Abstract American politics is characterized by an implicit rights-centrism, for example, when public discourse champions the freedom of speech in absolute terms. This article proposes instead an ends-centric mode of deliberation that underscores the myriad ends beyond rights that are also necessary to a polity’s health. Grounded in republican theory, the ends-centric mode maintains space to (re)prioritize ends and to redraw the boundaries of rights as required by a given moment or issue. Rather than displace rights-centrism or the courts’ role in enforcing rights, the ends-centric mode prompts other institutions also to engage in rights reasoning, thereby elevating the larger conversation and process of deliberation. It thus allows a separation-of-powers logic to operate more fully in the realm of rights by leveraging diverse institutional perspectives and capacities toward a multi-sided dialogue over rights questions. We draw from historical debates on speech and press freedom from the early republic and the twentieth century to find sight lines for an ends-centric approach in American politics. We further examine how ends-centric arguments would benefit deliberations over the regulation of social media today. Specifically, arguments that overemphasize speech in social media crowd out other desirable ends, such as protecting young people online and combating misinformation. Ultimately, we argue the benefits of rights-centric and ends-centric modes operating alongside each other across constitutional fora, as the polity deliberates rights in old and new forms.
Bambrick et al. (Tue,) studied this question.