Frank Schaeffer on American Evangelicalism and Its Roman Catholic Allies

I am sharing this video from Frank Schaffer in support of his message in order to amplify it as he requests in the video.

I am a religious person, a professing cradle Roman Catholic. I do not see this critique of American Evangelicalism and its alliance with (White) Roman Catholic as a threat to my faith or to my religious tradition. I see it as a much-needed wake up call to conversion for religious people and especially to American Christians.

‘The emergence of a third party is among us’ – Interview with Lincoln Project Co-Founder Rick Wilson

Joe Biden won the US presidential election with 306 electoral votes. But incumbent President Donald Trump has yet to concede, and the Republican Party seems to be at a crossroads after four years of Trumpism. What direction will the GOP take going forward?
The Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson offers a very bleak outlook into the GOP’s future. He says ‘the Republican party has sold out itself to Trump’ and what follows Trump will be more dangerous, because it will be more sophisticated.

00:00
trump supporters rallying for him again
00:03
they won’t accept that their president
00:04
lost the elections
00:06
and they’re determined to keep him as
00:08
their leader
00:09
around 73 million americans voted for
00:12
trump
00:13
making them a formidable force of force
00:15
that also
00:16
threatens to run out of control
00:19
he loves america he loves america he
00:22
does not quit on america
00:24
and that’s why america will not quit on
00:26
him
00:27
i’d like trump to start a new party if
00:30
he wanted to
00:31
the republican party is changing real
00:32
fast so we’re
00:34
we’re gonna be represented by the
00:35
soldiers the veterans uh the
00:37
hard-working people of this country
00:39
not by the corrupt politicians that sit
00:42
up here and get fat on our money
00:44
and steal everything from us
00:48
there are many who want to take the
00:49
republican party down a more
00:51
moderate path to strengthen their case
00:54
they talk about this man abraham lincoln
00:58
he was the president who won the civil
01:00
war and ended slavery
01:02
and he was a republican he is the man
01:05
anti-trump republicans turn to when they
01:08
want to invoke
01:09
reason and moral values into present day
01:12
arguments
01:14
the lincoln project is a political
01:16
action committee
01:17
set up by former republicans to prevent
01:20
donald trump
01:21
being re-elected i want to hear their
01:24
thoughts on the future of the gop
01:26
from rick wilson one of the co-founders
01:29
how could donald trump happen
01:33
well donald trump was not just about the
01:35
republican party it was about american
01:36
culture
01:37
and this is a country that has become
01:39
largely addicted to
01:41
and mediated by reality television and
01:44
so
01:44
the man they saw on the apprentice for
01:46
14 years
01:48
on television looked competent smart
01:52
steady brilliant negotiator great deal
01:54
maker great businessman
01:56
of course we all know in the real world
01:59
that was never
01:59
even close to donald trump’s actual
02:01
character or who he really is
02:03
as a person and a leader but that was
02:06
something that
02:07
between fox and reality television
02:09
republican voters were insulated in this
02:12
uh sphere of irreality of fantasy
02:16
and so donald trump uh reached the
02:19
republican
02:20
presidential stage at a moment where
02:24
where republican voters had become
02:25
increasingly isolated from reality of
02:27
any kind
02:28
and had become increasingly addicted to
02:30
the kind of defiant
02:32
uh oppositional nature of
02:35
fox news and of their own facebook
02:38
groups and their own online
02:39
communities and as those moments um
02:43
you know evolved in the 2016 election
02:46
it became harder and harder for actual
02:48
republicans who had
02:50
you know the ideological predicates of
02:51
the past limited government
02:54
personal responsibility you know strong
02:56
international relations and good
02:58
relationships with our allies
03:00
all of those things were washed away
03:02
because donald trump
03:04
gave them entertainment and
03:07
i mean you you are a former republican
03:10
was there any sense
03:12
how dangerous it could be letting him
03:15
in well i was screaming about how
03:18
dangerous he was since 2015
03:21
and by the by the middle of his
03:24
administration by around 2018
03:26
there had been a massive schism in the
03:28
party there were only two types of
03:30
people left
03:31
those who understood how dangerous he
03:33
was and would speak
03:34
and the vast majority who understood how
03:36
dangerous he was and wouldn’t speak
03:38
you know there’s there’s a secret here
03:40
that most republicans the vast majority
03:42
of the elected officials
03:44
do not like donald trump they are not
03:45
trumpists they are afraid of them
03:48
but they don’t like him they don’t
03:49
regard him or admire him
03:51
now i will say that that doesn’t fix the
03:53
problem
03:54
because with donald trump there is never
03:58
a limit to which he will press these
03:59
folks as we saw this week in america
04:02
where
04:02
17 republican attorneys general in the
04:05
states
04:05
um went out and and pushed hard
04:09
to to have the supreme court invalidate
04:13
the 2020
04:14
election now these people they’ve
04:16
abandoned
04:17
all of their you know former political
04:19
and ideological predicates
04:21
for trump uh and so what you’ve seen is
04:24
a radical transformation of the gop
04:26
into the trump party what what should
04:29
the gop
04:30
do with all these trump supporters i
04:32
mean 73 million voted for him maybe not
04:34
all trump supporters but
04:36
you know i mean what should what should
04:39
the
04:39
the gop do luckily it’s not my problem
04:42
anymore
04:44
you know good riddance um but look
04:47
they have to have a painful
04:49
reconciliation with what they have done
04:51
there has to be a look back at the way
04:54
they have corrupted the party on trump’s
04:56
behalf
04:57
and until they do that i don’t think
04:58
there’s a real solution
05:00
going forward because he has been such a
05:03
transformative figure
05:04
the republican base vote the republican
05:07
the ordinary republican voters there’s
05:09
only one thing they hate more
05:11
than a democrat and that’s a republican
05:13
who hates donald trump
05:15
and so they’re going to be driving the
05:18
party further and further into the
05:19
trumpet space which is authoritarian
05:21
which is nationalist which is highly
05:24
regimented around the obedience to the
05:26
dear leader
05:27
you know it has frightening historical
05:29
precedence and what i worry about as a
05:31
former republican and knowing the sort
05:32
of character of the people still in the
05:34
party
05:35
i’m worried about the more competent
05:37
smart
05:38
presentable version of trump that’s
05:40
going to come down the pike in a few
05:42
years
05:43
that to me is um
05:46
an enormously concerning uh impact of
05:48
trumpism
05:50
what could come out of that asking as a
05:52
german
05:53
well yeah what could go wrong as i like
05:56
to say
05:57
um yeah those sort of things as i said
06:00
there are a lot of historical precedents
06:02
that are not good
06:03
um and not just the german precedent
06:05
there are many many other nations
06:07
um that that have gone down this
06:09
authoritarian statism
06:11
uh and it always leads to an abuse of
06:15
power it always
06:16
at the minimum two abuses of power uh at
06:18
the maximum to the worst case scenarios
06:21
and and i’m afraid that trump has
06:24
conditioned a generation of republicans
06:26
to believe
06:27
that if they don’t get their way that
06:29
they don’t need to work within the
06:30
constitution of the united states that
06:32
they can go an extra constitutional
06:34
extrajudicial extra political route
06:36
which may involve violence
06:38
which may involve the generation of of
06:40
enormous risks
06:41
for the future of one of the world’s
06:43
longest running and
06:44
most robust democracies rick um
06:48
i talked to republicans i have the
06:50
feeling that they are not understanding
06:53
what is going on
06:54
no a lot of them when you’re talking
06:56
about reconciliation but
06:58
from what i i mean experienced the last
07:00
couple of days
07:01
working on this piece i think that they
07:03
don’t quite
07:04
get it no they they don’t understand it
07:07
and they don’t understand that that
07:10
without donald trump
07:12
as the figurehead of their party they’re
07:14
going to lose a meaningful number of
07:16
their own voters
07:18
those voters have become members of a
07:20
trumpist movement a faction
07:22
if you will and that’s not going to go
07:25
away
07:26
