Political Disagreement Meaning
But something interesting has happened with voters on networks with great dissent. First, we do not believe that academic discussions (whether in scientific journals or college classrooms) are a model of moral thinking in politics. Academic discussion should not be intended to justify a practical decision, as the board must do. It is partly for this reason that academic debate is probably insensitive to the contexts of ordinary politics: the pressure of power, the problems of inequality, the demands of diversity, the constraints of persuasion. Some critics of deliberative democracy show similar insensitivity when they judge real political considerations according to the criteria of an ideal philosophical reflection. True thinking is invariably deficient, but philosophical reflection is also practiced in politics. The right comparison is between the ideals of democratic and philosophical reflection or between the application of each in the non-ideal circumstances of politics. If people don`t agree, it`s politics. In the United States, nearly half of Republicans and Democrats say they „almost never“ agree with the other party`s positions. Whether it is health, the economy, foreign policy, education, the environment, privatization, energy or immigration, it seems almost impossible for political opponents to accept an agreement.
Of the challenges facing American democracy today, none is more visible than the problem of moral differences. Neither the theory nor the practice of democratic politics has yet found an appropriate way to manage conflicts around fundamental values. Here we address the challenge of moral differences by developing a concept of democracy that provides a central place for moral discussion in political life. In Chapter 2, „The Feeling of Reciprocity,“ we argue that the principle of reciprocity is a more appropriate basis for democratic policy than an approach based on impartiality or prudence, which promotes a strategy of negotiation between political interests. We show how reciprocity can accept negotiations under certain conditions, while avoiding the moral problems that cause negotiations when they are seen as a comprehensive method of democratic policy. „Compared to citizens of low-disagreement networks, citizens seem to develop candidate preferences in high-dissenting networks through more exhausting cognitive processes and no longer choose candidates on the basis of mere partisan indications,“ the study concludes. Yet philosophy is neither powerless nor useless in the face of fundamental differences.