美國學者郝大維與安樂哲於一九九九年以英文出版《逝者的民主：杜威、孔子、與中國民主之希望》一書，試以「實用且多元」的方式，在思想的層面上提出以儒家民主作為建設中國未來的願景。書中主張：中國在面對現代化的問題時，不能倚賴與中國情況實不相干的西方「植基於權利的自由主義」，但可借取美國思想家杜威的實用主義，俾與中國本有之儒家傳統，同為建立中國民主的基礎。書中論及許多當前中、西思想界和學界的重要關注，並顯示出在建立中國民主和考量實用主義於實際的應用，以及在比較自由主義與社群主義各有的長短時，必須特別留意的若干關鍵所在。本文旨在就郝大維與安樂哲的論述取徑和內容，說明他們這一儒家民主說的特徵與相關問題。文中首先指出郝、安兩位先生在書中著重「敘述」的作法，及其與杜威實用主義之間可能有的距離，以及與羅逖新實用主義之間可能的連繫。次則，文中力圖說明郝大維與安樂哲雖然強調傳統與歷史的重要性，卻淡化了美國與中國所處情境的別異，淡化了民主之為政治結構、和個人在民主中的具體保障等重要問題。因此，在面對以權力與衝突為特徵的政治活動與社會現實時，他們的儒家民主說出現困境。

Two American scholars, David Hall and Roger Ames, published in 1999 The Democracy of the Dead, in which they propose, at the level of idea-formation and in a pragmatist and pluralist manner, a vision of Confucian democracy. Hall and Ames indicate in the book that the rights-based liberalism of the modern West is irrelevant to the China problem; the Chinese could, and probably should, instead turn to John Dewey’s pragmatism in order to establish a communitarian democracy in consonance with the Chinese Confucian tradition. Hall and Ames’ discussion has incorporated a number of important topics recently noted by both Chinese and Western intellectuals. More importantly, the problems and difficulties that one finds in Hall and Ames’ construct of Confucian democracy help illuminate crucial issues in establishing Chinese democracy, in applying pragmatism to practice, and in evaluating liberalism and communitarianism.
This essay aims to explicate the character of Hall and Ames’ Confucian democracy in terms of their approach to articulating and construing the idea and some of the problems left unattended in their discussion. To be more specific, I intend to not only make clear that Hall and Ames, in explaining the value and nature of Confucian democracy, have adopted the strategy of narrative rather than dialectic analysis but also to suggest that their approach might come from Richard Rorty more than Dewey. In addition, I explain how Hall and Ames in this book overlook the differences in historical contexts between China and America, the role of democracy as a political institution, and the protection essential for the individual to participate in public life. In the light of such a discussion, Hall and Ames’ Confucian democracy appears less than adequate in facing the power struggle and interest conflicts prevalent in the social and political reality.