his son will pick up the mantle when
07:27
donald trump dies or his daughter
07:30
or people that imitate him very closely
07:33
uh will pick up that mantle and there’s
07:35
nothing that can be done
07:37
about that because the republican party
07:40
has sold itself to trump
07:41
there is no institutional republican
07:43
party left to push back against trumpism
07:46
what does that mean politically for the
07:49
united states and for the rest of the
07:51
world so to speak
07:52
well it means that we have a that the
07:54
emergence of a third party
07:56
in the us is is upon us and that party
07:59
is not
08:00
an american party that party is
08:02
dedicated to authoritarianism
08:04
that party is dedicated to the worship
08:05
of a single family
08:07
um that party is is oppositional
08:11
to anything that gets in their political
08:13
way and that opposition manifests itself
08:16
in ways that are not traditionally seen
08:18
in the american political space
08:20
look the american political space has
08:22
long had a center left
08:24
and a center right and and the the edges
08:28
of both parties
08:29
were not terribly influential and there
08:32
was always a tug of war
08:34
between those center left center right
08:35
voices now
08:37
we have a voice on the extreme right of
08:39
trumpism
08:40
which is um which is driven by again
08:43
that oppositional defiance
08:45
of traditional norms and values and laws
08:49
it’s driven by a hatred of immigrants a
08:52
hatred of
08:54
various races it’s driven by a hatred of
08:58
the elite the educated the experts um
09:01
and that’s a recipe for a country
09:04
that has a major political party that
09:06
does not look like anything we’ve had in
09:08
our history
09:09
there’s never been a true large scale
09:12
i mean we had you know george lincoln
09:15
rockwell
09:16
you know and then we had some of the and
09:18
you had lindbergh in the bund
09:20
back in the 30s that was growing into a
09:22
political force
09:24
but they never manifested at the level
09:26
that the trumpest party is manifesting
09:27
itself
09:28
and that’s something that is that is
09:30
concerning a lot of americans who
09:31
believe
09:32
regardless of their ideology whether
09:34
they’re conservative or progressive or
09:36
whether they’re
09:37
moderate or they’re liberal it’s
09:39
concerning a broad spectrum of americans
09:41
to say
09:42
you know this is a pathway that leads to
09:45
a very bad outcome in this country
09:47
and the concern is rising and it’s right
09:49
to be it’s right to be rising
09:51
and that’s why our group the lincoln
09:52
project has stayed in this fight
09:55
we we know that defeating donald trump
09:57
was only the first step
09:58
trumpism is a more dangerous and more
10:00
pernicious movement
10:02
than anyone could have accounted for
10:04
even a couple years ago
10:05
but it has this very powerful allies in
10:07
the media it has a very powerful ally in
10:10
facebook which allows
10:11
all these these alt-right and
10:14
proto-fascist and
10:16
and and openly fascist groups like the
10:18
proud boys
10:19
to to organize and to use it as a
10:22
bullhorn and to proselytize and
10:24
and to propagandize the american people
10:27
and so we’re seeing
10:28
uh an enormous risk that what follows
10:30
trump is is more dangerous
10:32
because it’s more sophisticated than
10:34
donald trump ever was
10:36
last question rick um what should uh
10:40
the western world learn from this
10:42
example
10:44
you know how dangerous is it when you go
10:45
to bed with the devil as we say you know
10:47
sure and get out of it so what what is
10:49
your message kind of you know
10:51
well look there is there is a clear
10:52
message for for folks in europe
10:54
uh especially because there is a rising
10:58
uh tide of rescission from the
11:00
democratic norms
11:01
that define sort of the atlantic charter
11:04
field and the the eu’s
11:06
uh original mission that recision is
11:08
happening
11:09
all over europe i mean you have erdogan
11:11
in turkey who
11:12
is essentially a dictator um you have
11:15
people
11:16
um who are very alt-right who are who
11:18
are trying to
11:19
you know put on a suit and tie and it’s
11:21
not just the clownish sort of le pen
11:23
types it’s you know people who appear
11:26
presentable who say some of the right
11:27
things
11:28
but who are part of this global
11:30
alt-right movement this global
11:31
this global rising tide will zombasha in
11:35
in albania of all things there’s a guy
11:38
who you know looks presentable he
11:40
doesn’t come out you know wearing a an
11:42
armband
11:43
but the things he says and wants to do
11:45
are enormously dangerous
11:47
if you’re going to look at modern
11:49
european democracies or modern or modern
11:51
western democracies
11:52
writ large and these risk factors have
11:55
appeared in
11:56
asia in south and central america in the
11:58
united states obviously
12:00
and across europe and that’s one of the
12:02
reasons that again our group is fighting
12:04
so hard
12:05
to to in america now
12:08
increasingly abroad to face these kind
12:11
of challenges
12:12
from this from this far right uh
12:15
racially inflected movement
12:16
that has grown i mean look if you look
12:18
at the governments of albania and poland
12:20
and hungary
12:21
you are not looking at things that that
12:23
that the post-war
12:25
consensus would have recognized um as
12:28
embracing the values that that we all
12:31
believed
12:31
shaped the western civilization in the
12:33
in the years after world war
12:34
ii and in the years after the collapse
12:36
of the soviet union
12:38
and so it’s enormously troubling it’s a
12:40
fight that we’re in now and we’re going
12:41
to be in for
12:42
for apparently quite a long time are
12:44
there any leaders in the republican
12:46
party who could kind of take over again
12:48
do you see any figures there may be
12:50
leaders in the republican
12:52
party but it’ll be a smaller party i
12:54
mean look there are guys like mitt
12:56
romney
12:56
and adam kinzinger uh and and some of
12:59
the folks in georgia
13:01
who have said no the president not you
13:03
know was not cheated
13:05
um but that courage is
13:08
is very rare few and far between
13:11
i mean when you’ve only got uh 27
13:14
members of congress in the republican
13:16
side who have acknowledged that joe
13:17
biden won the election
13:19
you’ve got a much smaller party than you
13:20
once had so
13:22
as the conservative side splits the
13:24
trumpist party will be
13:26
two-thirds to five-eighths uh of
13:30
of what was the gop and there’ll be a
13:31
smaller romney sort of republican party
13:35
and that’s not an effective um that’s
13:38
not an effective political party at the
13:39
national scale
13:40
at that point that’s a disturbing
13:42
outlook
13:44
yeah i don’t sleep a lot so and did you
13:48
see like
13:49
how do you schedule how do you kind of
13:51
see the next kind of two years or so
13:53
evolve
13:53
what’s going to happen well i think
13:55
you’re going to see an awful lot of
13:57
republicans
13:58
trying to destroy joe biden’s
14:00
administration very quickly
14:01
they’re going to use legislative tactics
14:03
in the senate particularly
14:05
to deny joe biden the ability to do
14:08
coveted relief
14:10
or health care relief for our hospitals
14:13
and doctors and nurses who have suffered
14:15
so badly during the course of covet
14:17
you’re going to see them block his
14:18
appointments as much as they can
14:21
so their idea is to train wreck
14:25
joe biden’s administration the first two
14:27
years
14:28
so they can recapture the senate at the
14:30
same time you’re going to see a whole
14:31
crop
14:32
of new trump-ist style candidates
14:34
emerging tom cotton josh hawley marco
14:36
rubio mike lee
14:38
ted cruz they’re going to all be running
14:40
for president in 2022
14:42
and you’re going to have donald trump
14:43
and his he’s on paper running for
14:46
president
14:46
but you’re also going to see his son
14:48
preparing to run for president 2022
14:51
so there will be a strong set of
14:52
incentives to keep driving that
14:54
authoritarian statism and and that that
14:57
sort of new
14:58
fascism message of trumpism in the next
15:00
two years to four years
15:02
because that is where the republican
15:04
base has been transformed and that’s
15:06
where those people will go and run to
15:07
try to get their votes
15:10
rick thank you very much i hope we can
15:12
talk again in some
15:13
i would love to that’d be great this is
15:15
an ongoing conversation in the world
15:17
absolutely i’d love to i’d love to see
15:19
because this is kind of well this is
15:21
what we experience as you said in many
15:22
other countries as well
15:24
so stay safe thank you very much you too
15:27
great to talk to you on this i’ll talk
15:28
to you soon

