Is Democracy Possible Here?: Principles for a New Political Debate | 
| Author: Ronald Dworkin
Publisher: Princeton University Press
Category: Book
List Price: $22.95
Buy New: $13.50
You Save: $9.45 (41%)
New (38) Used (19) from $7.29
Avg. Customer Rating:  4 reviews
Sales Rank: 317694
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 192
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 9.3 x 6.2 x 0.9
ISBN: 0691126534
Dewey Decimal Number: 320.973
EAN: 9780691126531
ASIN: 0691126534
Publication Date: August 21, 2006
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: Brand new, in perfect condition. Your full satisfaction guaranteed.
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Politics in America are polarized and trivialized, perhaps as never before. In Congress, the media, and academic debate, opponents from right and left, the Red and the Blue, struggle against one another as if politics were contact sports played to the shouts of cheerleaders. The result, Ronald Dworkin writes, is a deeply depressing political culture, as ill equipped for the perennial challenge of achieving social justice as for the emerging threats of terrorism. Can the hope for change be realized? Dworkin, one the world's leading legal and political philosophers, identifies and defends core principles of personal and political morality that all citizens can share. He shows that recognizing such shared principles can make substantial political argument possible and help replace contempt with mutual respect. Only then can the full promise of democracy be realized in America and elsewhere. Dworkin lays out two core principles that citizens should share: first, that each human life is intrinsically and equally valuable and, second, that each person has an inalienable personal responsibility for identifying and realizing value in his or her own life. He then shows what fidelity to these principles would mean for human rights, the place of religion in public life, economic justice, and the character and value of democracy. Dworkin argues that liberal conclusions flow most naturally from these principles. Properly understood, they collide with the ambitions of religious conservatives, contemporary American tax and social policy, and much of the War on Terror. But his more basic aim is to convince Americans of all political stripes--as well as citizens of other nations with similar cultures--that they can and must defend their own convictions through their own interpretations of these shared values.
|
| Customer Reviews:
Solid, Insightful, Relevant, Useful, Pointed, a Pleasure to Read March 29, 2008
I bought this book on the basis of the title, with no idea of the author's deep history of accomplishments. This is a lovely book, largely an essay. The author opens by telling us he is concerned about the lack of political argument (dialog) in the USA, including substantive coherent dialog about core issues such as:
1. Nature and role of human rights in defining legitimate behavior by both individuals and governments
2. Role of religion in politics and governance
3. Distribution of community's economic wealth
I bring back from page 125 the following superb quote: "But our national politics fails the standard of even a decent junior high school debate."
And on page 127: "So Americans are horribly misinformed and ignorant about the most important issues." This is true. What he does not tell us, which we learn in the following book, is that all of our politicians and their so-called "advisors" are equally ignorant. See: Security Studies for the 21st Century
I was in error when I first thought the author was a conservative, forming that impression from the index and the endnotes, where I usually start a book. He is rather a very educated and philosophically well-grounded person of liberal to centrist perspective, and I found this book to be sensible, easy to read, and compelling.
The book could not be more timely for me (published in 2006) as I wathc Senators Clinton and Obama behave like children and avoid substantive policy backed up by a balanced budget they are both incapable of producing, while Senator McCain gets a "bye" and is not asked any tough questions at all (for 52 tough questions and transpartisan "starter" answers, visit the 501c3 Public Charity, Earth Intelligence Network).
The author, with a deep legal understanding and much work previous to this book, probes how character and forms of governance and politics shape the decisions we make.
He labels partisanship destructive, and puts forward his view that despite the superficial divide between "red" and "blue" he believes we can still come together at a deeper level of understanding such that we can overcome partisanship. I urge one and all to visit Reuniting America and especially their page on transpartisanship, it is consistent with what this author presents to all of us for consideration.
He specifically labels campaign rhetoric from 2004 to be shallow, as shallow as any since the last substantive debates in America, between Lincoln and Douglas (he says, I agree although Kennedy and Nixon I thought did well).
The author identifies his agenda in two parts: to explore how we might find shared principals, and to explore how such might lead to good outcomes for the Nation as a whole.
