DANIEL ZIBLATT: HOW DEMOCRACIES DIE

good afternoon and welcome to today's meeting  of the commonwealth club the club is online at   commonwealth club org as well as on facebook  twitter and youtube I'm Robert Rosenthal board   member and until recently executive director at  the Center for Investigative Reporting and your   moderator for today's program and now it's my  pleasure to introduce our distinguished speaker   dr. Daniel is a black professor of government at  Harvard University and co-author of the new book   how democracies die dr. Z Blatt has spent a career  studying why democracies develop and how they die   along with his co-author Steve Levitsky he has  done he's done this from his gut role at Harvard   where he also directs a research program called  politics through time his focus as an academic   and professor has always been about different  places and periods in history including the   age of Hitler and Mussolini and how governments  move to control not only their people but their   politics dr. Z Blatt has also previously served  as director of Harvard Center for European studies   and it's Stanford Center for Advanced Study in  this new book he offers a revelatory look at the   demise of liberal democracies and around the world  and a deep and disturbing look at decades-long   trends in the United States that he believes  mirror what has occurred around the world his   book really offers context and understanding of  how America's political and culture and cultural   divide today is not surprising when you consider  our history so I found the book really interesting   but I'm not sure I liked it a lot of ways and  disturbing so I'm just curious when you decided   to write this book and how the what the process  went the time period in the context of what was   happening in 2016 15 in the American election in  the presidential election when how did this happen   how did your book happen so I finished a book in  2017 it was a much more scholarly book with an   academic press and I kind of thought I told my  wife and kids that that was going to be it for   a while and over the course of the 2016 campaign  though this was clear actually that this was not   going to be the case because my co-author and  I Steve Levitsky we both teach together we've   talked courses together at Harvard on democracy  and democratization around the world and we would   run into each other and we really came to very  quick kind of mutual understanding that what   we were seeing in the tenor of the politics of  the campaign to the primary 2015/2016 reminded   us a lot of the periods and parts of the world we  study which was not the United States so I study   as you mentioned Europe in the 1930s 1920 Steve  studies mostly Latin America at other developing   countries and so it was really the tenor of the  campaign the tenor of the politics and a lot of   things that were being said reminded us very  much and there are these strong echoes things   we had seen elsewhere and so when did you actually  begin writing the book after the election or the   build-up to it as you was so we actually wrote  an op-ed in the New York Times just right before   the election we wrote an op-ed right before the  election and then we wrote one right after the   election in 2016 and then basically January 2017  we decided we would get to work on the book and   so we spent the year working working on it seven  days a week basically and finished it and as an   academic and politics sometimes stay out I guess  of academic world it can be controversial I mean   clearly in reading this book you had to believe  that what was happening is the Trump campaign and   then his ascendancy of the presidency represented  a potential of an authoritarian or you saw him as   an authoritarian is that fair yeah that's right  and that's really what motivated the book and   so you know we are we're social scientists and  we take the kind of professional ethos of being   social scientists very seriously so this is not  a partisan book what motivated us in part was   we there's that there was a great book that we  cite that we developed this idea from that juan   linz was a spanish political scientist who wrote  in the 1970s who has lived was born in Baia Mare   Germany he grew up during the Spanish Civil War  and had laid out a set of criteria by which one   could judge political leaders whether or not they  are authoritarian so this was something that kind   of index or so what he calls a litmus test of  behaviors and rhetoric that he developed in the   1970s and we taught this into our students you  know and talking about interwar Europe or Latin   the 60s and 70s and what was so striking was  that the criteria that he laid out fit to a tee   the rhetoric of candidate Trump and so and so  the summers I could lay out what some of these   characteristics are so first of all challenging  basic rules of the Democratic game so challenging   the legitimacy of Elections accusing a rival  of being as kind of subversive or a criminal   going after media and the civil liberties of a  democracy and condoning violence so these were   things that again you know were very common in  the 1920s and 1930s in Europe and it also 1960s   and 70s in Latin America and it was just this  kind of uncanny resemblance to the rhetoric that   candidate Trump was using you know I've read  the book so I obviously ask you about then you   jump the gun on me but you're not supposed to do  but so and I love being able to tell a professor   that but I'm gonna read a little bit cuz I think  for the audience and I hope you read this book it   gives you a deeper understanding and and