Liberal Democracy’s Constant Tension: The Openness of Debate

During debate over the recent health insurance reform that eventually passed both chambers of Congress, and was signed into law by President Barack Obama, minority Republicans often charged that Obama and the majority Democrats were “ramming” the legislation down the throats of Americans.

Republicans buttressed such rhetoric by arguing that most Americans did not support the legislation, and therefore its passage – and, to some degree, the Democrats' use of the reconciliation procedure, which would require only 51 votes instead of 60 to pass the bill – was undemocratic. Polling data and common sense – the Republican argument seems rather disingenuous considering their past use and support of such measures – makes this claim dubious. However, it feeds into a broader Republican charge, that Democrats were not opening debate fully to the views of the rest of America, who wanted different or no reform. Democrats, said the Republicans, were dogmatically adhering to their plan without listening to others (1).

Yet this line of thinking is odd if one considers that many liberals were actually enraged with Obama and leading Democratic lawmakers not for trying to "ram" through the bill, but for courting Republican ideas on the matter. This situation provides a shining example of a constant tension faced by the citizens of a liberal democracy (2). Why were liberals, torchbearers of the idea that any decent society allows open debate and unfettered inquiry, calling for a limit to debate? Isn’t that rather un-liberal of them?

These questions essentially get at the issue of openness of debate. Openness includes at least two aspects, which are inevitably closely related, indeed hard to separate: who (or, whose ideas) can enter the debate; and how long should debate last before it ends (and people move to the next topic, or act on conclusions from the past debate).

The first issue would seem an easy one: no person, nor any person’s ideas, can be barred from debate. Indeed, Republicans might have referenced such a passage as the following from John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, which is a cornerstone work of the modern liberal society: “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. … To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolutely certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. …” (Mill, 23, 28). Indeed, Mill went on to write that even the Roman Catholic Church hears a "devil's advocate" during the canonization process of a saint. As Mill wrote: “Mankind ought to have a rational assurance that all objections have been satisfactorily answered, and how are they to be answered if that which requires to be answered is not spoken? Or, how can the answer be known to be satisfactory, if the objectors have no opportunity of showing that it is unsatisfactory?” (Mill, 45). The point is that debate is the healthiest possible thing for ideas, or more specifically here, legislation, especially if those ideas or laws will so heavily impact society. Everyone's opinion should, at the least, be heard before being dismissed.

But there is an important difference to parsed here. It is one of allowing people to enter debate – an essential part of a liberal democracy – and actually courting people to a debate. For instance, as mentioned, Obama was continually criticized by people on the left side of the political aisle for trying to include Republicans in the health insurance reform discussion. It would have been one thing for Republicans to put their arguments out there for the public to consume, as they would normally do, and did. But it is another for Obama to patiently ask for and await Republicans’ opinions, especially given the recent Republican penchant during the debate to, well, provide few constructive opinions.

One argument in support of Obama’s constant attempt to cross the political aisle is that, at the least, he gave the appearance of trying to work together. Americans would see this, notice that Republicans were merely being obstructionists, and support the Democrats. Others would counter that Obama and the Democrats were given something of a mandate when Americans gave them power over the presidency, Senate, and House. And so, any attempt to court Republicans was a waste of time – Americans told lawmakers what they wanted, and they wanted it done. In a sense, then, the Democrats in power did not gain support, but lost it, because they disappointed those who voted them in to pass the legislation. To be sure, one other legitimate argument liberals made against Obama and the Dems was about how quickly they folded on the public option.

So, how long should political liberals have let debate last? Here we reach another issue to parse, that of dividing the spheres of discourse of politics and society.

The political sphere includes lawmakers, who have their name for a reason: they make laws. They cannot sit around and debate endlessly. They must, at some point, push legislation through (which is at the center of the debate over filibuster reform). Republicans who opposed the passage of health care insurance reform on the basis of debate being too limited then might take note of another passage from Mill: “It is the duty of governments, and of individuals, to form the truest opinions they can; to form them carefully, and never impose them on others unless they are quite sure of being right. But when they are sure … it is not conscientiousness but cowardice to shrink from acting on their opinions. ... Men, and governments, must act to the best of their ability. There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life." (Mill, 25-26, emphasis added). So, Obama and Democratic lawmakers should have gone to every length imaginable to ensure their ideas, their legislation, was sound, and all objections had been heard. But it would seem they did. The health care debate started when Obama took office in January 2009, and the bill wasn’t finally handed to him until March 2010. One could even argue that the debate over health care reform has been actually ongoing for decades, making passage of reform (assuming it is of quality) all the more necessary.

Yet our division of spheres of discourse means passage of a bill – or even defeat – does not mark the end of debate. Indeed, many Americans continued to discuss the merits of the legislation, with some even filing lawsuits arguing it was unconstitutional (I think these stand little chance of going anywhere). American society at large can and will continue to have the conversation about health insurance reform. Then, in the next election, they will bring their beliefs to the polls. They will expect those voted in to act. And then, the conversation will continue. Politics is a continuous process. By dividing up spheres of discourse into political and societal, we see that debate never really ends – it’s just that sometimes lawmakers need to get on with their job, and leave debate to the public.

Notes:

1. Of course, many Republicans rejected the legislation purely on intrinsic grounds. Perhaps even all of them did, you might argue. But they still complained often about the Democrats' monopoly of what went into the bill, which strikes one as somewhat odd considering that 161 Republican amendments were added to the legislation.

2. "Liberals" here refers to the political group of Democrats and other left-leaning people, whereas the term "liberal democracy" refers more broadly to our system of governance and its foundational ideas of liberty, free speech, free conscience, representation, and more.