Is Democracy Possible Here?: Principles for a New Political Debate

by Ronald Dworkin

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 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.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Law, Justice

192 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2006

About the author

Ronald Dworkin, QC, FBA was an American philosopher of law. He was a Jeremy Bentham Professor of Law and Philosophy at University College London, Frank Henry Sommer Professor of Law at New York University, and has taught previously at Yale Law School and the University of Oxford. An influential contributor to both philosophy of law and political philosophy, Dworkin received the 2007 Holberg International Memorial Prize in the Humanities for "his pioneering scholarly work" of "worldwide impact." His theory of law as integrity is amongst the most influential contemporary theories about the nature of law.

Reviews

[Mohammad Mirzaali · Rating 3 out of 5]

کتاب رونالد دِوُرکین، درس‌نامه‌ای برای دموکراسی درامریکاست. البته عمومیت مباحث کتاب آن را برای هر خواننده‌ای قابل مطالعه کرده است. مهم‌ترین مباحث این کتاب پرداختن به اصل برابری و آزادی، حقوق بشر، دین، مالیات و مشروعیت در امریکا -به عنوان منازعاتی بین لیبرال‌ها و محافظه‌کاران است

[乂]

آیا دموکراسی در آمریکا ممکن است؟ / رونالد دورکین / تهران: مینوی خرد، چاپِ اول 1392
مشارکتِ سیاسی
فرهنگِ سیاسی
کلیسا و دولت و تروریسم
عدالتِ اجتماعی
سیاست و حکومت: ایالاتِ متحده، 1989م

[...]

متن معرفی: از مقدمه‌ی نویسنده، در این ویرایش: من این کتاب را به این دلیل نوشته‌ام که معتقدم ما در دوره‌ای قرار داریم که ایالات متحده در معرض خطر سیاسی خاصی قرار دارد. به‌نوعی این کتاب درباره‌ی نبود بحث سیاسی در آمریکای سال‌های آغازین قرن بیست‌ویکم است. موضوعات آن نیز کم‌تر مقید به فرهنگ سیاسی یک کشور خاص است. زیرا هر جامعه‌ی سیاسی که برخوردار از فرهنگی متکثر و اقتصادی پیشرفته باشد، ناگزیر است میان نظریه‌های رقیب به انتخاب دست بزند؛ نظریه‌هایی که طیف گسترده‌ای از موضوعات را در بر می‌گیرند مانند: ماهیت و جایگاه حقوق بشر، نقش دین در سیاست، توزیع رفاه اقتصادی در جامعه و هویت نظام‌های تصمیم‌گیری.
موضوعات این کتاب بین‌المللی هستند و به هیچ دهه‌ی خاصی نیز تعلق ندارند.
سیاست که نوعی ورزش رزمی نیست، پس ما نیز در سیاست‌ورزی‌های‌مان باید راهی بیابیم تا در مورد مسائل‌مان فقط به درگیرشدن با هم نپردازیم بل‌که بتوانیم اصولی که برای طرفین قابل پذیرش باشد را مبنای ورود به بحث‌های‌مان قرار دهیم. امیدوارم من نیز در این کتاب بتوانم چنین اصولی را بیابم، و آن‌ها را طوری تبیین کنم که امکان نوعی بحث پی‌گیرانه را میسر کند حتی میان قطب‌هایی که امروزه ایجادکننده‌ی شکاف‌های پرنشدنی در آمریکا تصور می‌شوند.
آیا خودخواهی‌ها و تعهدات شخصی مردم آشتی ناپذیرند؟
اگر بپذیریم که بهترین سنت دموکراسی در آمریکا «سنت مشارکت آزادانه‌ای است که همه را در بر بگیرد»، من نیز سعی می‌کنم برپایه‌ی همین سنت، خوانندگان بیش‌تری را به پذیرش فرمول‌های لیبرالی خود مجاب کنم؛ سنتی که معتقدم در چند دهه‌ی اخیر از سوی مخالفانش و همین‌طور تاحدی موافقانش غلط معرفی شده است. بر پایه‌ی چنین سنتی، سعی می‌کنم دیدگاه‌های خود را در مورد رویکرد احتیاطی به عدالت توزیعی نیز مطرح کنم.
در این کتاب به مسائل سیاسی‌ای پرداخته‌ام که از نظر من با اصول مربوط به کرامت انسانی ارتباط تنگاتنگ و زیادی دارند و از ورود به بحث‌های کم ارتباط‌تر دیگر خودداری کرده‌ام.

