Imagining Deliberative Democracy in the Early American Republic (review)

Sandra Gustafson's book Imagining Deliberative Democracy in the Early American Republic is a fascinating, careful, and lucid portrait of deliberative democracy in the period 1800-39. Arguing against a dominant strain of literary criticism (Castronovo, Castiglia, Nelson, et al.) claiming that revolutionary energies collapsed and democratic potentials shrank during the early republican years, Gustafson documents vigorous, spirited debate in a variety of communities. Practices of deliberative democracy in the post-Revolutionary era developed in ways that expanded the possibilities for social justice, rather than contracting them. Inspired by the likes of John Dewey and Amanda Anderson, Gustafson expresses enthusiasm that democratic deliberation might achieve just resolutions to conflicts between people. In support of this claim, she cites works such as Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, Democracy and Disagreement, Iris Marion Young, Inclusion and Democracy, Cass Sunstein, Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do, and James Fishkin, When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Gustafson emphasizes a wide variety of individuals who cultivated and advanced skills of careful, reasoned deliberation as they tackled the urgent matters confronting the nation, foremost among them Indian Removal and slavery. Gustafson's point is that the spectacular failures of justice in the early American republic should not undermine our faith in deliberative democracy as the avenue toward a more just and civil society. She shows that deliberation in the early American republic was seriously flawed because of the exclusive nature of the institutions structuring it, the racism of the dominant culture, and the limited experience people had with respecting and acknowledging diversity. As Gustafson argues, these conditions can be changed, and deliberative democracy can continue to evolve as the single best tool available to prevent future atrocities and to avail equal opportunity and justice.

After a modestly polemical introduction in defense of deliberation, the book opens with a brief history of the idea of deliberation. The second chapter analyzes debates regarding the nature of democracy from three Atlantic regions, in the process documenting the cosmopolitan nature of deliberation in the early republic. The third explores the importance of eloquence in deliberation, noting the influence of Cicero, among others. Chapter 4 explores the politics and aesthetics of two influential white orators (Daniel Webster and David Crockett), while chapter 5 explores the same themes in three multiracial orators (David Walker, Maria Stewart, and William Apess). Chapter 6 explores representations of deliberation in fictions by two authors, Lydia Maria Child and James Fenimore Cooper. The final chapter offers three models of "How to Read Deliberatively." The goal of this slightly scattershot structure is to provide not so much a developing polemic as rather a "textured historical study of a moment when deliberated values were clearly articulated yet failed quite spectacularly to resolve social conflicts" (11). Although it documents that spectacular failure, Gustafson's discussion of deliberation is nonetheless permeated with hopeful optimism for the possibilities of deliberative democracy to evolve in ever-more just and inclusive ways.

The brief history of deliberation in the first chapter establishes the stakes for the rest of the book. Gustafson documents a lengthy tradition of political theorists engaged with the benefits and limits of deliberation. Recently, some pessimists among them have questioned the value of deliberation, recommending instead government by technocrats qualified to weigh in on public matters that are too complex for the general public. Others more optimistic, imagine processes by which the public can be rendered qualified to weigh in on public affairs. These processes differ, and Gustafson outlines the rationales and conclusions of various theorists within this field. Her goal is not to assess these debates, but rather to demonstrate the ways that contemporary theorists engage with the many limits of deliberation, above all the potential for deliberation to merely support the status quo or result in demagoguery. She is particularly interested in those rhetorical aspects of this theory that emphasize how communications can be structured to promote mutually satisfying outcomes...