Gutmann and Thompson characterize the run-up to the United States' commencing of aggressive war against Iraq in terms of deliberative democracy. They imagine that the supporters and opponents of the war are two sides in a debate, a debate that continues after the bombs have fallen and thousands have died. Emphasizing the circulation of reasons ( inclusive of passionate. rhetoric and secret intelligence), they treat the site of decision as a partner in an exchange of reasons, relieving it of accountability for the decision it makes as they shift political responsibility onto a discursive process where it can be perpetually deferred. We can always change our minds, reconsider. And, then, we can say now things are diferent, hindsight is always 20 I 20, we need to put the past behind us. But the two sides are not equal: one of them decides. One of them has the power to decide and to execute. Gutmann's and Thompson's imaginary synthesis justifies this power by placing it within the neutral context of a delibera.; tion, by equating it with chalenges to it.
Reading Gutmann's and Thompson's version of deliberative democracy in terms of university discourse, a discourse in which the fa.cts speak for themsel<sub>;</sub>es, shows how their imaging of democracy fails to account for the power to decide, providing instead the permanent deferral of political responsibilty. This deferral incorporates the future into the present as a justification for current failures, thereby shutting it of as a source of utopian energy. "'When democracy is justifed by the very fact of justification, as it is in theories of deliberative democracy, the presence and absence of democracy overlap: our acknowledgment of failures justifes a failed democracy.
92
THREE