فهرست
مقدمه6
فصل اول: مبنای مشترک در جستجوی بحث 10
فصل دوم: تروریسم و حقوق بشر 34
فصل سوم: دین و کرامت انسانی 64
فصل چهارم: مالیات و مشروعیت 100
فصل پنجم: آیا دموکراسی در آمریکا ممکن است؟ 138
مؤخره 170

شناسنامه و مشخصات ظاهری
سرشناسه: دورکین، رونالد، 2013-1931م
عنوان: آیا دموکراسی در آمریکا ممکن است؟
پدیدآور: رونالد دورکین Ronald Dworkin
مشخصات نشر: تهران: مینوی خرد، 1392ش
مشخصات ظاهری: 175 صفحه، 21.1 در 14.4 سانتی‌متر
شابک: 9786006220352
ترجمه از: Is Democracy Possible Here?: Principles for a New Political Debate, 2006
موضوع: مشارکت سیاسی / فرهنگ سیاسی / کلیسا و دولت و تروریسم / عدالت اجتماعی / سیاست و حکومت: ایالات متحده، 1989م
شماره‌ی کتاب‌شناسی ملی: 3206146
مترجمان: محمود حبیبی، 1334ش / خشایار دیهیمی، 1334ش
نوبت چاپ: اول
سال انتشار: 1392ش
شمارگان: 1500 نسخه
قیمت: 10000 تومان

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a book with several facets. It is Dworkin's attempt to provide philosophical and argumentative foundations for democratic debate. Meaning, Dworkin provides the foundational ideas upon which all other argument, from both left and right, should and must be based on. It just so happens that Dworkin thinks these foundational starting points inevitably lead to his preferred progressive politics. Shocker! Regardless, Dworkin goes out of his way to invite his intellectual opponents to disagree with him and provide him with counter arguments (but still with the starting points he lays out).

The book's title is a little misleading. This is not a legal, political, and philosophical look into whether democracy is possible in the United States. The first 3/4 is Dworkin giving his foundations and then providing arguments for the author's preferred general policy ends. The last 1/4 feels less like a philosophical inquiry and more like Dworkin shaking his fist at clouds (clouds that may be more conservative in tone or viewpoint).

The book was first written in ~2005-6, and the paperback was in 2008. This means that the examples used are just old enough, but also just recent enough, to feel odd, like the Terry Schaivo controversy. It serves as a nice reminder of what people cared about!

I had read another book a few years back called "The Thirteen American Argument," which this book reminds me of. It's an attempt to identify things that we have in common, but unlike that earlier book, Dworkin does more than "Hey, look, common arguments, isn't that cool!" Instead, Dworkin attempts to engage the arguments and the readers.

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

If there's one thing I'll take away from this book it is that anyone with a vested interest in the topic at hand should, at all costs, avoid getting in an argument with Ronald Dworkin! Unless, that is, they're bent on losing from the outset!

Okay, that's not really the best conclusion, in that the whole book argues just the opposite, but either way, from reading this book it is clear that arguing with Dworkin would be no walk in the park!

He begins the book by telling readers exactly what he's out to argue and the means by which he'll arrive at his conclusions. He sets out two basic principles that he is sure most readers will adopt and then moves forward through logical reasoning to arrive at the claims that he unabashedly supports! It's one thing to have someone make a point, it's another for them to tell you they're going to, show you how they're doing it, and then invite you to counter them! No wonder the man is a preeminent lawyer!

In 'Is Democracy Possible Here?', Dworkin denounces the lack of political debate in American politics. Looking at the two primary groups that have formed along ideological divisions, Dworkin notes that there is great disagreement between the two, but very little, if any, legitimate discussion. It is a return to the later for which Dworkin argues.

He outlines two basic principles of human dignity, the value of all human life and the responsibility of individuals over their own lives. From these principles, he demonstrates, through four concrete examples, that political arguments must come from a common ground in order to be productive. Thus, by adopting the basic tenants of Dworkin's human dignity, political arguments can be legitimately developed for issues such as gay rights, torture, taxation and democratic processes.

Only through discussions the impact of political decisions on the shared interests of human dignity, Dworkin argues, can we have an effective political debate, and in turn, a legitimate democracy.

While, admittedly, falling on the far liberal side of many arguments he lays out, Dworkin challenges readers who disagree with him to develop counter arguments along similar lines of reason. At the end of chapter three, he implores "Who will argue--not just declare--that I am wrong?"

Not me I say, not me!

[Rosa Ventura · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a wonderful book. As the title implies the books central question is "is real democracy possible here?" Why is democracy in question, you may ask? His answer, given the current state of polarization real political debate in the truest democratic sense is not possible. This is a dangerous situation .
He points to two principles that should be the underpinning of any democratic society and that could help assuage the bitter recriminations between these polarized groups:
The Principle of Intrinsic value and the principle of personal responsibility.
The first raises and acknowledges the importance of each human life and accordingly that we should all regret a wasted life. This ties to ideals of equality i.e. it has to apply to all.
The second principle: Personal responsibility relates to ideals of liberty. That each of us has a personal responsibility for realizing the success of his own life, choosing there paths- the author writes we have the sovereign responsibility for one's own life. These two principles define the basis of human dignity. Dignity that we should all be accorded. We have to work out the implications of each in the light of the other, he states. There are no grounds under which you can say that yes I should make the most of my life, but at the same time deny it to others. It applies to everyone for if you deny it to anyone logically you deny it to yourself.