what you  said rejection of weak commitment to democratic   rules of the game and then you detail it and  that's point one do they reject the Constitution   or express a willingness to violate it do they  suggest a need for anti-democratic measures such   as canceling elections violating or suspending  the Constitution banning certain organizations   or restricting basic civil or political rights do  they seek to use or endorse extra constitutional   means to change the government such as cooze  violent insurrection or mass protests so really   in reading this I could see how you came to that  conclusion and you know one of the most striking   ones in here and throughout the campaign and the  rhetoric we have today do they subscribe do they   describe their rivals as subversive as opposed  to the existing constitutional order do they   claim that their rivals constitute an existential  threat to national security or to the prevailing   Way of life and in reading this one of the things  that's also striking we're seeing it today is what   I would call the demonization of the other and  in American history the book really lays out   the yelling of sedition acts in the period with  Jefferson and Adams and how the language and how   they really saw each other as enemies and traitors  so in American history I mean it's analogy or this   feeling is is not new and and how do you can you  describe how you tied into the present moment and   how important our history is to understand yes  so the idea that you that there's going to be   competing groups competing politicians who compete  for office who have equal right to govern and may   have no you know the idea that nobody has a  monopoly on truth and that the competition   of ideas is actually the best way to come up with  good public policy and make our system work that   that's that is an invention I mean that idea that  we accept our rivals as merely rivals and not as   enemy is as somewhat counterintuitive I mean we  take it for granted today but it's the somewhat   counterintuitive I mean if you think you know  what the truth is why would you ever tolerate   somebody else coming along and challenging you and  so you know in the u.s. beginning in the 1790s our   founding fathers as brilliant as they were did  not have this conception in their minds and so   you know this we sometimes forget that the you  know the very word political party doesn't exist   in the Constitution it's it didn't the concept  barely existed and so the idea that there would   be competing parties with competing visions of  the best way to organize society really was an   invention that came about right at you know in the  1790s beginning of that the 19th century and so as   that as that notion developed and as people began  to regard each other as legitimate and that was a   kind of a really an important transformation in  American politics that took place over the first   quarter of the century people began to regard each  other as you know simply rivals and not as enemies   it that that the nonetheless you know throughout  our history that's come back I mean with the civil   war that's essentially what the civil war was was  a fight over a kind of the idea that one side is   maybe not a legitimate doesn't have a legitimate  worldview and so a war breaks out when this when   this when these conflicts aren't resolved  peacefully so as you watch what's happened   since the election I mean what what your feeling  is is are we going towards the precipice I mean   I know what you say in the book but I mean who  described the role of the gatekeeper and and how   in a democracy not only the gatekeepers stepping  aside and maybe a little bit how the gatekeepers   can actually do their role yeah well so you know  one of the one of the points that we make in the   book is that there really is no you know pure  golden age that we can go back to that there   has always been throughout American history  politicians political you demagogues who are   have a weak commitment to democratic norms and so  in the book we talk about Henry Ford is somebody   you know the founder of Ford Motor Company who was  cited by Adolf Hitler mine Kampf is a great hero   of his who wanted to run for president considered  running for president Huey Long who was the   authoritarian governor of Louisiana and senator  from Louisiana Joe McCarthy is somebody who   didn't really subscribe to this notion of mutual  toleration entirely George Wallace and so you know   if going just through the 20th century alone  there all of these kinds of figures who depart   from what we conceive of as democratic norms none  of these guys made it to the White House or ever   it close to the White House and so part of the  point of our book is to say that there's this   long continuous strand at least through the 20th  century and there's Gallup poll data also showing   that each of these guys gained around 30 percent  approval rating the Gallup polls going back to   the 1930s so there's this always been this latent  strand a continuous strand along our long side our   liberal traditions of an liberal tradition so  the question is how have these guys been kept   out and this is where gatekeeping comes into the  story because what we argue in the book is that   the reason these guys never became president or  ever gained the nomination of parties is that   our parties have played this absolutely critical  role of not only representing people and competing   for power but in the selection of presidential  candidates and you know up until the beginning   of the 1970s we had a system that was very much  dominated by party leaders where