America’s Great Divide: Steve Schmidt Interview | FRONTLINE

Steve Schmidt served as a political strategist for George W. Bush and the John McCain presidential campaign. He is a political analyst for MSNBC and NBC News.

Schmidt’s candid, full interview was conducted with FRONTLINE during the making of the two-part January 2020 documentary series “America’s Great Divide: From Obama to Trump.”

Watch Part One here: https://youtu.be/SnMBYMOTwEs
And Part Two here: https://youtu.be/l5vyDPN19ww

 

 

50:57
And so when you see Donald Trump and you see the servility of the coequal branch of government,
51:05
the absolute unwillingness to confront him, to confront his excesses, his dishonesty, his degradations of the office,
51:14
his attacks on the institutions, is an utter, complete, total abdication of a responsibility and duty that’s historic.
51:26
The “zero tolerance” policy, the family separation issue, you’ve written a little bit about this, I think.
51:34
What’s at stake here?
51:37
I think you sort of pointed to the fact that this was an important point to understand,
51:42
that Trump basically owned the GOP at this point.
51:45
Explain—explain what you’re thinking.
51:46
This is a question of national honor.
51:49
The United States of America should not separate mothers and children
51:55
and lock the children into cages, into detention facilities.
52:00
Should not.
52:02
And it recalls the worst excesses in American history: the separation of African American mothers and children
52:11
during slavery; the separation of mothers and children who were Native Americans.
52:20
We have had great injustice in the country,
52:26
but the greatness of the country is the ability to make great progress combating it.
52:31
It’s wrong.
52:32
When you see a government official with an American flag on their shoulder committing that act, it’s disgraceful,
52:45
it’s dishonorable, it’s cruel, and it’s inhumane.
52:51
But we have become desensitized in this era of Trump to cruelty, to inhumanity, to indecency, to dishonesty,
53:03
to all of our great detriment.
53:06
Why did you leave the party?
53:08
Because the Republican Party—well, I’ll say this.
53:14
I think the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are both broken institutions, the Republican Party more so.
53:24
But while broken, they also are two of the most important institutions in world history
53:32
for the advancement of human dignity and freedom despite all of their flaws.
53:38
For me, I could no longer be a member of a political party that was so corrupted by Donald Trump
53:47
that he consumed lock, stock and barrel, and the leadership of the political party fundamentally capitulated to him.
53:59
The Republican Party’s not a conservative party anymore.
54:02
It’s a party that’s populist, that’s nonsensical at times, that’s illiberal a lot of the time.
54:12
And all of the things that I’ve believed in and have steadily believed in, I still believe in,
54:20
but that institution is no longer the vessel for them.
54:25
… The 2018 midterm elections.
54:28
So Trump uses the [Brett] Kavanaugh story and immigration as a way to excite the voters.
54:37
The media, Fox, stokes it, supports it totally.
54:46
There are a lot of lies that are told about exactly what’s going on.
54:50
What’s—what’s the result?
54:53
As a man who believes in the system and in politics and the way it needs to—how campaigns are run,
55:01
what was your view of what was taking place?
55:04
Well, there was only one issue in the 2018 election.
55:07
It wasn’t immigration; it wasn’t Brett Kavanaugh.
55:10
It was Donald Trump.
55:11
And the question before the nation in 2018 was, are we going to put a check on Donald Trump and the party of Trump?
55:19
And the answer to that question was a decisive yes.
55:23
And part of that decisive yes were millions and millions of Republican voters
55:28
who voted Democratic for the first time in their lives.
55:31
Right.
55:32
This election was also fascinating in the Democratic Party because there was a split within the Democratic Party as well.
55:37
And you’ve got progressives like AOC [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] and others who are—
55:44
who rise up and are elected and become very important voices and define the divide within the Democratic Party.
55:52
What’s going on within the Democratic Party, and in the end, how does it—how does it play out from your perspective?
56:00
Well, you’re seeing a rising extreme in the Democratic Party that is the mirror opposite
56:10
And I think Democrats make a big mistake if they answer Trumpism with dishonest progressivism.
56:16
If you go out and say that we’re going to give everybody free health care, free education;
56:22
give everybody reparations; … we can go and spend hundreds and hundreds of trillions of dollars—this is all fantasy.
56:30
And in a political contest dominated by dishonesty and fantasy—
56:35
and I would suggest that competing against Donald Trump is the equivalent of running a foot race against Usain Bolt.
56:42
Not going to win a dishonesty contest with Donald Trump.
56:45
And so in this moment, what Democrats, in my view, should be focused on is the assemblage of a grand coalition
56:55
that is fidelitous to small “L” liberalism, to our democratic values,
57:01
that Americans of all different types of political persuasion can come into and feel at home in.
57:09
The progressive agenda represented by AOC, a, won’t pass; b, doesn’t have a national constituency;
57:21
and c, could well be the reason that we see a second term for President Donald Trump.
57:27
You think that’s a real possibility?
57:29
Sure do.
57:29
Trump’s rhetoric has been blamed for rising tensions, white supremacists sort of being more blatant in their demands
57:41
and their marches and such, and it is tied directly to the El Paso massacre.
57:47
What is your overview on the power of rhetoric and the repetition of that rhetoric, especially if it’s based on falsities?
57:58
Well, Trump has debased his office; he’s debased the culture; he’s debased our political conversation,
58:06
and he’s done it thousands and thousands and thousands of times over the last three years.
58:11
He’s a racist; he’s a race baiter; he has worsened racial divisions in this country.
58:18
He has energized the white supremacist movement in the country,
58:22
and we know that’s true because the white supremacists thank him openly for doing so.
58:29
Now, we see a president who divides, who stokes, who incites, who appeals in almost every instance
58:40
not to the better angels but to the worst impulses,
58:43
the worst instincts and the basest, darkest aspects of American history and American life.
58:51
And what does this mean long term for your GOP, your party that you used to belong to?
58:58
Well, the Republican Party will be completely transformed, probably fatally, by its contact with Donald Trump.
59:08
And that may play out over five years, over 10 years.
59:13
But when you look at the demographics in the country, there will always be a market for a conservative message.
59:21
But Trumpism is cancerous, and everything it touches will ultimately be consumed by it.
59:30
But far more important than the effect of the Republican Party is the effect on the country.
59:38
It weakens American democracy.
59:42
And I think it’s also important to understand that the Democratic Party will not remain untouched by Trumpism also.
59:52
How so?
59:53
Well, if crudity, if meanness, if vulgarity, if inhumanity become mainstreamed,
60:02
if the lesson of this generation of progressive politicians is to be like Trump but with different policies,
60:11
then the Democratic Party will be consumed by it as the Republican Party has.
60:16
The—both sides coming up to the upcoming elections warn about apocalypse.
60:26
The consequences if the other side wins are just unfathomable.
60:32
Is this the new norm?
60:35
Each election has always been the most important election in American history,
60:41
and the men and women running for president have always made it clear that their candidacy represents
60:48
the decisive moment and the last chance to avoid the apocalypse.
60:56
It may be true in this election.
60:58
This country will be changed in ways that will be difficult to unmake if Donald Trump gets a second term. …
61:10
Donald Trump is cruel, vile; he’s debased his office; he’s incompetent.
61:17
But it’s a mistake to dismiss him as inconsequential.
61:21
We are at the end of the long life spans of the people who stormed the beaches in Normandy,
61:28
who survived the death camps.
61:30
And what Franklin Roosevelt’s goal when he envisioned the world that we live in today,
61:35
when he architected the post-World War II U.S.-led liberal global order that was maintained
61:43
from President Truman through President Obama, his aspiration wasn’t that it would endure forever.
61:51
What he said is he wanted it to endure so long as every person
61:57
who was living in the country during the war was alive on the earth.
62:04
We’re at the end of that era.
62:06
And we see Donald Trump unraveling that U.S.-led liberal global order.
62:13
We see a regression of democracy all over the world.
62:17
We have an illiberal president who assaults our institutions, our values, our democracy, who debases our culture.
62:29
Another term for Donald Trump will validate his election; it will validate his behavior.
62:36
He will be unchecked, and the damage will be much, much harder to undo if it can ever be undone.
62:44
So we’ve talked about two presidents that were change candidates,
62:51
that the public turned to because they were so angry with the status quo in Washington and in the country.
62:59
What did we learn from that, and where do we go from here?
63:07
Another change candidate but in another direction?
63:12
I mean, as [David] Axelrod says, you always go to the opposite on the next election
63:19
because the people are tired of what the last guy did.
63:22
What’s your take on American politics and where we go from here?
63:29
The Democratic Party’s obligation in this election is to produce a political leader who can defeat Donald Trump
63:40
and to defeat Trumpism, not to defeat Trump by being a mirror of Trump, but to assemble a coalition
63:49
that can inspire the nation to move past this depraved era
63:54
and to face the challenges that the country has to face full-on, head-on.
64:00
And so when we look at the Democratic Party right now, it’s no accident that Trump is labeling Democrats,
64:07
and some of those Democratic politicians are making it easy for them when he calls them socialists,
64:12
because Trump understands this: In America, the socialist loses to a sociopath in every election,
64:21
every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
64:25
I just have one question about Trump’s use of social media.
64:30
Some have said he’s the first politician to ever do that,
64:34
but it seems that Sarah Palin was really pretty instrumental in using Facebook as a way to reach her audience.
64:39
Can you just connect those two ideas?
64:42
Well, I don’t—look, I don’t think they’re analogous.
64:51
IPhones were invented in 2007, so the ubiquity of social media, the portability of social media, the instant nature
65:03
of social media is something that didn’t exist in 2008 but certainly does now, and he uses it to great effect.
65:12
… One other small thing is the use of divisive issues that he—that he falls back on, like the NFL.
65:24
How powerful is that, and why does he do it?
65:30
Well, Trump understands—Trump understands the power of symbols,
65:38
and he understands the emotional resonance of those symbols to millions and millions of Americans.
65:46
And so he is a—he is a very talented demagogue.
65:55
He is a very skilled liar.
65:59
He is an excellent communicator, and he speaks in a language that people can relate to and that people can understand.
66:10
That’s an important thing for his political opponents to understand also.
66:14
And this immigration issue, which is so central to—I mean, does it remain central in the upcoming elections?
66:22
I mean, why?
66:24
Does the potency wear off at some point?
66:28
Well, what you’re seeing now is a reciprocal extremism from a lot of the Democrats.
66:34
Now you watch the Democratic debates, it’s fair to ask, well, do you believe there should be a border at all?
66:41
And so most Americans, overwhelmingly, Republicans and Democrats, believe yes, there ought to be a sovereign border.
66:50
We should know who’s in the country.
66:52
And so there’s no constituency for the most extreme positions that you’re seeing on the Democratic side.
66:59
Trump understands that.
67:01
And so we have an immigration debate that’s not just venal; it’s completely detached from reality.
67:08
When the debate is we’re talking about Mexican-built walls,
67:12
we are sending military to the border in publicity-stunt exercises as if there was a Panzer division
67:20
about to break through the southern border en route to Washington.
67:24
It’s a theater of the absurd playing out as opposed to an issue that needs to be reckoned with
67:31
and dealt with in a humane, responsible and commonsensical way.

