Deliberation Disconnected: What it Takes to Improve Civic Competence

I INTRODUCTION Webster's Dictionary defines a person as competent if he or she has "requisite or adequate ability or qualities." (1) Synonyms for competent include sufficient and able, where the definition for able includes "having sufficient power, skill, or resources to accomplish an object" and "marked by intelligence, knowledge, skill, or competence." (2) Such definitions are worth noting because concerns about a special kind of competence motivate many public and private activities, as well as a widely read strain of contemporary philosophy. The competence in question is civic competence, by which I mean the citizenry's ability to accomplish well-defined tasks--particularly in their roles as voters, jurors, or legislators. (3) Civic competence is a central preoccupation of people who want citizens to base political choices on a broad and accurate understanding of their consequences. (4) Such desires, however, are dashed by evidence that citizens spend little time and effort engaging in politics. The finding that many Americans cannot answer common survey questions about a wide range of political phenomena, for example, dampens many observers' confidence in civic competence. (5) If citizens are simple and politics is complex, what is the optimal response for people who want greater civic competence? Actual responses vary. Many simply decry the situation, doing nothing more than bashing the masses for not being more interested in politics. A special few do something more constructive. They advocate mechanisms designed to change the amount and content of information available to target audiences. In short, they attempt to improve democracy by enhancing civic competence. Scholars, legislators, and foundations both public and private advocate various means to enhance competence, including civic education campaigns and the development of informative web-sites. These efforts focus on important topics such as the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, the relationship between sexual activity and AIDS, the plight of distant populations, and the quality of voter and juror decisions, all in an effort to help citizens better understand the consequences of their actions. When such activities enhance civic competence, they constitute valuable resources for the public at large. However, something is wrong with many of these attempts. The problem is that they are based on flawed assumptions about how citizens seek and process information. One manifestation of the problem is that many advocates of competence-generating proposals proceed as if merely providing new information is sufficient to improve competence. However, the transmission of socially relevant information is no "Field of Dreams." It is not true that "if you build it, they will come." (6) Nor is it true that if they come, the effect will be as advocates anticipate. Indeed, many efforts to improve civic competence provide information that target audiences ignore. Others produce information that only confuses those for whom greater clarity was intended. Either outcome entails serious consequences. In addition to the social costs that come from propagating extant civic incompetence, society pays a cost when entities capable of providing valuable public goods invest in schemes whose failure is anticipatable. Moreover, when advocates induce others to invest their time and energy in flawed competence-generating mechanisms, they cause precious resources to be squandered. It is important, therefore, to understand when and how proposals to enhance civic competence will have the effects that advocates claim they will. With this point in mind, I turn to the topic of deliberation. Many people claim that deliberation can enhance civic competence. Such claims are often based on arguments made by prominent philosophers and political theorists. …