C onsider two idealized citizens. The first, the attentive, thoughtful, and deliberative citizen, critically examines not only familiar and favored but also unfamiliar and opposing perspectives. These citizens set aside prior commitments and consider novel points of view. Rather than giving in to the natural inclination to rely on like-minded allies, they engage with others in a wider discussion. The norms for this deliberative citizen include consideration, balance, open-mindedness, and a willingness to collaborate and accommodate.
1For the second type of citizen, politics is the passionate pursuit of established goals, and in such circumstances successful citizen engagement demands loyalty and commitment to the cause. As Schattschneider put it, "To un- We should especially like to thank Russ Neuman, with whom we have developed the theoretical framework that underlies the article. We also deeply appreciate the large number of colleagues who gave us useful suggestions along the way. Among them are included Jamie Druckman, Jim Gibson, Howie Lavine, John Hibbing, Nick Valentino, Ted Brader, Michael Neblo, George Rabinowitz, Marco Steenbergen, Liz Suhay, Robert Huckfeldt, and Kristen Monroe. Finally, we want to thank the editor and the reviewers for their genuinely helpful guidance.1 Deliberation has a public as well as a private meaning. As Mutz (2006) notes, the inclination to have an interior conversation is a precursor to public deliberation, a vital topic in its own right.2 These idealized types echo a debate in contemporary normative political theory with arguments for a deliberative citizen (Benhabib 1996;
