a Master of Liberal Arts & Science at Vanderbilt University. As an alum I was recently allowed to audit a course in Ethics taught by Robert Talisse. Dr. Talisse has become quite active authoring books, doing podcasts, and in social media. His book Overdoing Democracy (2019) presents the great idea that democracy, if it is to be effective, needs to be kept in its place. That is, politics need not permeate everything. We all need endeavors where politics are beside the point. Examples: raising a family, most jobs and volunteering, sports, music, and art.

Here are excerpts taken from various pages of the book that seem to flow fairly well together:

“Belief polarization besets individuals who talk only or mainly to others who share their fundamental commitments. To be more specific, when individuals talk mainly with others about the matters upon which they agree, discussants tend gradually to embrace a more extreme version of their initial opinion. Belief polarization is the tendency whereby discussion among likeminded people results in the participants shifting to a more extreme version of their pre-discussion belief. 

“So the first step to take toward putting politics in its place is to acknowledge our own vulnerability to the polarization dynamic. We need to work to recognize in ourselves the vulnerability to the same distortions and corruptions that we commonly ascribe only to our political opposition. We should acknowledge that our own views are likely products of belief polarization.  <We should> recognize that the common asymmetry in ascribing the effects of the polarization dynamic is unfounded, and that one’s own view of one’s political opposition is likely the product of polarization. 

“Putting politics in its place involves establishing boundaries within our social environments, and thereby restricting the reach of democracy so that social encounters of other kinds can take place. Hence it is consistent with being a vigilant and conscientious democratic citizen who is fully devoted to justice to simply refuse to use Facebook as a site for political action, for example. And although friends and feeds might contend otherwise, there is no dereliction of one’s political duty in using social media strictly to look at videos of pets. 

“If we are to work on breaking the polarization dynamic, what we need to do is engage in endeavors that satisfy a particular description; namely, they must involve us in cooperative activities with others whose political commitments are not only unknown to us but also beside the point. And although there are certain collective activities that are intrinsically political, whether a collaboration of some other sort counts as nonpolitical in the relevant sense depends largely on what we bring to it. 

“Hence the practical recommendation: after working to rehabilitate your view of your political opponents, try taking up some cooperative project or endeavor that you regard as not having a determinate political valence. If this project is something out of the ordinary for you, all the better. Volunteer to pick up litter in a local park or to teach someone to read at the public library. Sign up with a group that visits the elderly and infirm. Join a bowling team or book club. Register for a cooking class. Participate in a community organization. Begin following a local sports team. Organize a trivia night at a local bar or start up a group that supports local businesses. Audition for a local choir. It ultimately does not matter very much what you choose to try; the important thing is that you do something that you sincerely take not to be an expression of your particular political identity. The idea is that if we can multiply social encounters where citizens collaborate to produce what they regard as a valuable outcome, but in collaborating are unaware of one another’s political allegiances, we will be on our way to breaking the polarization dynamic as well as cultivating civic friendship.”

Talisse summarizes: “I first identified two measures that one can take in order to begin breaking the polarization dynamic and putting politics in its place. The first is to acknowledge one’s own vulnerability to polarization; the second is to take small but nonetheless significant steps to desaturate one’s immediate environment. I then proposed that once these measures are taken, the next step is to involve oneself in social activities that one sincerely judges are not expressions of one’s politics. The overriding objective of these efforts—and the key to breaking the polarization dynamic more generally—is to enable a rehabilitation of one’s conception of one’s political opponents. To acknowledge that our political animosities and divisions are at least partly the result of a debilitating syndrome to which we all are subject is to begin to reestablish the capacity to regard one’s political rivals as one’s equals. Once we recognize that our perception of the depth and severity of our political divisions are due to a dynamic that afflicts us all, and once we follow that recognition with cooperative engagements that reaffirm the humanity and civility of those whose politics are unknown to us, we can begin to admit that our political conflicts are not necessarily the result of our opposition’s depravity and corruption. Hence we will be able to affirm that, despite their being severely misguided, wrong, and ignorant when it comes to the political things that matter most, our political opponents are nonetheless our equals and therefore are entitled to an equal democratic say. 

The point of democracy—and also its good—lies in the nurturing of things beyond politics. The point of democracy is human flourishing. That is what democracy is for. Our flourishing, both individually and collectively, depends also on the realization of goods that cannot be won by politics alone.”

Now let me take it one step further. Not only can we overdo democracy and politics, but we can also overdo government itself. If we feel so strongly about elections, maybe it means government has taken an outsized role in our lives. A limited government safeguarded by our Constitutional checks and balances is what we need. This will allow private enterprise and individual responsibility to take precedence. It is an argument for Libertarianism, if not as final destination, at least as a direction.