you didn't have   primaries and so these party leaders got together  and what we now critically called the smoke-filled   back room where these leaders got together they  would convention time choose who they thought   would be the best candidate and they kept these  guys out and so although this system perhaps   wasn't very democratic it had the positive side  of keeping these demagogues out this system has   now fallen off I think since the beginning of  the 1970s with the opening up of the primary   system this was certainly a more transparent  system a more open system but the downside of   this and there was some political scientists at  Berkeley political scientists know some polls but   who writing wrote in the 1970s saying with the  end with the introduction of the primary system   there's not the filtration system has broken away  and there's now the possibility of demagogues   arising so I think actually our system was much it  has been much more vulnerable since the beginning   of the 70s to a figure like Donald Trump and and  who are the key gatekeepers in Washington today   I mean yeah I mean they're you know that not  there's not many I mean in some I mean that's   part of the problem I would argue so you know  the Republican Party is in many ways not much   of a party that you know we kept waiting during  the primaries for the Republican establishment   to step in this was a phrase that was frequently  used but it became very clear that if there is   a Republican establishment they don't they don't  have much sway you know somebody like Mitt Romney   could come along and condemn Trump but this really  swayed no voters and so in many ways I think the   party kind of hired an idea of a hierarchical  party which again some people might think is   not a very democratic way to organize a party it  turns out that's actually a very effective way of   keeping these kind of threats out of the political  process the gatekeepers are broken apart I think   to a large degree I mean the Democratic Party has  a system of super-delegates in place which is now   actually under some criticism which in a way which  was introduced in the 1980s to kind of supplement   the primary system so local political leaders  congressmen congresswoman considered important   leaders within the party helped have a say in  who the candidates are and so these are important   gatekeepers but there's a lot of pressure now to  remove even super-delegates within the Democratic   and and and I guess one thing I mean what I  took away is that the gatekeepers in a sense   today would be the Speaker of the House Paul  Ryan right Mitch McConnell and the Senate and   they basically from your point of view have done  what ya abdicated I mean that's we have we have   a chapter called the Republican abdication I mean  what what's what's in what's really important to   emphasize here is that during the the presidential  selection process for the Republican Party it was   clear the Republican establishment did not like  Donald Trump he was not the favor he was not the   inside candidate they thought he was unfit for  office and nonetheless he won the part he won   the nomination and I think it's in part because  these guys didn't draw the line and so you know   they they essentially allowed this to take place  and they and there was lots of maneuvering and you   know the political leaders were guys like Mitch  McConnell guys like Paul Ryan thought that you   know maybe at the you know there will be some  maneuvering where we could keep Trump out but   in the end they failed in their job and one of  the jobs of political parties is to serve as   gatekeepers and they failed in that job so I mean  I'm not sure how many people who support Donald   Trump have spoken to you but what kind of feedback  or do you get any because clearly you're calling   the president and authoritarian in a great danger  to America right yes so what I mean there is there   has I've gotten yeah we've got talked to lots of  different people one kind of feedback we've gotten   is you know this is it you know you're encouraging  everybody to be mutually tolerant of your   opposition but now you're all you're calling your  opposition and an authoritarian how that's not   very mutually tolerant of you and and the reason I  think it that's it's that's not quite a fair point   is that you know it there is actually in fact you  know some people say well you know we you know we   we accused Obama of being an authoritarian and you  guys thought that was outrageous and now you're   accusing our leader of being an authoritarian  that's equally outrageous and I think the point   is is that there are clear indicators you know  object using these objective criteria from one   lens of going after the media accusing the media  being the enemy of the people saying without any   empirical base that your arrival as a criminal  needs to be locked up these are clear or thought   this we live in a fact-based world this these are  clear violations of democratic norms that people   can agree upon and you know some people may say  well we don't take that kind of rhetoric seriously   not that's may be a reasonable response we did  my co-author and I take the rhetoric seriously   because what we've seen is around the world  usually when politicians speak in this way they   then act in that way and so we take the rhetoric  seriously so they the only defense I would say is   well we don't take the rhetoric seriously but  the rhetoric is a genuine threat to democracy   and I think most people actually agree with that  well one of the things the book does is look at   witness or almost a