“How Do Democracies Fall Apart (And Could it Happen Here)?” Session 2

63:45
which this with this Chetty study has
63:47
established which I won’t belabor
63:49
likewise lack of mobility as such is
63:53
strongly related to lack of social
63:55
mobility if you’re between 18 and 34 in
63:56
the United States you are you are most
63:59
likely living with your parents it’s
64:02
more likely than any other arrangement
64:04
which means that literally you have not
64:06
moved right lack of geographical
64:08
mobility like worsening health like
64:11
shortening lifespans like lack of social
64:14
mobility works against a sense of time
64:17
which allows you to think that time is
64:19
moving forward right and so the time
64:22
escapes start to change now how does
64:24
this work in politics in politics it can
64:29
be it can be you can be channeled moved
64:31
incorporated exploited however you
64:34
prefer by politicians who talk in terms
64:37
of a different time scape so for example
64:40
make America great again is a time scape
64:42
which doesn’t refer to a better future
64:44
it’s a time scape which loops back to an
64:46
unnamed and mythical past right so now
64:49
there are studies now about what make
64:51
America great again means for Americans
64:53
for example Taylor at all in the Journal
64:55
of applied research and memory cognition
64:57
finds not surprisingly that Americans
65:00
define the moment when America was great
65:02
in the past as the moment when they were
65:03
young right
65:08
which is funny but I think it’s also
65:14
politically very significant because it
65:16
refers us to a certain political style
65:18
which I’m going to call the politics of
65:19
eternity or the government as being
65:21
rather than than doing because one of
65:24
the things about youth is that
65:26
government can’t give it back to you
65:28
right I mean whether wherever we are on
65:31
the span of like how much government
65:33
should do not do can we will generally
65:35
agree that government cannot in fact
65:37
make you young again right so this is
65:40
funny but it’s also revealing because
65:43
the pot what I’m gonna call the politics
65:45
of eternity the politics of cycling back
65:47
to the past rather than imagining of
65:49
future is precisely about defining
65:52
political problems in fictional terms
65:54
and therefore in irresolvable terms so
65:58
if what you want out of politics is to
66:00
be young again you might keep voting for
66:02
that promise but government is not going
66:05
to give it for you and can’t I will now
give you a more serious example one of
the things which distinguishes white
trump voters from white Clinton voters
is that a significant majority of white
Trump voters in a very small minority of
white Clinton voters it’s an interesting
difference a significant majority of
white Trump voters believe that White’s
face greater racial discrimination in
the United States than blacks do now
that is interesting but it’s also
interesting politically because that’s a
fictional problem if you are white and
you believe that your problem is that
you face Greater racism then black
people do again that is not a problem
that government can solve right it’s an
in it’s an because it’s a fictional
problem now I’m trying this is not meant
to be funny it’s meant to define a
different political style a Timescape in
which government doesn’t promise you a
better future but instead regularly in a
cyclical way mentions the things which
irritate you which are important to you
which cannot be solved the politics of
doing rather than being if that seems
imaginary consider the first year of the
Trump administration there is no
legislation which is going to make any
of these kinds of voters it’s not going
to speak to what we would regard as
their interests or even to an ideology
right
um the two major initiatives are take
health insurance away from people which
is precisely interesting because it’s
people who needed the health insurance
most who were the swing group which
brought him into office right that’s the
first one and the second one is tax
regression right
the second major policy initiative his
tax regression precisely taking income
away from poor people and giving it to
richer people that’s it in the landscape
of the first year those are the only two
things neither of those things can be
thought of as creating a future right
those things if anything only makes only
make matters only make matters as one
might see it worse so where does this
where does this lead us to the first
thing is I’m gonna referring to to where
reception Dvorsky ended up it may not be
that the thing we have to worry about is
whether mr. Trump will fail I mean I
don’t think he’s actually after success
in the normal liberal sense of the word
I think he’s after failure I don’t think
they intend to make policy which makes
life better for their constituents I
think they’re moving very consciously
towards a different kind of policy um I
think it’s a mistake
therefore to refer to this as populism
because in American tradition anyway
populism means you’re against the elites
but you still imagine the government is
going to do something for you I think
we’re in a different territory I think
we’re in something which is more
accurately characterized as Sadopopulism
where you you are against the
elites right but you don’t expect
government to do anything for you in
fact you kind of want government not to
do anything because that reinforces your
beliefs about the way the world works so
where does this lead us this is my final
word where does this lead us on the
question of of comparison right so what
I worry with when when people say well
it’s it doesn’t line up well to the
interwar cases there are difference
between US and Nazi Germany what I were
69:06
with is about that is the implicit
69:08
conclusion that therefore everything’s
69:10
a-okay right everything’s not a okay
69:12
just because it’s not February 1933 and
69:15
thoughts of Germany I think the way to
69:17
understand the comparisons is more as a
69:20
source of normative
69:22
action right I’m not gonna make that
69:24
case now because it’s the case I made in
69:25
the book on tyranny it’s not that where
69:27
we are now is going to inevitably lead
69:29
to czechoslovakia 1948 or you know
69:32
germany in 1933 it’s that those regime
69:35
changes or the witnesses to those regime
69:37
changes give us useful and timely advice
69:39
about how to head off regime changes in
69:42
in rule of law states I think the
69:44
comparisons are most useful in that way
69:46
most useful is a general guideline that
69:49
globalization’s can crash
69:51
most of our comparisons are about the
69:53
first globalization crash we’re now in
69:54
the middle we’re now in the middle of
69:56
number two what I think is that we can
69:59
move away from democracy we can learn
70:02
away we can learn from other people
70:04
while we’re doing didn’t try to resist
70:06
it even though where we’re going is
70:08
going to be somewhat different I mean as
70:09
for me where I think we’re going or
70:11
where we seem to be going is is
70:12
something like you know oligarchy with
70:14
just enough fascism to get by as a kind
70:17
of lubricant and and the and the way
70:21
this would look would be not so much the
70:23
creation of something new but just the
70:25
dissolution of what we have right and
70:27
not I completely agree with the point
70:30
not mobilization but demobilization are
70:33
only very occasional mobilization like
70:36
very occasional marches very occasional
70:38
violence but mostly the mobilization at
70:40
atomization and what’s worrying about
70:42
that is that then you know implicitly
70:45
the people who in some of these
70:46
presentations were counted on to come
70:47
save us right the economic elites
70:49
whoever they are that the economic
70:52
elites can be on the same side that you
70:54
you can be an economic elite and you can
70:56
think in you know environment Germany
70:58
you can be the economic or in Italy you
70:59
can be the economic elites and you can
71:00
think rightly or wrong you can think
71:02
wrongly we can outwit these guys maybe
71:05
in America you’re the economic elites
71:07
and you think correctly you can outwit
71:10
these guys but the outcome still isn’t
71:12
democracy right if you continue to have
71:15
the kinds of drift that we’re having
71:16
with the outcome still to democracy it
71:18
might not be anything that has another
71:19
dramatic name but it’s not necessarily
71:21
democracy so the the point that I’m
71:24
trying to make is that we’re at this
71:26
historical moment in the sense that not
71:28
just that great things are at stake and
71:30
that in that in the actions and
71:31
Institute
71:32
that we take now make a lot of
71:33
difference but also historical in the
71:34
sunset the way people are thinking about
71:36
time is changing I mean if that tips if
71:41
that if we tip from one way of thinking
71:42
about time to another if I’m right that
71:44
there is such a tipping point then we’re
71:46
closer to dramatic change than other
71:48
kinds of indicators might suggest okay
71:51
thanks thank you for those amazing
72:02
presentations I think that probably we
72:05
could re title this whole conference how
72:07
scared should we be and this panel in
72:11
particular you know sort of how
72:12
terrified should we be and I think the
72:14
reason we’re seeing a lot of answers to
72:17
that question that kind of vary across
72:18
the spectrum from you know completely
72:20
terrified to only mildly concerned is
72:23
that we really don’t know I mean who
72:25
knows you know that’s sort of the point
72:27
no one knows how history is going to
72:29
unfold we’ve certainly been surprised by
72:31
it in the last year and not just in the
72:34
last year so the answer to the question
72:37
is not is not no and I like to tell my
72:39
students you know I asked them a