He puts forward three propositions early on:
1. Equal rights for all, meaning that both US citizens and foreigners (e.g. the ones in Guantanamo) should be treated equally, i.e. human rights should prevail here and both groups have equal right to dignity and justice and equality.
2. No television advertisements for political campaigns in the months leading up to an election.
3. Poor merit special protection and consideration as part of establishing the legitimacy of government and the equality of all (e.g. the poor cannot insure themselves the way the wealthy can). At a stratgeic level, there is no finer book than Max Manwaring (ed)'s The Search for Security: A U.S. Grand Strategy for the Twenty-First Century.
The author lists and discusses two dimensions of human dignity:
1. Human life as having special intrinsic value
2. Each person bears responsibility for themselves
He suggests that in discussion political versus human rights, the latter is the more stringent test, and I agree, as one of those who signed the letter to Senator McCain opposing torture by CIA or the US military. The author clearly states that to treat the "enemy combatants" as we have is to declare them to be less than human.
He places great emphasis on the importance of dignity for all, and I am reminded of the superb book, All Rise: Somebodies, Nobodies, and the Politics of Dignity (BK Currents)
He suggests that the religious clash in America is not about the more fundamental issue of faith and the value of faith, but rather about the role of religion in national life. The author leans toward the belief that we should (as the founding fathers intended, see Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America, be tolerant with selected unitarian references to God (e.g. in the Pledge of Allegiance, in coin) but not--as most extreme right fundamentalists would have, as a "Christian Nation." As the author of Founding Faith makes clear, the latter is simply not an option.
The author states that we need to have a faith-based dialog between left and right, and I agree, while also noting we need to do this at an international level, where we are long overdue for a global Truth and Reconciliation Commission on what damages America has wrought "in our name" but against our public moral faith. A couple books worth close scrutiny (or at least read my reviews:
God's Politics LP
Faith-Based Diplomacy: Trumping Realpolitik
The author addresses liberty as not just being freedom, and defines it rirectly as the right to do what you want with the resources that are rightfully yours. That last bit is of course subject to long discourse: is Exxon entitled to $40 billion in profit while externalizing $12 in costs to the planet and future generations? Is Wal-Mart entitled to profits and the abuse of most of its employees while destroying small busiunesses for 150 miles around each Wal-Mart, and destroying the South Pacific off the coast of Chile so as to produce cheap fish while killing all life on the ocean bottom there? See my many lists.
The author specifically confronts and rejects the "culture of life" as being a compulsory sort of paternalistic and judgemental intrusion into our liberty. He defends abortion by pointing out that the fetus, while undeniably alive (so is a cancer) has no mind and hence no intersts. I for one place higher status on the mother's desires and needs in the first tri-mester.
He strongly supports gay "marriage" as a loving contract, and demands scientific proof before being willing to consider "intelligent design" (in passing I note that Germany has declared Scientology to be a cult, and outlawed it. I am reminded of the excellent book, Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus to Pornography.
He provides an excellent discussion of how legitimacy in political authority stems from shared morality and balanced equality, and on this basis believes that the poor merit special consideration. He does not address how corporations should be deprived of their abuse of the personality privilege.
He tells us that a big reason the conservatives want to cut taxes is their desire to end the "welfare" state. From where I sit, we do need a smaller government but until labor unions are restored, and the Secretary of the Treasury starts to do his job instead of fronting for Wall Street against the public interest, I believe the author is on target and merits our respectful attention.
I completely agree with him on the indefensability of the gap between rich and poor in America, and elsewhere.
The book draws to a close with two contrasting views of what comprises a democracy, the one being majoritarian, the other in which We the People are full partners and the majority cannot impose its views on the minority, whose rights and views must be treated with respect and protectied. Here I point the reader to the formidably scathing Running On Empty: How The Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It. BOTH parties are nothing more than two branches of a single organized-crime family, and both should be forced to pass the Electoral Reform Act before November 2008, or every incumbent dismissed and the two parties vanquished by Independents, Greens, Reforms, Libertarians, moderate Fiscal Conservatives, and conservative Southern Democrats.