gradual slide from democracy  into authoritarian regimes historically around   the world and especially in Central and South  America and if you have to read the book to get   a little detail but the other thing use the phrase  backsliding from democracy into authoritarian   regimes or dictatorships or military governments  and one of the things you say is that if citizens   are open to authoritarianism ah Chrissie's will  be in trouble and you also say this backsliding   begins at the ballot box so how does that apply to  the United States well you know one of the title   of the book is how democracies die and one of the  big points that we make in general is that the   way democracies have died has changed over time  during the Cold War three-quarters of democratic   breakdowns according to some estimates of social  silikal scientists happened by military coup so   we think we think of Pinochet and Chile in 1973  with with jet planes flying overhead and bombing   the presidential palace or tanks in the streets  that's the traditional way we think of democracies   dying and that is the way that democracies died  in the 1913 the Cold War since the collapse of   communism most democracies now die as we say  at the ballot box through elections where we   have presidents or prime ministers getting elected  through democratic elections so they have some you   know democratic credentials certainly but once  in office through legislation through judicial   rulings through referenda they attack the very  institutions of democracy that brought them   into power and so we talk about air Dewan and  turkey is doing this Viktor Orban who recently   was reelected in Hungary Hugo Chavez in Venezuela  now the u.s. is certainly very different because   we still have a vibrant democracy we don't think  that American democracy is dead or dying by any   means but there are certain certain similarities  where you have somebody coming to power who like   these other figures shows a weak commitment or  indifference to democratic norms and then once   in office you know what do they do and lots  of people thought you know our institutions   would contain Donald Trump in to a large degree  they have but there are signs that that's kind   of PlayBook that these other leaders have used is  something that the current President of the United   States has attempted you with not much success so  far but has attempted to do what's an example of   that so one of the things that we say that we've  noticed that authoritarian elected authoritarian   see one of the first things they do is because  they get elected they're usually outsiders they   come into power and people and media and an  establishment society is very nervous about   this and so they push back and they accuse them of  being in of an authoritarian to some degree and so   one of the things that these guys do is they go  after the referees of the political system or   judicial institutions rule of law institutions  tax authorities regulatory authorities and turn   these bodies that are supposed to be neutral into  defenders of their own interests and and use them   as weapons to go off there to their rivals so you  know to give you an example of it's not happening   in the US but elsewhere Erewhon president air  Dewan he's still Prime Minister in December   2013 when there was a corruption investigation  being taken of hit and that was getting closer   and closer to his family he simply fired all  the prosecutors very quickly Viktor Orban after   becoming Prime Minister one of the first things  he did with a supermajority so allowing him to   revise the Constitution he had a two-thirds  majority he changed the retirement age and   lowered the retirement age of the Supreme Court  justices and so that all of these justices had   to retire so you could stack up the courts so in  the United States you know we haven't seen things   reach that level but we well we certainly have  seen at me as all everybody here will recognize   I mean that it you know the firing of the FBI  director pressure applied to the to the Justice   Department and so all of these kinds of efforts  to capture the referee's of the political system   resonate I mean there's certainly been a lot more  pushback in the NDS I wouldn't want to kind of   say that word in an identical situation as these  other countries because of a lot more attention   to it and these other countries this stuff has  happened often in the dead of night and people   don't really even realize it's happening here this  is obviously gotten lots of media attention and   and investigative journalists kind of revealing  a lot of this stuff so you know but but there are   see similarities for sure so I'm gonna read where  you're in your book where you address that because   it's to me it's really important to understand  and this is what you wrote it always helps to have   the referees on your side modern states possess  various agencies with the authority to investigate   and punish wrongdoing by both public officials  and private citizens these include the judicial   system law enforcement bodies the intelligence  tax and regulatory agencies in democracies such   institutions are designed to serve as neutral  arbiters for would-be authoritarians therefore   judicial and law enforcement agencies both both  pose both a challenge and an opportunity if they   remain independent they might expose and punish  government abuse it's a referee's job after all   to prevent cheating but if these agencies are  controlled by loyalists they could serve a   would-be dictators aim shielding the government  for investigation and criminal prosecutions