O ne of the central premises of American democracy is that the political process advances because of rational discourse discussing and responding to objective reality. Facts are dispositive, it is maintained, and through thorough and extended discussion compromises will be hammered out, and a majority view on the facts will emerge. The foundational example cited is the Constitutional Convention. Each state sent a delegation to Philadelphia, and beginning on 25 May, 1787, a week later than originally scheduled, 55 widely divergent men, most arguing their own self-interest, came in state delegations. Over the next three months, they debated and, gradually, they settled on the facts, and compromised about how to address them. Out of it came the U.S. Constitution. In the end, 39 would sign the document. QED. And it is true. If you closet dozens of people in a room for months on end, during a desperately hot and muggy summer, all there precisely because they are strongly motivated to create a Constitution, having tried and failed to create a viable state with the Articles of Confederation, it is likely you will get a result. But when was the last time you saw the American Congress lock itself in and debate day after day? A real debate, everybody in the room, passionate, challenges, and counter challenges until a deal is struck. Perhaps the Constitutional Convention is not really a very