Trust in the Demos Isn’t Naive — It’s Empirical
Democratic deliberation asks us to meet as moral equals, exchange reasons for our beliefs, consider evidence, and remain open to changing our minds. Evidence from real-world examples shows that it can reduce polarization and deepen public judgment.

Joe Biden and Donald Trump hoodies are seen in a shop at Newark Liberty International Airport, New Jersey, on July 16th, 2024. (Beata Zawrzel / NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Jacobin’s David Moscrop recently talked with James Fishkin, professor of international communication and director of the Deliberative Democracy Lab at Stanford University, about his new book Can Deliberation Cure the Ills of Democracy? Fishkin is one of the leading theorists and practitioners of deliberative democracy — a model that seeks to deepen political decision-making by giving ordinary citizens the time, space, and information to reflect seriously on major public questions.
In their conversation, Fishkin explains how deliberation offers not just a fix for dysfunction — reducing polarization, misinformation, and political cynicism — but also a return to what is most radical in the democratic ideal: the belief that people, when given the chance, can govern themselves wisely. Drawing on real-world cases, from Mongolia to South Korea, he shows how structured public dialogue can lead to sounder, more broadly supported outcomes — and how it might just dispel some of the rancor that defines today’s politics.
The Will of the People
David Moscrop
What does deliberative democracy offer citizens and democratic institutions that current approaches to democratic decision-making and governance do not?
James S. Fishkin