that   could lead to its removal from power the president  may break the law threaten citizens rights and   even violate the Constitution without having to  worry that such abuse will be investigated or   censured with the courts pact and law enforcement  authorities brought to Hale go mints can act with   impunity capturing the referees provides the  government with more than a shield it also   offers a powerful weapon allowing the government  to selectively enforce the law punishing opponents   while protecting allies so do you know if anybody  in Congress read your book or got feedback yeah   I mean read back yes I mean mostly mostly from  Democratic members of Congress you know I think   we actually did our publisher did sends copies  of to Jeff Flake you know who knows what you   know I'm not sure what kind of difference that  makes but know this I mean one of you know one   of the key things also that we you know part of  the purpose of writing the book was that we see   there's lots of noise I mean there's you know  every day I mean just as we're sitting here   probably people's Twitter feeds are filled up with  like more outrageous things and so you know how do   we distinguish between kind of significant threats  and things that are just annoying and you know not   really worth worrying about and part of the point  of the book is to point out these patterns that we   see around the world to give citizens and readers  a kind of framework for understanding the nature   of the threats that our society faces so you know  when you see and to put it in context so when you   see you know the president going after the media  or going after law enforcement institutions then   we can sort of say well this is significant  because this is how this pattern has unfolded   in other countries and you know historically  I mean again it's the what what I found very   powerful and great reminder was there's a lot of  history in this book which shows again that while   we're in the moment in the United States these  these strands these authoritarian issues are have   happened before and they're part of who we are and  and this divide but also you referenced you know   when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus the actions  of presidents which were seen as dictatorial when   Roosevelt Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the  Supreme Court or you know entered the Japanese   during the start of World War two I mean do  these offer press precedents that a Thorat   Arian president today or in the past have tried  to use and say look what they did yeah as well   as Watergate I would add to that list of abuses of  presidential power yeah I guess one of the things   that we point so though it's so to take the I  mean that the Civil War is distinctive in the   this was them in the midst of war the suspension  of habeas corpus and so but you know in many ways   an analog to with the kind of things that we're  seeing today are with Roosevelt's attempt to pack   the Supreme Court as well as Nixon's abuses and  in both cases though at the end of the day these   efforts of ambitious presidents were limited  and so what happened in during during the New   Deal was President Roosevelt was frustrated by  the Supreme Court that was you know that every   one of the members of the Supreme Court and the  1930s had received their law education this is a   fact I discovered in writing this in the 19th  century so they were these the Supreme Court   was load up with all these old guys who were  blocking Roosevelt's agenda you know and had   I been alive at the time I might have been you  know thought well the idea of and so they were   blocking all the legislation so he thought well  why don't we expand the size of the court because   there's nothing in the Constitution specifying  the size of the court and so he can load up his   with the court with his allies who would support  the New Deal and I had I been alive at that time   you know this is an interesting kind of thing  you maybe this would have been a good thing for   the New Deal I may have supported it but with  the distance of time I can also see that this   would have set a dangerous president precedent  because it would have turned the Supreme Court   into a kind of body that size could be changed and  uses a even more explicit political tool than it   might the many people might regard it today and  this is something that happens as I mentioned in   Hungary as well as Venezuela in other countries  and so what the the important part of that story   though about Roosevelt is that he proposed this  effort to expand the court and then he was gonna   load it up with his his supporters Democratic  members of Congress and the Senate pushed back   against this it was his of course Republicans  pushed back again against it but more significant   was the Democrats pushed back and wasn't just  Southern Democrats there were some real New Deal   Democrats there's there's one senator we describe  in the book who's from Wyoming he was so close   to Roosevelt he was at the inauguration dinner  with him sitting sitting sitting next to Eleanor   Roosevelt and then within several weeks after  he announced this idea to expand the court he   came out publicly saying he was against this and  so it was when party allies come out against the   potential abuses of a press president that's when  these things can be halted and so the question you   know that we asked is today we don't see that  same kind of thing being on the Republican side   and so when you see clear things that are clear  violations of democratic norms and rules it's   critical that the party the