72:40
question I say that’s a real question
72:42
not a professor question you know we we
72:45
really don’t know and so if you’re like
72:47
me at all you you go back and forth in
72:49
your own mind over even over the course
72:51
of the day I wake up in the morning and
72:52
I think oh you know it’s gonna be okay
72:54
and then by you know 3:00 in the
72:56
afternoon I want to crawl under a pillow
72:57
and just you know be one of these actors
73:00
who’s stayed away from Rome for the
73:02
whole whistling period so so we have we
73:07
do have kind of a range of responses and
73:10
one of the inspirations for bright-line
73:12
watch is that you know you look for
73:14
signs of what is going to happen and the
73:16
last thing you want to do is see the
73:18
sign in the rear view mirror we don’t
73:20
want to be treating in retrospect at the
73:23
signs we don’t want to say well it
73:24
really was the moment when Judge Garland
73:27
didn’t get a chance to be confirmed or
73:29
it was the moment when you know fill in
73:31
the blank when things really became
73:33
irreversible and and democracy died or
73:36
became severely eroded in the United
73:39
States in a way that would be very very
73:40
difficult to recuperate over any
73:43
meaningful time period so
73:46
I have some some questions I remember
73:49
that you folks are writing down
73:51
questions and filtering them to headman
73:53
who’s standing over to the side we have
73:55
a few questions I like a two-door I’m
73:57
going to take some moderator prerogative
74:01
enact ask a few questions but I’m
74:03
mindful of not taking too much time
74:05
because I know that there will be more
74:06
questions from the audience and that
74:07
these were highly provocative and
74:09
interesting presentations so just just a
74:12
few questions for Nancy you and there
74:19
the concept of distancing which which I
74:23
took to mean and I’ve taken from your
74:24
early earlier work to mean that even if
74:27
my ally even if the person who I’m a
74:30
elite political actor and someone who
74:33
I’m in alliance with violates a critical
74:36
norm or constitutional feature I will
74:42
join the effort to punish that actor but
74:46
I’m thinking about another kind of not
74:48
distancing but let’s call it
74:49
constitutional action and I’ve I’m
74:52
thinking about this in part because
74:54
seeing our tutor this morning thinking
74:56
about his fascinating retrospective
74:58
considerations of what happened in Chile
75:00
there were moments in the sort of
75:02
slow-moving debacle of Chilean politics
75:06
where it went from being a long-standing
75:07
democracy to being a coup and a military
75:11
dictatorship that lasted for 17 years
75:13
and was extremely repressive and harsh
75:16
there there’s the sense of you know
75:19
moments when say the Christian Democrats
75:21
might have said it’s good for us if this
75:24
happens but it’s really it’s a it’s a
75:26
danger for Chilean democracy so that’s a
75:29
slightly different concept I think
75:30
that’s putting the long-term health and
75:34
viability of the constitutional order
75:36
ahead of immediate partisan advantage
75:40
and I wonder whether in the cases you
75:43
examined and more to the point in
75:47
American politics today you see room for
75:49
those kinds of moments of constitutional
75:51
action on it your presentation makes me
75:56
think that Trump is Fidesz and piece
75:58
right that we’re sort of we you walk
76:02
through the actions that those
76:05
governments amazingly parallel kind of
76:07
template’s as you described them and it
76:10
makes me think that we’re sort of only
76:11
halfway there so the courts are
76:14
politicized well you know Melania is not
76:17
making judicial appointments yes or I
76:19
guess it the real equivalent would be
76:21
mrs. pence so the media in the United
76:26
States is harassed but there aren’t
76:28
really formal constraints that have been
76:30
imposed for the most part yet
76:33
and the question then is again this this
76:36
issue of what are the signposts and when
76:38
do you see them in in Hungary and Poland
76:42
2010-2015 was it predictable were there
76:45
you know forward-looking intellectuals
76:48
journalists concerned citizens who saw
76:50
these things coming or or were they
76:53
really surprises questions for sort of
76:58
this is sort of Susan and Tim but well
77:02
Susan mostly I it’s it’s you both raised
77:07
in your presentations the very important
77:09
point that what we are observing is
77:11
taking is unfolding in an international
77:13
context and what we do influence is what
77:16
other democracies do and likewise what
77:19
they do influence is what we do and I
77:21
guess I’m looking for any hope in that
77:26
so instances in which we might learn or
77:29
be or be forewarned or take actions
77:34
drawing on international contemporary
77:36
international events that that might
77:39
help with the situation here there were
77:41
I recall with the French election there
77:43
was some speculation that it didn’t help
77:45
lepen to have a Trump out there that
77:48
perhaps that gave that gave some french
77:50
voters pause Daniel you it was
77:55
interested in the so the the sort of
77:59
problems of lines being crossed of norms
78:02
being violated and the examples you gave
78:05
were pretty much on the Republican side
78:07
and I so our colleague Jacob hacker has
78:12
written a lot about asymmetric
78:13
polarization I wonder if you think this
78:16
is an asymmetric problem or if they’re
78:18
symmetric more along the lines of what
78:20
team or Quran was talking about this
78:22
morning if there’s a kind of symmetrical
78:24
equilibrium that we’ve that was sort of
78:26
a bad equilibrium that we’ve entered
78:28
into Tim I am it’s mind-blowing to think
78:35
about the you know the sort of social
78:38
construction of our sense of time and
78:41
and and how that influences politics on
78:44
the other hand I’m very struck by you
78:46
know the make America great again
78:48
narrative so that means he you know the
78:52
the the the slogan is collectively sort
78:54
of doing what you say we do as
78:56
individuals thinking that there’s a you
78:58
know there’s an adolescence or a teenage
78:59
period of early 20s sort of in in our in
79:02
our national so I’m equivalent to that
79:04
in our national history that is a moment
79:06
we want to get back to and that strikes
79:09
me as setting up setting the government
79:13
up for the setting Trump up for you know
79:16
greatly disappointing his constituents
79:18
for some of the reasons act reasons you
79:20
gave and although I take what you say
79:23
that perhaps you know the the the goal
79:26
is not success on the Ute and the usual
79:29
metrics that politicians use such as
79:32
high popularity when the next election
79:34
comes around in re-election so those are
79:38
some questions maybe we could just get
79:39
to them while while people in the
79:41
audience are filtering out any other
79:43
written questions that you want to have
79:44
a so yeah I I’m delighted that you asked
79:49
this question about distancing in the US
79:52
and whether there could possibly be a
79:55
different kind of distancing here
79:57
because I I was struggling with that way
79:59
myself as I was writing this the kind of
80:02
distancing that we saw in interwar
80:04
Europe where political elites were
80:07
facing fascist parties were engaging in
80:09
violence gave them a less ambiguous
80:12
signal than we’re getting
80:14
here you know if mobs are killing people
80:17
you know that wrong has been done if
80:20
you’re talking about violations of
80:23
constitutional principles or norms that
80:26
fight is is much much more ambiguous and
80:30
so distancing under those circumstances
80:32
is much harder and so frankly I’m still
80:37
grappling with the idea that how that
80:40
concept can be transferred to this kind
80:44
of system but there’s no doubt that
80:47
battles over the constitutional norms in
80:50
the courts would be a place to start
80:53
that would be an arena for distancing
80:55
but it’s going to be much harder here
80:57
except that I am assuming that money
81:02
still has a huge amount of importance
81:07
universe politics and that if you if if
81:11
the most dynamic sectors of our economy
81:13
can get behind some sort of distancing
81:16
and realize that they don’t need the
81:18
nationalism especially or the xenophobia
81:21
that’s embodied in the particular kind
81:23
of challenge we have which doesn’t
81:25
involve actual killing yeah
81:27
then I think that that it is still
81:30
possible but that the battles may take
81:33
place in the court and that’s part of a
81:38
historical continuity but not completely
81:42
so it was was what happened in Poland
81:45
and Hungary predictable um it was I mean
81:47
this is you know – this is basically the
81:48
death of a democratic there’s a
81:51
chronicle the Democratic Death Foretold
81:53
um and it was predictable because you
81:55
know the leaders were very clear on this
81:56
right they wanted not just to remake
81:57
policies but to remake the institutions
81:59
of polish and Hungarian democracy to
82:01
better serve national interests right
82:03
this was very much you know making
82:04
Poland and Hungary great again secondly
82:06
there was precedent right the
82:08
institution’s had not been impervious to
82:10
this before there’s been put the
82:11
polarization of the judiciary in the
82:12
past there was a previous attacks on the
82:15
media this was just a much more
82:16
concerted effort um and third I think
82:18
will response important was that these
82:19
are parliamentary systems and in times
82:22
past these fairly fragile governing
82:24
coalition’s I will kept these parties
82:25
from fully exercising their Prague
82:27
and now in the absence of either in
82:29
opposition or coalition partners they
82:31
were able to do exactly what he said
