Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:03:19.858Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Convergence's Democracy Problem: A Critique of Kogelmann and Stich

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2018

BENJAMIN R. HERTZBERG
BENJAMIN R. HERTZBERG*
Affiliation:
Emory University
*
Benjamin R. Hertzberg is a visiting Assistant Professor of Political Science, Emory University ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In their 2016 American Political Science Review article, Kogelmann and Stich argue that public reason fails to provide the assurance reasonable citizens require to act justly and that, as a consequence, Rawls's account of political stability fails. Convergence discussions, because they are a costly signal, provide such assurance. Kogelmann and Stich fail to recognize that constituents influence representatives such that the costs of convergence discourse are unknown. It thus cannot assure. Constituents’ influence also undermines convergence's ability to show how decision-making processes that follow its norms result in justified laws. Far from supporting convergence, then, the stability question demands revision of the view. This response develops these objections, extends them from Kogelmann and Stich's analysis to other convergence theorists and political liberals, and explores what political theorists can learn from convergence's difficulties.

Type
Letter
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 112 , Issue 2 , May 2018 , pp. 423 - 427
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to Ryan Davis and the APSR's anonymous reviewers for their feedback on earlier versions.

References

REFERENCES

Barber, Michael Jay. 2016. “Representing the Preferences of Donors, Partisans, and Voters in the U.S. Senate.” Public Opinion Quarterly 80: 225–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardon, Aurélia. 2015. “Religious Arguments and Public Justification.” In Religion, Secularism, & Constitutional Democracy, eds. Cohen, Jean L. and Laborde, Cecile. New York: Columbia University Press, 273–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, Ken. 2005. Natural Justice. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burstein, Paul. 2003. “The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and Agenda.” Political Research Quarterly 56 (1): 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberle, Christopher J. 2011. “Consensus, Convergence, and Religiously Justified Coercion.” Public Affairs Quarterly 25 (4): 281–303.Google Scholar
Gaus, Gerald. 2010. “The Place of Religious Belief in Public Reason Liberalism.” In Multiculturalism and Moral Conflict, eds. Dimova-Cookson, Maria and Stirk, Peter. New York: Routledge, 19–37.Google Scholar
Gaus, Gerald. 2011a. The Order of Public Reason: A Theory of Freedom and Morality in a Diverse and Bounded World. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gaus, Gerald. 2011b. “A Tale of Two Sets: Public Reason in Equilibrium.” Public Affairs Quarterly 25 (4): 305–25.Google Scholar
Gaus, Gerald, and Vallier, Kevin. 2009. “The Roles of Religious Conviction in a Publicly Justified Polity: The Implications of Convergence, Asymmetry, and Political Institutions.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 35 (1-2): 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2006. “Religion in the Public Sphere.” European Journal of Philosophy 14 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadfield, Gillian K., and Macedo, Stephen. 2012. “Rational Reasonablenss: Toward a Positive Theory of Public Reason.” Journal of Law and Ethics of Human Rights 6 (1): 1–46.Google Scholar
Hertzberg, Benjamin R. 2015. “Chains of Persuasion in the Deliberative System: Addressing the Pragmatics of Religious Inclusion.” Journal of Politics 77 (4): 889–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kogelmann, Brian, and Stich, Stephen G. W.. 2016. “When Public Reason Fails Us: Convergence Discourse as Blood Oath.” American Political Science Review 110 (4): 717–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Jacob T. 2015. Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lister, Andrew. 2011. “Public Justification of What? Coercion vs. Decision as Competing Frames for the Basic Principle of Justificatory Liberalism.” Public Affairs Quarterly 25 (4): 349–67.Google Scholar
North, Richard. 2012. “Public Reason, Religious Restraint and Respect.” Philosophia 40 (2): 179–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice. Revised ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 2005. Political Liberalism. Expanded ed. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Skyrms, Brian. 2004. The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Cooperation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thrasher, John, and Kevin, Vallier. 2015. “The Fragility of Consensus: Public Reason, Diversity and Stability.” European Journal of Philosophy 23 (4): 933–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallier, Kevin. 2011. “Convergence and Consensus in Public Reason.” Public Affairs Quarterly 25 (4): 261–79.Google Scholar
Vallier, Kevin. 2012. “Liberalism, Religion, and Integrity.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (1): 149–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallier, Kevin. 2014. Liberal Politics and Public Faith: Beyond Separation. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallier, Kevin. 2015. “Public Justification versus Public Deliberation: The Case for Divorce.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 45 (2): 139–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 2016. Political Political Theory: Essays on Institutions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Lori. 2015. “Review of Kevin Vallier, Liberal Politics and Public Faith: Beyond Separation.” Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. September 20. https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/60955-liberal-politics-and-public-faith-beyond-separation/Google Scholar
Weithman, Paul. 2010. Why Political Liberalism? On John Rawls's Political Turn. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weithman, Paul. 2011. “Convergence and Political Autonomy.” Public Affairs Quarterly 25 (4): 327–48.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.