{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022792022792022793, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0052231718898385565, 'mean_word_length': 5.384848484848485, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Rational Choice and Democratic Deliberation: A Theory of Discourse Failure , by Guido Pincione and Fernando R. Tesón, 2006, xi + 258 pages.

Over the last twenty years democratic theory has taken a deliberative turn. Some view the theory of deliberative democracy as an essentially leftist project (Fung and Wright, 2003) that carries on the tradition of participatory democracy. As a response Rational Choice and Deliberative Democracy, uniquely in the literature, provides a strong critique of deliberation from a libertarian perspective. Pincione and Tesón set out to offer a “sustained critique of deliberative democracy” (p. vii). They come as relative outsiders to the deliberative democracy literature and as a result they are able to give a new perspective on the theory, using insights and drawing examples from economics. They primarily contest the argument that political deliberation leads to epistemically better outcomes, although in later chapters they also address whether deliberative democracy could be justified on other grounds such as autonomy or justice. The authors’ main argument is set out in the first three chapters of the book. They observe that politics suffers from systematic discourse failure, which they define as “the public display of political decisions that are traceable to truth-insensitive processes”. Discourse failure can take various forms. Firstly, scientific theories are often opaque, counter-intuitive and difficult to understand. They explain events using invisible hand explanations, where outcomes are caused by general processes, such as market forces, rather than specific individuals. These theories are less easy to understand than vivid theories which assign causation to actors that are easily observable and use recent facts that are still universally remembered. Discourse failure often results from the use of vivid theories in politics when the correct theories are opaque. Explaining social situations using obscure and abstract, although deeply ingrained, images, such as national interest and sovereignty, is another form of discourse failure.