82:33
they would so serious question for me
82:41
was what basically what’s the hope from
82:43
thinking about this isn’t international
82:45
events both u.s. you deserve in other
82:49
countries in that other countries are
82:50
affecting the US and that was a very
82:52
difficult question I have lots of things
82:54
that I might say I mean one thing to
82:56
just note is part something that I don’t
82:58
think isn’t a viewpoint that’s it’s
82:59
going to be presented much at the
83:00
conference which is sort of Mia culpa
83:03
from some of the IR scholars with who
83:05
are really promoting open economy
83:08
politics Pro globalization stuff which
83:11
is just that you know the the embedded
83:13
liberal liberal liberal compromise that
83:15
we knew about and we have known about
83:16
for a very long time was not
83:18
successfully implemented in the US and
83:20
that that both economically and
83:22
culturally maybe maybe a fault and is
83:25
maybe something that policies
83:26
prescriptions could deal with right
83:28
their policy that others have have
83:31
potentially thought about I guess the
83:33
other thing that is not really hopeful
83:35
but I think something that I skipped
83:37
over in my remarks because I was 10
83:39
which has just said when I very much
83:42
interested in how countries react to
83:45
international pressure to look and act a
83:47
certain way right and so some autocratic
83:49
posturing that I think we are seeing now
83:51
might be for short term sort of applause
83:55
and political gain rather than like it
83:57
might some of it might sound worse than
83:59
it actually is which is not really that
84:01
hopeful but I do think that there are
84:04
incentives that that some leaders that
84:06
we see throughout the world to act you
84:10
know more more totalitarian more fascist
84:13
more you know they sort of take these
84:15
these dances that are that are quite
84:16
extreme because they know they will get
84:18
attention for taking those those dance
84:21
which is not entirely good news but I
84:23
think can be interpreted as something
84:25
that is maybe slightly less nefarious
84:28
and the extremely clever long-term long
84:31
game autocrats that it’s referencing who
84:32
are able to abide by the rules of the
84:35
game up right up until the moment in
84:37
which they they break with them right so
84:39
I think that that is a long term in the
84:41
long term I’m more worried about that
84:42
sort of strategy rather than the sort of
84:45
splashy head like grab bean you know
84:47
attacks in the media and that’s not sort
84:50
of thing which are consequential but I
84:51
think not quite as nefarious as some of
84:53
the other strategies that one could
84:54
imagine and that are harder to observe
84:56
unhappy yeah so two thoughts one
85:00
directly on your question on the
85:01
asymmetric polarization no I I mean I
85:03
think that the record shows that it
85:04
began on the right you know and you know
85:07
people often date this the Gingrich
85:09
revolution and kind of change tactics in
85:11
Congress and Orrin Mann and Ornstein and
85:13
the work on the US Congress have kind of
85:16
shown this but it you know it’s not it’s
85:18
not only Republicans who are vulnerable
85:20
to this I mean Harry Reid’s use of the
85:21
filibuster in the early 2000s against
85:24
Bush I mean this is clearly another
85:25
instance of this and that I guess that’s
85:27
what’s dangerous is that is that it mate
85:29
you know it doesn’t at some level you
85:30
know begins on one side but then when it
85:32
escalates and it becomes a kind of
85:34
spiral that’s exactly exactly the
85:36
dangerous scenario even the dilemma of
85:38
course is you know we should stay
85:40
high-minded and continue act with four
85:42
born before Barents in the face of
85:43
somebody who’s not I mean it’s like
85:45
going into a box you mean with one one
85:47
hand tied behind your back does that
85:48
really make sense and I guess my thought
85:50
on that is that as long as there are
85:52
Democratic channels still available
85:53
that’s the way to go I mean you know
85:55
this is the right answer but that’s
85:57
that’s that’s kind of how I think about
85:59
it I just wanted to say something also
86:00
on the distancing and learning because I
86:02
think there is actually something that
86:03
can be learned about other cases of dis
86:05
distancing and just you know just
86:06
recently in the last two years I mean
86:08
what’s striking about the Austrian
86:10
elections last year of presidential
86:11
elections and the French presidential
86:12
elections in both cases in the Austrian
86:15
case the Catholics didn’t make it to the
86:17
second round and they and a lot of
86:19
Catholic politicians endorsed the Green
86:21
Party candidate for president in France
86:23
fiown and endorsed that you know the
86:26
right
86:26
– right candidate endorsed McCrone
86:28
rather than lepen and so both cases
86:30
there’s instances of distancing kind of
86:33
on the right – against the far right and
86:37
so we can learn from that and I think
86:38
one of the interesting things is why in
86:40
these countries this has happened the
86:41
waters in the US this hasn’t happened
86:43
and I think part of the reason is in a
86:45
in a multi-party system in Austria and a
86:48
two tiers you know with a runoff system
86:50
and in France there’s a history of this
86:51
and in both instances people were in
86:53
Austria they refer back to Kurt Waldheim
86:55
and say well you know we have learned
86:56
from this in France there’s the
86:58
experience of father lepen and dealing
87:00
with father lepen and so I think you
87:02
know if the idea is that you know the
87:03
u.s. we just didn’t have we haven’t had
87:04
experience with this and there’s
87:06
possibility for learning and this is
87:08
kind of where you know human action
87:09
actually can make a difference so people
87:10
could learn from we can learn from our
87:12
mistakes and my guess is next time
87:14
around you know hopefully people learned
87:17
something right so there’s something I
87:18
learned from other cases as well okay so
87:24
there were the the question about any
87:27
hopeful things internationally and then
87:29
the idea of making America great again
87:31
it cannot lead to disappointment so
87:33
internationally I’m just gonna take a
87:35
step back and make the point that I
87:36
think the winning the Cold War both the
87:40
idea and the fact has turned out to be
87:42
very poison chalice for us so the idea
87:45
that therefore there were no
87:46
alternatives
87:47
I think stultified our political debate
87:49
precisely about alternatives and made
87:51
inequality much worse in this country in
87:54
the last quarter century and the reality
87:56
of the end of the Cold War was also bad
87:57
for us because one of the reasons we had
87:59
civil rights in the welfare state was to
88:01
compete with not so much with the
88:03
Soviets but to respond to their
88:04
propaganda and without that challenge we
88:06
drifted in another direction so that’s
88:09
just I mean that’s just by way of making
88:11
oneself conscious so that one can learn
88:13
things well could we have learned I mean
88:15
the book that I’m that I’m finishing now
88:17
is about this it’s about the last five
88:19
or six years not starting from us but
88:21
starting from Russia with the idea that
88:23
most of the things which happened here
88:25
which seem surprising to us are just
88:27
more sophisticated versions of things
88:28
which happened in other countries which
88:30
we didn’t recognize at the time so I
88:33
mean here I’m 5050 there are a lot of
88:35
things we could have learned for
88:36
Russia and Ukraine between 2011 and 2015
88:39
but we didn’t learn any of them um
88:42
and the consequence was that in 2016 in
88:44
my world at least it was the Russians
88:46
and Ukrainians who were jumping up and
88:48
down saying you know Trump is possible
88:50
this is how it works in other people’s
88:51
worlds it would be the African Americans
88:53
but there are plenty of segments of the
88:55
pocket or the renegade Midwesterners
88:57
right there were various demographics
88:58
who said Trump was gonna win but the
89:00
Russians and Ukrainians said he was
89:01
gonna win and they had a reason
89:02
no um people there are people there are
89:05
positive exceptions like Peter
89:06
pomerantsev in his book nothing is true
89:08
but everything is possible which is you
89:10
know on its surface a book about the
89:12
media in Russia ends that book which
89:15
concludes in 2014 ends that book by
89:17
forecasting that that combination of
89:20
media unreality and political
89:22
authoritarianism is going to come to the
89:24
UK and to United States and then there’s
89:27
brexit and then there’s and then there’s
89:28
Trump so and then there are people like
89:30
pet rock Rocco in Hungary you know who
89:32
runs political capital who does who do
89:34
Studies on directed unreality right
89:37
foreign projections of unreality in the
89:39
Czech Republic and Slovakia and those
89:41
things are useful for us to read because
89:43
the things that were happening gotten
89:46
further in the Czech Republic and
89:47
Slovakia and Hungary then here
89:50
nevertheless started to turn up here in
89:52
2050 so yeah I mean analytically we can
89:54
definitely learn from others and of
89:55
course civil resistance is something
89:57
that we can learn from other people
89:58
right we can swallow our pride and
89:59
realize that there’s been a lot of
90:01
successful civil resistance movements in
90:03
other countries and that the social
90:05
science on civil resistance is actually
90:06
very mature the second point on whether
some of these some of these voters will
be disappointed because they imagine a
better world in the past and they’re not
going to get it I don’t think so and
I’ll tell you why I think I mean there
