|
January
3, 2003
New
Book Examines American Democracy
CHICAGO
--- American democracy is among the most durable forms of government
in the world despite "counter-majoritaran" tendencies,
according to a new book, "Talking It Through: Puzzles of American
Democracy" (Cornell University Press).
The
book, by Robert Bennett, the Nathaniel L. Nathanson Professor, constitutional
law scholar and former dean of Northwestern University School of
Law, points to arguments -- from the left, right and center -- decrying
examples of counter-majoritarianism, including scholars’ longstanding
debates about judicial review, as somewhat misguided in addressing
how our government works or doesn’t work.
Instead,
Bennett employs a novel conversational – rather than "majoritarian"
-- account of what holds our nation together. By solving four puzzles
of America democracy, he shows how our government acts as an extraordinary
engine for producing conversation about public affairs that involves
the entire adult citizenry.
The
book points out, for example, how the assignment of two senators
to each state means that California’s 40 some odd million people
have the same senatorial representation as Wyoming’s 450,000.
"With its apportionment by states, the U.S. Senate is the most
‘malapportioned’ elected legislative body in the world,"
Bennett says.
But
despite the routine characterization of American democracy as majoritarian,
he argues, there is very little controversy about Senate apportionment.
Employing his conversational account of what holds American democracy
together, Bennett solves this puzzle of inattention to Senate apportionment
and a variety of other puzzles of American democracy.
Fed
by the incentives of electoral competition and a variety of other
features of America’s version of democracy -- federalism, bicameralism,
a separately elected executive, geographic legislative districting
and heightened protection of speech and press -- politicians, public
officials, and media of communication produce, according to the
book, a diverse conversational menu which has the effect of instilling
a sense of involvement by the citizenry in the enterprise as a whole.
"The
Senate is actually an extremely effective vehicle for democratic
conversation, and this accounts for inattention to its apportionment,"
Bennett concludes.
In
similar fashion, Bennett deploys a conversational explanation for
lawyers’ and law professors’ fixation on constitutional
review by the courts as posing what Alexander Bickel called a "counter-majoritarian
difficulty." This is awkward terminology at best, according
to Bennett, given
inattention
to the "counter-majoritarian" Senate. A better explanation
for the angst about judicial review is that the courts are "counter-conversational."
Other
theorists have discussed democratic conversation, but usually to
criticize its extent and content. Bennett seeks instead to explore
the explanatory power of the conversation that does take place.
Bennett
devotes a chapter to the puzzle of indifference to the political
"no man’s land" to which children are relegated in
American democracy. Another chapter deals with the "paradox
of voting," just why it is that so many of us vote when the
motivation for doing so in terms of our self-interest is not apparent.
Bennett also touches more fleetingly on a variety of other puzzles,
like why citizens seem to have higher opinions of their own representatives
than of legislative bodies as a whole, and why foreign born citizens
are not upset by the constitutional requirement that the President
be a "natural born citizen."
During
the 2000 election, Bennett was quoted extensively by national media.
Afterward he and colleagues at Northwestern organized a conference
on election related problems, including Bennett’s own contribution
on the Electoral College.
An
active scholar and constitutional theorist, Bennett joined the Law
School in 1969 and served as its dean from 1985 to 1995. Also active
in professional affairs, he helped found the Chicago Council of
Lawyers and was President of the American Bar Foundation from 1992
to 1994. He has argued in the United States Supreme Court and has
been a professional arbitrator and mediator.
|