Thread: The Power of Deliberation-Quirk

Deliberation, “refers to the intellectual process of identifying alternatives,” gathering and evaluating information, weighing considerations, and making judgments about the merits of public policies.” Qurik suggests that in order for valid or positive deliberation to occur, there must be four elements consisting of identifying and developing alternative policies, estimating the consequences of those policies, assessing the ethical or emotional significance of polices, and refining provisions. Quirk expresses that the best way for deliberation to occur is through legislative debate. This process takes place in various settings such as committee hearings, committee markups and floor debates. But a great deal of deliberation occurs outside of these settings including meetings between lobbyists, White House officials and members of the Congress.


The author states that failure of deliberation occurs not when a policy fails, but rather when there is “ignorance of relevant considerations; overlook[ing] pertinent information; or distort[ing] the significance of such information- and thus mak[ing] substantial inaccurate judgments concerning a policy choice.” Another form of deliberation failure occurs when members are well informed and have realistic judgments and then distort the reality in their public statements. Sometimes deliberation encounters difficulty. The author points out two specific examples of when this occurs, first when there is substantive difficulty and second when there is essentially conflict between individuals or groups.

The capability for deliberation in Congress has definitely changed over time. One benefit occurred during an explosion of empirical research on public policy. This research has answered questions that policymakers of the past could only speculate about. The mass media has also grown in size and influence on the public and on the deliberation process. This change has created obstacles to the deliberative policymaking such as; competition to “find messages that push the right buttons with core constituencies and the mass public.”

Congress has many mechanisms to enhance deliberation because members of congress have vast interest in good policymaking and want the congress to work well and be respected. They will adopt rules or structures for the specific purpose of improving deliberation, such as requiring the executive branch to collect and report the information.


There has been a considerable amount of pressure being put on Congress in recent times. Prior to 1970 much of the congressional activity was not readily observed by citizens. Most “markup” sessions and other committee meetings were closed to the public. Essentially floor debate was televised. However with advent of the “government-in-the-sunshine” movement, public interest groups started to observe the deliberation in Congress.

Is my idea of deliberation naive?

what are you asking here?
When I read this post, I see this:
First you talk about what ideally deliberation is.
Then sometimes people do not really deliberate, for various reasons.
Then you talk about how congress should enact 'deliberation laws'.
Then there is a 'considerable amount of pressure' on congress.
Whats your question? Is your 'deliberation' the ideal deliberation, or the laws that should be occured?

Originally Posted by The_Bear

what are you asking here?
When I read this post, I see this:
First you talk about what ideally deliberation is.
Then sometimes people do not really deliberate, for various reasons.
Then you talk about how congress should enact 'deliberation laws'.
Then there is a 'considerable amount of pressure' on congress.
Whats your question? Is your 'deliberation' the ideal deliberation, or the laws that should be occured?

I am asking if congress can really deliberate for a purpose? Do members of congress walk into a commitee meeting with their minds opened?