there will be Republican voters will be
disappointed with Trump but that’s a
different set of Republican voters there
are two sets of Republican voters there
are the ones who own house doesn’t have
money in the stock market and are the
ones who don’t own houses that don’t
have money in the stock market the ones
who own houses are gonna be disappointed
when the stock market crashes and that’s
not gonna have anything to do with these
narratives that I’m talking about
and I don’t treat them as the critical
bloc of voters because they went for
Romney – right they did they didn’t
change anything but these folks the nine
million people who voted for Obama and
then
for Trump or the people whose health is
getting worse but voted for Trump the
people in Michigan Wisconsin West
Virginia Ohio Pennsylvania who swung the
election
these folks I don’t think can be
disappointed in that way that that’s my
point you know it’s you want to be young
again but you know at some level you’re
not going to be young again you’d like
the person who tells you look great but
you know at some level it’s not true
right and that’s how that no look for
you it’s true you’re like 15 but but I
mean the general right you know it’s not
true and that’s how this kind of
politics works it’s not by the delivery
of goods it’s by the regular delivery of
affirmation as against someone else
we’re where white Republicans become in
political science terms the slope the
identitarian subalterns who are
expecting to own the state but what they
only expect from the state is that they
own it
that’s it they’re not expecting that
it’s going to do anything for them the
other thing I want to say about making
America great again that links back to
the other point is that the make America
great again does have a specific
historical referent not for us for us
it’s about being young again that for
mr. Trump it’s about the 1930s or the
1920s it is a it’s a revision of the
1930s as being a time where we didn’t
have a welfare state and where we didn’t
go to war against Nazi Germany right
that’s what America first means America
first is Deutschland uber alles in
English America first means we have more
in common with Nazis than divides us and
there is you know the fact they did they
commemorate Holocaust Remembrance Day by
saying other people suffer besides the
Jews which is like commemorating the
fourth of July by talking about French
independence I mean it’s true that there
are like other possible references in
history but like the holiday is for one
of them and there are a number of other
examples of this how they’re trying to
undo a certain American myth and what it
comes down to is that we used to think
the 1930s were a bad time to be learned
from and now we’re being instructed not
just in America this is international in
Russia Poland Hungary and also
implicitly by the fullness and island
France said by the brexit movement in
Britain we are we were being instructed
the 1930s were a good time to which to
which we should loop back
I have some questions so this is a
question for Susan Hyde and Anna G B
while the EU is powerless not able and
93:01
willing to move effectively against
93:03
democratic erosion how successful have
93:06
other regional organizations around the
93:07
world been to fight forms of democratic
93:09
erosion eg Mercosur a you just one
93:19
question at a time uh yeah I think so I
93:21
think we will see how far behind we get
93:24
on that yeah yeah I mean the so there
93:26
there’s some empirical work on this that
93:28
other people have done and and you know
93:29
it’s very hard to separate from the
93:31
international environment entirely right
93:33
so I don’t know who I should but
93:36
basically I I think that the the
93:40
European Union and other regional
93:43
organizations most of which in the world
93:45
have a stated preference to support
93:47
democracy have some ability to do
93:50
something right now right I mean there’s
93:51
no reason why the US needs to be the
93:53
only country that is willing to stand in
93:56
defense of democracy and and
93:57
increasingly I think others are stepping
93:59
into that role what can they do you know
94:03
not much but a little they can they can
94:07
sort of make clear that this is a value
94:10
that the groups of countries definitely
94:12
support I don’t know that they can do
94:15
anything for the u.s. specifically the
94:17
case that were most concerned with today
94:19
but in smaller countries they certainly
94:20
have made it clear that Jews are
94:25
unacceptable for example this is already
94:27
one of the biggest moments we’ve seen in
94:28
recent memory on this front is that most
94:32
countries that have coos many of them
94:35
have been pro-democracy coos right that
94:37
they’re not against democratically
94:39
elected leaders they’re against
94:40
basically authoritarian leaders we’ve
94:42
seen a few of these but even those have
94:45
been on pretty strict timelines for
94:46
democratic elections following those so
94:48
you know we’ll see I’m not super
94:51
optimistic that they’re the saviors of
94:53
us democracies certainly and I would say
94:56
that knew the EU shizuka-san was
94:57
familiar with isn’t captain some ways
94:59
responsible for the rights of the
95:00
populace right because and they run up
95:02
to you accession in 2004 there’s
95:03
basically this elite consensus among all
95:05
mainstream parties that the EU was this
95:07
fantastic good that premarket was
95:09
wonderful and free trade and everything
95:10
else have went together as a wonderful
95:12
package and the only parties that
95:14
criticizes consensus or the populist who
95:16
at the time we’re getting you know five
95:18
percent of the vote and it’s after the
95:19
accession when it becomes apparent that
95:21
neo maybe this there was some room more
95:23
for criticism
95:24
it’s the populace who make hay out of
95:25
every single
95:27
some deleterious effect of free trade of
95:29
the EU and so on and they’re the ones
95:31
who then come to power on the basis of
95:33
this elite consensus and now anytime
95:34
that the EU speaks against these parties
95:36
they point to it as this is further
95:38
severe negation of our national self
95:39
interests that the EU is prompting so we
95:41
now have to you know go to our loins and
95:43
defend against the EU okay this is a
95:47
question for the panel in general and
95:50
Nancy bur mayo in particular you say
95:53
that the tendency what can you say about
95:55
the tendency of citizens to vote along
95:58
personal political issues ie those
95:59
heavily influenced by cultural
96:01
predilection predilections such as gun
96:04
control or abortion rather than in the
96:07
interest of democratic norms
96:13
not much so what one thing I think that
96:20
we don’t fully appreciate that is that
96:22
at least going back to the 1930s
96:23
earliest opinion surveys thirty percent
96:26
of Americans are authoritarian I mean I
96:28
think you know if you look at who you
96:29
know father Coughlin had thirty percent
96:31
of the vote George Wallace had thirty
96:35
percent of the vote you know support in
96:37
opinion polls McCarthy had up to forty
96:40
percent support you know this is there’s
96:42
a kind of strand in the electorate that
96:44
I mean you know I this is a bit
96:46
provocative I you know I don’t have
96:47
details you know add an attitude data
96:50
but these they supported authoritarians
96:52
and so the issue is not what you know is
96:54
the American electorate becoming more
96:56
authoritarian the issue is how do you
96:57
prevent that portion of the electorate
97:00
and those tendencies from putting
97:01
somebody in leadership positions and so
97:04
until 2016 we had a presidential
97:07
selection system that kept that served
97:09
as a gatekeeping system and kept these
97:11
kinds of dynamics out of the top
97:13
leadership positions in the u.s. say a
97:18
few words about that but I think the
97:20
question is actually really important
97:22
whoever asked it all right because it’s
97:26
forcing us yeah I think you’re asking us
97:31
to to think about these small these
97:35
issues that seemed small in our abstract
97:40
discussion of democracy but actually
97:42
loom very large in the minds of
97:43
individual voters and gun control is a
97:45
wonderful example of that so political
97:48
elites to really have to do more
97:52
research on what makes certain issues
97:55
salient and what makes certain issues
97:58
Trump all of the other much more
98:00
important issues like health care at the
98:03
polls and motivate you know a trump vote
98:06
and but I just I think social science
98:10
can be an answer to that
98:11
first of all identifying those voters
98:13
and then targeting those voters and in
98:16
an alliance with moderate politicians
98:18
changing their minds and changing the
98:21
salience of issues in people’s heads I
98:23
think it can be done with the media
98:25
if we’re just not doing it so do you
98:29
disagree because I think you know gun
98:30
control or abortion our democratic
98:32
values right these are things that
98:33
political parties have traditionally
98:35
espoused I mean the Republican Party has
98:36
espoused it and there’s nothing you know
98:38
there’s nothing inherently wrong with
98:39
being pro-life or promotion or non
98:43
democratic about those stances right I
98:45
think you know what I’m more concerned
98:47
with is the the statistic that the
98:48
Daniell brought up which is that it’s
98:50
not just the United States if you look
98:51
at you know Poland or hungry or France
98:53
in the last elections there’s a steady
98:54
35 to 40 percent of the electorate that
98:56
is willing time and time again to plump
98:58
for authoritarian populist right-wing
99:01
nativist etc to parties and so the
99:03
question is how do you contain that yeah
99:05
I don’t think it’s I don’t think it’s a
99:06
