The American democratic system is based on compromises made to the Virginia Plan of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Virginia Plan called on Congress to elect the President. Among many of the committee members there was fear that if the president were elected by a select group of regularly meeting men, the independence of the president could falter. The initial legislators recognized what can be called the “paradox of democracy”. That is, classes of passionate citizens are more politically active, yet may not make the best voting decisions for the welfare of the democracy, whereas more rational voters are less likely to voice their opinions. When voters are engaged only with similar viewpoints, they fail to compromise with the beliefs of others. While passionate citizens have made decisions at the will of their collective mind, deliberative citizens have not voted or voiced opinions in similar numbers. Those that are more capable of making rational decisions have allowed passionate, irrational citizens, classes, or parties decide the outcome of democracies for millennia. No democracy is the same, just as no individual’s idea of a perfect democracy is to another.
To Diana Mutz, an ideal participatory democracy was, “a throng of highly politically active citizens carrying signs, shouting slogans, and cheering at speeches of their political leaders, who possessed an unparalleled level of enthusiasm and passion borne out of shared purpose and a camaraderie that emerged from the sheer amount of time spent together” (Mutz 16). Participation in groups with similar political goals and ideologies motivated others to even high levels of action or lifted spirits in times of trouble, “convincing [voters] that win or lose, promoting the candidate or cause was truly worth their time and efforts” (Mutz 16). Contrary to participatory democracies, deliberative democracies have consisted of citizens who debate with and listen to groups with different political ideologies. Deliberative voters listen to the other side’s reasonings, and allow these new ideas to influence old, deeply held beliefs. Unfortunately, it is easier for many voters to fall in line with like minded ideas, especially when guided by authoritarian leaders and systems. In other words, it is easier to be passionate about ideas when reinforced by the collective action of those with similar viewpoints, than to sympathize with different perspectives and further update individual belief. Voters in deliberative democracies have not been as politically active as those more participatory voters, but tended to be the more rational deciders. Rational citizens take time to control their actions rather than run about and shout slogans at every passerby on the street. Previous conceptions of democracy, “blend[ed] participatory democracy with deliberative democracy in a seamless fashion” (Mutz 3). Those theories argued that deliberation was a subset of political participation. The passion involved in participatory democracies, however, did not appear to Mutz to be as seamlessly compatible with the rational in more deliberative individuals.
This compatibility issue between deliberation and participation has been discussed by philosophers and political scientists for millennia, with the original argument based in the conflict between passion and reason. The incompatibilities between participatory citizens and deliberative citizens are rooted in the fundamental conflict of passion and reason. To understand what causes the conflict between passion and reason and therefore participation and deliberation, one must look deep into the human mind. The nature of human thought and action can be described as a dual process of sorts. Our brains appraise sensory inputs in preconscious thought, which we then use to deliberate upon and rationalize in conscious thought, comparing the new information to prior experiences and innate tendencies. Although the difference between preconscious and conscious thought may only last approximately five hundred milliseconds, passion and reason may not be compatible because of this delay. Humans rationalize only after they have acted or felt emotionally. Because of this, it is unlikely an exceedingly activist political culture can be a highly deliberative environment, thus creating the paradox of democracy.
Deliberate democracies foster diverse, decentralized, political networks where citizens are more aware of the multitude of perspectives on issues that exist. These democracies are more tolerant to differing ideologies, but individuals who are more averse to conflict are less likely to participate. Mutz argued, “those with diverse networks refrain from participation in part because of the social awkwardness that accompanies publicly taking a stand that friends or associates oppose”, (Mutz 3). She was intrigued with the idea of discovering where people encountered political ideas they disliked, how they handled the situation, and what kind of effects it had when it occurred. She wrote of her father who always had much more thoughtful political debate with his dentist than with her family. In daily relationships, Mutz argued discussion was influenced by the desire of the participants to “get along with another on a day to day basis” (Mutz 3). These relationships do not easily allow for the type of deliberation required to foster a healthy democracy because no one will truly voice their opinions, or will align themselves with likeminded others, ignoring diverse ideas. According to prior social theories, democracy can only survive if “citizens come out of their bunkers and start talking” (Mutz 7). The issue in this lies in the incompatibility between passion and reason as well as the social conflicts in domestic relationships. Not only should the quantity of political discussions be a standard for the success of a democracy, but so should the quality. Democracy then will not survive if citizens just come out of their safe space and start yelling at others on the streets, or talking solely with those of mutual ideologies and obligations. A successful democracy will have citizens that have vibrant discussions over opposing views, who then take a moment to reflect and even allow differing views to influence deeply held beliefs.
The internal struggle between passion and reason could not have been more evident in the 2016 elections. The Republican Party was extremely passionate about beating whoever the Democratic Candidate was, but more so when it was officially declared Hillary Clinton was to be the nominee. Republican and even a close majority of democratic voters were united in their front against Hillary Clinton from the primary to the general and even today. These passionate voters in some cases did not think clearly. Take for example the single-issue voters who elected Republican legislators and President Donald Trump to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or the blue-collar voters who were promised manufacturing jobs in return for a vote, all who are experiencing voter’s remorse as evidenced by wide swings towards the democratic candidates in districts Trump overwhelmingly won. American voters elected a candidate who had no prior experience in government except the inside of courtrooms, over a candidate who could easily have been the most well qualified candidate who had worked in high level positions from being First Lady to Senator and then Secretary of State.
This irrational choice by passionate voters has not served American democracy well. The entire 2016 election has been called into question regarding the influence a foreign government had on Trump’s associates and employees. The Special Counsel investigation into such matter has resulted in numerous felony indictments and guilty pleas, from members of the Trump campaign, only a year into the Presidency (Bump). Moreover, a Federal Judge has allowed the State Attorneys General of Maryland and the District of Columbia to proceed with a case that alleges violation of the emoluments clause in the constitution since Trump’s first day in office (Braun).
Looking forward to the elections in November 2018 and 2020, the American populace will be better served by reason over passion. In the past year of the Trump Presidency, Americans have had a chance to reflect and be more rational voters. These deliberations have led to a debate across political parties, where even members of the Republican party have spoken against some of Trump’s key campaign promises. Regardless of what happens between now and November 2018 and November 2020, Americans will benefit from the debate that is ongoing in society, so long as all sides are heard, all individuals can form their own opinions, and all are just passionate enough to make it to the ballot box. Voters should not however just reflect on the man who won the office or the next man or woman to do so, but should also consider that the American electoral system failed to elect a candidate who won the popular vote, for the fifth time since the twelfth amendment. If American democracy is to survive, today’s voters must acknowledge the conflict between passion and reason, and recognize the paradox of democracy just as ancient philosophers and the American founding fathers had.