I thought that the way the author builds up the case for his principles and how they demonstrate that we do in fact have common ideals that should allow us to bridge some of our differences was wonderful. The author then uses this theoretical base to discuss Terrorism, human rights, religion , tax systems and its legitimacy, to name a few. A must read!!

[Kent Winward · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was first introduced to Dworkin nearly 30 years ago in law school. Dworkin's theme is essentially that given a certain set of fundamental premises, the political debate should have a certain outcome and if you get a different outcome, then the argument's aren't coming from the same premise. Logically the argument is compelling. The reality of course is harder to make happen, but in some ways this should be a guide book on how to structure political argument.

Values of individual liberty and human dignity ("all are created equal") should not be shoddily abdicated to the unthinking talking points machine. Our arguments need to stem from these fundamentals and argued back to fundamentals.

This isn't unrealistic even in a time when money and mass media seems to have co-opted our democracy, such that it is. The influence of the economic interests are as old as the country, but look how long we have come in a little over 238 years. We got this far because people like Dworkin argued and fought from fundamental concepts. There is no reason to think that a continued effort won't eventually lead to similar results. I'm particularly interested in looking at treating the poor as a protected class, doing that actively attacks the moneyed interests that control so much of our law making.

I even used Dworkin in an Article I wrote for our local paper. Dworkin's ideas are important and need to be discussed, not just reviewed on GoodReads and elsewhere.

[Broodingferret · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an intriguing read. Dworkin is spot on that our polarized politics have led to a diminishment of productive discourse in the U.S. and his thesis that we need to identify core principles in which we all agree on, but the implementation of which we could theoretically disagree on in on the right track. I also think that the two core principles he identifies-a belief in the value of all human life and a belief in personal responsibility-are appropriate, though I'm not convinced they're as universally appreciated as Dworkin argues. Dworkin is also well-reasoned and convincing when discussing the implications of these core values when applied to some of our traditionally intractable political problems, such as taxes rates and the separation of church and state, while his reasoning regarding the details of other issues, such as what taxes should be spent on, is less sharp. At several points Dworkin refers to arguments that he has articulated in other works, and it may well be that these sources go into the depth I felt was lacking in certain issues; having not read them, however, I'm currently not convinced in the correctness of some of his conclusions. I also found the overall tone pleasant and respectful, yet a little bland, which made for slower than normal reading. Still, an overall interesting and cognitively stimulating book, whose brevity and concision easily make up for its languid pacing.

[Mike · Rating 2 out of 5]

Disappointing. I sat patiently through all of these syllogisms, etc., hoping the book really was going to propose some practical and politically feasible solutions to our deeply polarized and trivialized political process, but it never really did. All of Dworkin's arguments are logically sound and lead to the same conclusions I already share, but in most cases there's a much simpler and more compelling argument that leads to the same conclusion, I kept thinking.

Reading this book was depressing. Makes me want to revert to my pessimistic default position that what we really need is more effective demagoguery.

(Also makes me think maybe I need a break from this genre for a while! :) )

[Ray · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ronald Dworkin seems to be pleading for the introduction of common sense into the political debate in our Country, but any immediate resolution seems far down the road. Overall, I felt this was a somewhat uninspired, boring discussion of underlying principles which could lead to reaching agreement by those on the left and those on the right, and thereby lead to a functioning democracy instead of the partisan divide we presently have in Washington D.C.

[Dave Kinkead]

Dworkin outlines a normative account of political justice and legitimacy, and its implications for human rights, religion and taxation, based on two fundamental principals: intrinsic value and personal responsibility.

His unique contribution stems from his argument that legitimacy is derived not from consent but the states equal concern for all citizens.

[Michelle Devidi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dworkin is very accessible, you don't need to be a Political Science student to get into this book. Very engaging.

[Charles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Erudite, thoughtful, and engaging. While not always agreeing woth Dworkin's perspective, hisbrilliance and passion are.most admirable.

[Bisser Dyankov · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoroughly thought-provoking.

[Donald Powell]

I could not follow his tortured sentence structure. I found it very difficult to track his thought processes from one point to the next.

[Akaitsoti · Rating 4 out of 5]

Πρωτη φορα επιασα να διαβασω πολιτικη φιλοσοφια κι ευτυχως ετυχε να ειναι αυτο το βιβλιο. Η μεθοδος της επιχειρηματολογιας στα καλυτερα της.