He closes the book calling for equality for all, and dramatically increased self-government. He says we MUST do better in Education (I am reminded of Thomas Jefferson, "A Nation's best defense is an educated citizenry"), and calls for public election channels, the regulation of private networking (to which I would add Open Spectrum), the Right of Comment (e.g. on Jack Cafferty saying "Ralph Nader should be batted away like a fly"), and on term-limits for Supreme Court justices, he suggests 10 years.
As I contemplate the existence of 27 secessionist movements in the United States; the collapse of the Federal government whose ineptness is virtually complete, the criminality in the White House, hijacked by Dick Cheney, I have to come down strongly in favor of a public demand for a Constitutional Convention in 2009, making that the litmus test for any candidate. NONE of the three is qualified to govern in their present condition. We may yet need a third party candidate with a transpartisan cabinet, a balanced budget, a commitment to both Electoral Reform and a Consttutional Convention (see also Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It))
My review does not do this author justice. His book is elegant, thoughtful, philosophical, balanced, not at all confrontational, and the best thing I can say of this book is that I had to read it and think about it. This is a first-class piece of work, one the Founding Fathers would have found worthy.
See also The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World and my many lists on the Earth Threats (10) Earth Policies (12) and Earth Challengers (8).
CORAGE January 15, 2007
1 out of 9 found this review helpful
All americans should read this book. Ronald Dworkin has the corage to say the truth about the President Bush. And the truth is: YOU DID NOT HAVE DEMOCRACY.
Principles still matter January 4, 2007
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
Only Dworkin can get you back to understanding just how important principles are to decision making. "Principles Matter" (his best work in my opinion), and now he applies that same logic to preserving democracy in a world where we are continously befuddled by mass media and political spin bent on stirring our emotions. Anything to keep you "tuned in" and riled.
His arguements are solid, as always. Even if you prefer other "principles", you have to respect his approach and where his values weigh in on critical decision making. Dworkin has a way of revealing to the reader just what principles he or she are applying and sometimes we come away horrified at your own logic, which, of course, we thought was flawless. This book helps us take stock of own own opinions and how we can be more constructive towards preserving the democracy we all believe we cherish. Somewhere we need a divisor to utilize against the bombardment of mass communication and political belligerence. This is an excellent beginning.
 A Common Denominator for Political Debate December 8, 2006
7 out of 7 found this review helpful
Having weathered another election cycle of verbal and emotional combat between the polarized "red" and "blue" electorate, one begins to wonder if there is any common ground for constructive political debate in our contentious democracy. In his new book, legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin answers in the affirmative. He believes that there are certain principles on which both sides can agree. Problems, however, arise when these principles are applied to making concrete policy decisions.
Dworkin sets forth two principles of human dignity to which all parties can agree: 1) "that each human life is intrinsically and equally valuable," and 2) "that each person has an inalienable personal responsibility for identifying and realizing value in his or her life."
These principles are highly abstract and probably most parties would disagree on their application. The improvement in political debate here lies in the fact that debates can go back to a common starting point rather than having parties try to demonize and discredit each other as if they had mutually exclusive worldviews.
In the application of these principles to the policy on torture of enemy combatants, I found Dworkin's views recognizable because they coincide with my own. The use of torture is clearly at odds with any principle of human dignity and should be condemned. However, there are extreme and unique situations where torture may extract information that could save thousands of lives. How does one balance this against human dignity? Dworkin seems to suggest that we do a cost/benefit analysis - typical of legal thinkers. And I tend to agree. However, it is a problematic area and remains unresolved.
On the issue of capital punishment Dworkin tries to show two sides of the argument. Being a liberal, he is personally against capital punishment. On the other hand, he argues that death as punishment is not at odds with human dignity. A death penalty advocate would argue that there are issues of deterence and retribution that must be observed. Again this opens the debate to other sets of issues. Where does one draw the line on human dignity?
These two examples illustrate how difficult it is to achieve a substantive political debate as opposed to the disparagement and invective that we witness today. Dworkin's principles are hard to disagree with, and he clearly illustrates the problems we get into if we deviate too far from these principles. This book is an interesting and useful contribution to the need for civilizing our current political debate.
|
|
|