question of persuading I think it’s a
99:07
question of containing well I certainly
99:10
don’t want to say that all of those
99:11
positions of the abortion position is
99:13
anti-democratic I’m just thinking about
99:15
the salience of
99:17
issues as someone approaches the polls
99:20
so they can say this candidate like
99:23
Trump for instance this candidate is
99:29
clearly anti-democratic and repulsive on
99:32
many issues but I really give priority
99:35
to anti-abortion and he appeals to be an
99:38
anti-abortion candidate so I’m going to
99:39
vote for him that’s the that’s the sort
99:41
of calculation that I think demands more
99:43
research and more thought on the part of
99:45
politicians but there’s certainly not
99:46
especially an issue like abortion that’s
99:49
not an anti-democratic issue I think so
99:53
this is a question for Daniel’s if lat
99:56
but Tim Snyder might also reflect on it
99:59
how and why were those norms of mutual
100:02
tolerance and forbearance built in the
100:05
1880s through the 1900s what lessons
100:08
does that period have for for for us
100:11
today
100:14
ya know it’s it’s a it’s a tragic story
100:17
in fact and then and we dig into this in
100:21
our book and this is kind of more a
100:23
discovery after admit as somebody who
100:24
didn’t spend my life studying American
100:26
politics I think the norms of mutual
100:28
toleration and forbearance were built on
100:31
racial exclusion you know it’s the end
100:35
of Reconstruction 1890 the failure of a
100:39
voting rights bill the lodge act that
100:43
allowed Southern Democrats and northern
100:46
Republicans to get along so you know
100:51
what do we do about that I mean at some
100:52
level these so-mei I hesitate even to
100:55
call these Democratic columns these are
100:56
norms of stability
100:57
forbearance a mutual toleration so the
101:00
real dilemma I think we fit in at some
101:02
level one can think that you know the
101:03
post 1965 rule there’s one in which
101:05
racial inclusion of making our political
101:08
system finally democratic really after
101:10
only 1965 I would argue has generated a
101:14
backlash which now threatens those norms
101:16
and so the dilemma that Democrats face
101:18
you know with it with a small D is how
101:21
do you reconcile these things can’t can
101:23
a political system be built that is both
101:25
democratic inclusive as well as one that
101:28
sustains these norms because
101:30
historically they have not there’s a
101:32
tension that there’s really a tension
101:37
there’s a just following from Daniels
101:40
point we did the United States undertook
101:42
two experiments more or less
101:44
simultaneously and they were I don’t
101:46
think there were two experiments that go
101:47
well together the first was the
101:49
experiment which I think probably none
101:52
of us would call into question of
101:54
actually trying to make the country
101:55
democratic by allowing its citizens to
101:57
vote right 1965 is clearly an important
102:00
step towards American democracy which
102:02
again I would emphasize American
102:04
democracy is and remains an aspiration
102:06
but 1965 is an important step towards it
102:09
but not long after that about 15 years
102:12
after that we began the experiment of
102:15
inequality which we are still in the
102:17
midst of professorship gorski’s charge
102:20
of the gap which is from the economic
102:24
policy something it’s a
102:25
that this shows that the gap growing
102:27
from 1980 between productivity and wages
102:30
right and the experiment that we’ve
102:32
conducted on ourselves since 1989 about
102:35
what what it means when you say there
102:36
are no alternatives
102:37
those two experiments have been
102:38
happening simultaneously and so on the
102:40
American Left when I talk to people on
102:42
the American Left which I do know all
102:44
the time
102:44
there’s this constant disagreement about
102:46
whether it’s a race or whether it’s
102:48
inequality and I just I don’t see why we
102:50
have to choose between those two things
102:52
it’s both and the way they work together
102:55
is that if white people feel privileged
102:58
then they react to inequality laughs and
103:01
in a way which is louder and which might
103:02
be more disruptive of the system than
103:04
others but the inequality to the way to
103:06
which they react is nevertheless real
103:09
right so that the racism may be harder
103:11
to get a handle on and the inequality
103:13
may be more tractable by policy
103:15
instruments so we have lots of questions
103:20
unfortunately thing we’re gonna have to
103:21
do it just a couple of more so this is a
103:25
question for Susan Hyde you emphasized
103:29
the demand side of the information
103:31
problem but what about the supply side
103:33
how worried should we be about state
103:36
media like Tennant sorry I don’t think I
103:40
read that right media tendencies like
103:41
Fox and how do you compare to other
103:44
cases like Venezuela or Italy yes state
103:48
media tendencies media like tendencies I
103:51
guess yeah I mean there’s there’s an
103:53
abundant you know there’s an abundance
103:56
of information right now right it’s not
103:58
that people can’t access accurate
104:00
information it’s it their self-selecting
104:01
into inaccurate information and I think
104:04
one can talk about the supply side of
104:06
this issue as as a contributor to how we
104:10
got here but I’m not sure that it
104:13
matters in terms of where we go from
104:16
here if that makes sense so once you get
104:20
into a space in which people are just
104:22
unwilling to look at the same sources of
104:24
information and many people may be
104:25
unwilling to consider objective
104:27
information or know how to judge whether
104:29
any
104:30
piece of information is objective I feel
104:34
like the demand side is just something
104:35
we understand a lot less well than then
104:38
we understand the supply side so because
104:40
of the individual access to to the
104:42
Internet to lots of sources of
104:44
information and because of the lack of
104:46
trust in all institutions I think also
104:49
expert institutions right those
104:50
individuals that might be perceived as
104:52
providing expertise on any given topic
104:55
and I think that confidence in their
104:57
their opinions has also been undermined
104:59
already we don’t trust expertise we
105:02
don’t trust objectivity we don’t trust
105:05
science we don’t you know all of these
105:06
things are undermined that to me I mean
105:08
I feel like just the demand side is is
105:11
broken enough that fixing the supply
105:13
side at the moment is not going to
105:15
change that problem so I’m sort of
105:17
evading the question of it okay last
105:21
question and this is directed to Nancy
105:23
burr Mayo but others on the panel may
105:25
want to address it as well focus is on
105:28
importance of distancing by elites and
105:30
optimism is based on the idea that US
105:32
democracy does not present an immediate
105:34
threat via redistribution to elite
105:36
interests yet earlier presentations levy
105:39
she wore ski suggests that the lack of
105:41
progressive redistribution is
105:42
undermining confidence and democratic
105:44
institutions
105:45
is there an irreconcilable difference
105:48
here over weathered redistribution
105:50
counts as a threat or an asset to
105:52
American democracy I think there’s an
105:55
important distinction between
105:57
redistribution and actual property
106:00
seizure and revolution and we are
106:03
clearly in remedying the inequality that
106:08
we talked about in an earlier panel
106:11
would not require revolution if which
106:14
require redistribution of the old social
106:18
democratic component and I think that
106:21
folks in Silicon Valley are probably not
106:23
even worried about that I think they
106:27
could handle it and I think that I
106:28
haven’t seen survey research but maybe
106:31
some of you have done it I’d like very
106:32
much to look at the values of the young
106:35
entrepreneurs in the tech industry and
106:37
to see whether they would in fact halt
106:40
much more redistribution than we have
106:43
I’d love to see that data I sense that
106:45
there’s probably more room there than we
106:48
might anticipate and certainly more room
106:50
than there was in fascist Italy yeah
106:54
comments on that last yes there you go
107:12
no but it’s it’s just fall short of
107:15
revolution and it falls short of backing
107:18
anti-democratic action on the part of
107:20
truck so but it’s basically buying
107:23
social goodness sure well I want to
107:28
thank our panelists very much for a
107:30
fascinating session
107:31
[Applause]
107:38
[Music]

How Corporations Destroyed American Democracy – Chris Hedges.

How Corporations Destroyed American Democracy – Chris Hedges.
Filmed at Socialism 2010 in Chicago by Paul Hubbard

Steven Levitsky & Daniel Ziblatt, “How Democracies Die”

Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt discuss their book, “How Democracies Die”, on 1/25/18.

Levitsky and Ziblatt, professors of comparative politics at Harvard, have spent nearly twenty years studying the breakdown of democracies. Focusing on Latin America and Europe, respectively, the two didn’t expect to address the issue for the United States, but that changed when Trump was elected. Building on their December 2016 New York Times op-ed which asked “Is Donald Trump a Threat to Democracy?” they emphatically answer “yes,” outline the specific risks he poses, and chart ways we can avert the threat of authoritarianism. Drawing on examples of troubled states from around the world since the 1930s, Levitsky and Ziblatt point out that warning signs of collapse include the weakening of institutions, such as the judiciary and the media, erosion of political norms, and the rise of incivility.

http://www.politics-prose.com/book/97…