What If “More Public Participation” Can’t Save American Democracy?

Lee Drutman wrote for Vox's Polyarchy about the myth of the "average citizen" saving democracy via participation: 

American democracy is in a downward spiral. Well, really two downward spirals.

The first is the downward spiral of bipolar partisanship, in which both sides increasingly demonize each other as the enemy, and refuse to compromise and cooperate — an escalating arms race that is now going beyond mere gridlock and threatening basic democratic norms.

The second is the downward spiral of distrust between citizens and elites, in which citizens treat “corrupt” and “establishment” as interchangeable terms. The public consensus is that politicians are self-serving, not to be trusted. In this logic, only more public participation can make politicians serve the people.

These two downward spirals are related. The less we trust politicians, the more we try to hold them “accountable.” But the more we try to hold them “accountable” the more we get intractable partisanship, because the “we” who are trying to hold politicians accountable are the same “we” who always do the most participating. The most engaged citizens, political scientists have known for years, are almost always the most partisan citizens, and/or those who have the most narrow and high-stakes interests in policy outcomes.

But to say we should participate less, and give politicians more freedom to operate without constant public input, seems off. It cuts against our well-developed, pro-democracy reflexes.