Ackerman And Fishkin Summary

In their article “Righting the Ship of Democracy” Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin discuss the idea of replacing Presidents’ Day with a new holiday, which they name Deliberation Day. The introduction of this holiday is meant as a democratic reform, which will empower the citizenry in the United States. While the authors of this article do not explicitly mention the works of Jürgen Habermas or Nancy Fraser, it is clear that the ideas of the latter theorists are connected to the new idea of Deliberation Day. The ideas of the Habermas, Ackerman, and Fishkin are intertwined through the idea that an educated and open citizenry is required to ensure that democratic governments are representative of their citizens. While Fraser’s connection to “Righting

Ackerman and Fishkin’s introduction of a new national holiday builds on Habermas’ idea of the “public sphere”, through their shared interest in educational and open discourse. Ackerman and Fishkin draw on the idea of a “postbourgeois public” as detailed by Fraser through their emphasis on an equal and influential public. Ackerman and Fishkin detail Deliberation Day as a day that will promote public discourse, allowing for the public to become better educated on relevant issues. They argue this point through the exploration of results from previously conducted deliberative polls. “The deliberative polls provide convincing evidence to support this view. As we have seen in the cases of Australia and Britain, relatively ignorant voters do change their voting preferences substantially once they deliberate on the basis of better information” (Ackerman and Fishkin, 5). The formation of these educated societal opinions is paramount to Habermas as well, as he argues that a public sphere, which allows for civil discourse between society and the governing body, can only truly be formed through educated debate. In his

Fraser places a strong emphasis on an equal and involved public in her writing, “Rethinking the Public Sphere”, an idea that is echoed in “Righting the Ship of Democracy”. Fraser argues that inequality in the public sphere has long been ignored, and that combatting this is only possible through multiple publics. She writes, “In general, I have been arguing that the ideal of participatory parity is better achieved by a multiplicity of publics than by a single public” (Fraser, 127). She is arguing that in order to ensure that the voices of all are heard, multiple public spheres must be created. This idea is fundamental in the design of Deliberation Day, as publics would be designed as numerous small groups to allow for equality in discussion. Ackerman and Fishkin discuss this stating; “Registered voters would be called together in neighborhood meeting places, in small groups of 15 and larger groups of 500, to discuss the central issues raised by the campaign” (1). The multiplicity of publics throughout the nation in an attempt to ensure that all views are heard in an open forum runs parallel to Fraser’s idea that a multiplicity of publics is necessary to ensure equality in participation. These equal and strong publics are necessary, by the estimation of the authors, to