The data in Part I suggest that people care surprisingly little about most policies. The data in Part II indicate even more strongly that people would like very much to avoid politics. These empirical findings naturally lead (in Part III) to a questioning of the claims made by many theorists that the American political system can be fixed by getting the people more involved in the very policies and politics the people wish to avoid. When we looked for empirical evidence that greater involvement in either direct or indirect democracy has the beneficial consequences theorists predict, we found none and in fact found persistent hints that greater involvement in real politics can often have detrimental consequences. Reform proposals that are not based on a realistic understanding of people's attitudes toward democratic processes will certainly do no good and could do harm.

Only two matters remain: some needed clarifications and qualifications, and a recommendation concerning future research. Turning first to clarifications and qualifications, the evidence for our claims is not ironclad, and we have probably stated our arguments more boldly than we should have. Moreover, we fear that the nature of our assertions combined with the understandably intense desire of many people to make richly participatory democracy work will render our claims ripe for misinterpretation. Thus, we ask for indulgence as we emphasize five clarifying points.

WE ARE NOT PEOPLE-DEMEANING ELITES

In questioning the ability of popular deliberation specifically and participation generally to improve the political process, we open ourselves to the charge of being elitists.