On Discussion and Debate When Democracy is Under Threat
© Howard Gardner 2026
Over the last few years, I have written and posted hundreds of blogs, covering a very wide range of topics. This one is different—it’s personal…and it’s political.
Here’s the context:
I am the son of German-Jewish parents who emigrated to the United States just in time. Indeed, Hilde and Rudolph Gaertner arrived in New York on November 9, 1938. This was Kristallnacht—the infamous “night of the broken glass”—when many (including close relatives) were injured or murdered. And of course, in the succeeding months and years, as a result of the bellicosity of totalitarian regimes, millions of innocent persons around the world have died…either in war zones or in concentration camps.
Now, well into my ninth decade, I recently came to the realization that I have always taken democracy for granted. At the time of my birth, during the Second World War, the Allies were fighting against totalitarian regimes in order to preserve our democratic system and processes. President Franklin Roosevelt praised the Four Freedoms—the first was Freedom of Speech, the last was Freedom from Fear. And even though our democratic rule of law has since been threatened a few times—the Senator McCarthy period in the early 1950s, the attempt to cover up the Watergate crimes in the early 1970s—the United States has seemed sufficiently resilient to defang the threats.
Alas, no more! While it has not been my preference or predilection to speak or write about the political scene, I feel that I must write about what I have observed and learned about recently and what it means to me. I owe it to the country that welcomed my family and made our lives—and those of countless others—possible and even comfortable.
A few weeks ago, the President of this nation declared that the only constraints on his power are “my own morality, my own mind.” So much for the Constitution, the Congress, the Judiciary! Even more bluntly, his most powerful policy adviser declared: “We live in a world, in the real world, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is government by power.” Had I encountered this declaration without attribution, I would only have wondered whether it had been spoken by Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, or Mao Zedong.
And now, I’d like to link the current frightening milieu to the efforts and aspirations of our small research group:
For over thirty years, we have sought to understand the nature of “good work” and “good citizenship,” and we have developed materials that seek to foster those virtuous roles and stances. I’ve come to realize that, as we conceptualize them, these “goods” presuppose the presence of democratic means and aspirations. To be specific, using “work” as an example—our team has construed “good work” as having three components (conveniently all beginning with “E”):
EXCELLENCE—the worker has mastered the landscape, priorities, criteria of the relevant profession or pursuit;
ENGAGEMENT—the worker looks forward to time and immersion in work;
ETHICS—faced with challenges about the proper course of action to pursue, the worker contemplates options, embarks on the chosen course of action, and then reflects on what has or has not resulted.
When it comes to excellence and engagement, these aspects of good work can be achieved in societies that embrace a variety of values. Not so, for ethics. Unless one has the option of considering a variety of formulations, options, courses of action, and then choosing a path forward without fear of reprisal, it proves impossible—or at best, very challenging—to speak and act in an ethical way.
Our team has investigated the ethical dimensions of work by posing and then studying how individuals (or groups) deal with challenging situations:
When confronted by a dilemma, those who aspire to speak and act in an ethical manner can go through a process akin to the following:
DEFINE the dilemma;
DISCUSS the options;
DEBATE the various alternatives;
DELIBERATE among the most viable options;
DECIDE, (taking into account temporal pressures), the best possible course of action;
DEBRIEF—importantly, not all decisions are wise, not all decisions work out as expected. The “good worker” reflects on what went right, what went wrong, and what path might be pursued more effectively in the future.
And here’s what my colleagues and I have taken for granted over many years—to such an extent that it’s not been the subject of discussion and contemplation: Dealing with dilemmas presupposes a democratic atmosphere, and a democratic society, perhaps indeed a deliberative democratic milieu.
But in light of the words spoken—the signals sent—by our current national leaders, we can no longer make these assumptions. It’s not even clear that one can describe the dilemma clearly and objectively (because there has been so much misinformation deliberately spread), let alone go through the discussion, debating, deliberating, and deciding process. And of course, debriefing is particularly dangerous, because it implies that one is free to analyze the situation anew and in the future to follow a different course—without fear of retribution.
To put it crisply: debate, discussion, deliberated decisions, and candid debriefing all presuppose democratic values and processes. And should those values and processes be undermined, the society ceases to be democratic and leans increasingly toward totalitarian or authoritarian processes, actions, and consequences.
But lest I end on a complete downer:
Even in a demagogic society, one can still go through these processes in one’s own mind; one can attempt to see through misinformation and even record events in writing or via camera; one can camouflage them in works of art; one can search for or create trustworthy environments which allow these D’s to be exercised; and of course, one can work to preserve or recreate a democratic society.
That’s the best hope in the country (and the world) in which my family, my colleagues and I live—and where I hope that subsequent human beings can thrive.
Note
As is the case with all of the blogs that I have authored, the views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the view of the institutions with which I am affiliated.
