Ultimately, Dewey's essay can be analyzed and analyzed, but why start anywhere but his main point? Clearly, the issue in The Public is that actual individuals have been perfectly disenfranchised from the original stakes of democracy. For instance, in ancient Rome, when democracy was invented, the communities could be represented fully, because there were only a certain number of citizens in a community, and those people who carried esteem in their community typically argued for their point of view.
Now, only career politicians get to argue in the public domain, so there is already a Problem with The Public, because democracy can be done by professional politicians who often have other motivations. Imagine that—Dewey says some politicians can't be trusted to truly dedicate themselves to the enfranchisement of the populace. He argues that democracy should be more tightly controlled to autonomous local governments. This has echoes to certain kinds of anarchism.
Instead of allowing our past to control our future, Dewey encourages the reader to be scientific about these political issues. Is it even really democracy? He challenges that assumption and reminds his readers that the government's interests are the government's well-being, and also that the individuals who go into politics—perhaps they are zealous for a cause, but without zeal for the minority groups and their unique points of view, it is simply not a real democracy. Dewey feels it is oligarchy, not democracy which is the status quo in America and similar nations.
