Democratic Accountability: Why Choice in Politics is Both Possible and Necessary.

• Author: Dimock, James P.

Democratic Accountability: Why Choice in Politics is Both Possible and Necessary. By Leif Lewin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2007; pp. 247. $45 cloth.

Teachers and scholars have long contended argumentation is an essential dimension of all human societies and democratic societies in particular. People must have ways to coordinate action, to resolve differences, and to solve problems. The study of argumentation is predicated on the assumption that human beings are essentially rational and that we can, through the considering of reasons, the weighing of evidence and evaluation of options, make informed and rational decisions.

The field of argumentation begins where one of the oldest of philosophical dilemmas leaves off-the question of free will. Are decisions the products of conscious and rational choices or determined by forces beyond our control? The defenders of free will throughout pre-modernity squared off against the advocates of fate and divine determinism. The rise of the modern age, influenced by Cartesian rationalism, tipped the scale in favor of free. The modern age presumed a capacity to make rational choices on the basis of understanding gained via logical and empirical investigation of the world around us.

The waning of modernity and the waxing of the postmodern condition has called back into question the degree to which inherent rationality may be taken for granted. Marx, Freud and Foucault have constrained the assumption that argumentation consists of a rational and objective weighing of the facts. Those interested in argumentation, and especially the intersection between argumentation and political science where decisions of the public interest are made, must concern themselves with the limits of rational decision making.

Thus, the issues raised in Leif Lewin's latest treatise, Democratic Accountability: Why Choice in Politics is Both Possible and Necessary, are of special concern to those in argumentation studies. Lewin begins by pointing out that while politicians might try to deny responsibility for problems such as "economic setbacks, miserable public service, crises, wars, terrorism" (1), they are, indeed, responsible. Lewin identifies seven stock arguments politicians use to evade responsibility and dedicates separate chapters to debunking each in turn. The seven arguments, each developed by a political theorist, are:

1. Politicians have no control because history pushes onward independently of human...