president's partisan  allies come out against it and if that doesn't   happen then there's really no constructor there  are examples of where the gatekeepers eventually   took action that's right and water date as well  and you know it's a similar kind of story where   some Republican senators came to Nixon said we're  going to impeach you unless you resign you know   that you know people have pointed out correctly  that it took a long time to get to that point but   nonetheless at the end of the day had to resign  and so the gatekeepers as you say stomp them you   have any concerns and writing a book like this  that you become an enemy or they have you been   called an enemy we get you know we get lots of  weird email and and phone messages on my voice my   work voicemail so yeah but you know it's it's you  know this it's at some level you know I've spent   my life studying distant historical phenomena that  that are not in the headlines and then suddenly   my area of expertise suddenly seemed relevant  and so I felt a certain obligation to kind of   embrace that particular moment I mean reminds me  a bit of this there's this incredible story of   this biologist who studied butterflies his whole  Korean migration patterns of butterflies and there   was these intense kind of theoretical debates  among biologists about where the butterflies   were flying within the between North and South  England he spent his whole career doing this   he was an obscure figure and then the UN climate  change report came along and this was a key piece   of evidence because where they were migrating had  changed and so this was included in the UN climate   change report so I think in this I mean it from  my view of all of this is you know I've spent my   career studying these things and so I you know the  at the moment these that my area of expertise is   relevant and so I have a kind of obligation to so  even in the current moment we're in are you have   you been surprised or you some more like evidence  for you of the move towards authoritarianism and   do you see any thing rising up to steer it in  another way yeah well I guess to two thoughts   one you know before the election of Donald Trump  I you know I might book that I wrote in 2017 on   conservative parties throughout history in the  19th century in Britain and Germany I always   known that when you have conservative parties  that become unhinged so whether that's in buy   more Germany or contemporary Republican Party  this is bad news for democracy so I was already   very nervous about what the state of American  democracy but again like to take another global   climate change example I sort of had this view  that you know American democracy is in trouble but   you know in the middle of 2016 had you asked me  I would have said American democracies in trouble   maybe twenty years from this is a problem that my  children gonna have to deal with I didn't expect   that that this problem would come overnight and  that's sort of so the problem came much it would   be as if you know we're sitting around you're  thinking about you know the tides are rising   with climate change if you were to wake up one  morning look out your door and you know the tide   was at your door I mean these things happen for  much more quickly so what accelerated it yeah   that's a great question I mean I don't you know I  think you know I don't know why thinks that maybe   I you know I I feel like I kind of understood  the dynamics the sources of this problem again   the radicalization I think of the Republican Party  is one of the prime movers in in the book we make   the case that the radicalization of the Republican  Party is a long-term process and things can happen   quickly I mean there's you trace this back to Newt  Gingrich true right right that's right how did   that happen yeah so so beginning in the 1990s and  we say that in historians can debate this you know   whether this is correct weak provide evidence that  the polarization in American politics which is   what really is the deeper symp deeper underlying  problem not Donald Trump but this kind of deeper   problem of polarization began on the Republican  side in the in the beginning of the 1990s even   in the late eighties when Republicans had been out  of the House of Representatives for 40 years and   to get back into the house led by Newt Gingrich  they carried out this incredible kind of campaign   shank with changed rhetoric to attack our basic  institutions and so we you know what they had yes   some of the rhetoric yes right great very so you  know Newt Gingrich distributed tapes to potential   candidates in which he told top you know people  which language to use so accused Democrats of   not loving the country hating the flag and this  will kind of if you think back to the early 90s   this is the kind of rhetoric that was suddenly in  the air and the Democrats were not really I mean   it began to get into this language of Democrats  are not really loyal Americans don't love the   country and they're weak I mean there were set  of adjectives that they that that Gingrich came   up with week and so on that word they were  intended to kind of provoke voters kind of   this into make voters not like Democrats so this  this was an effort to regain the house but it was   it was rooted and I think what green you didn't  invent this entirely from scratch it was rooted   and what he Percy he was the first to recognize an  opportunity there was this growing polarization in   American society that we argue goes back actually  to the 60s he saw a sauna advant an opportunity   here and grabbed the opportunity to transform  the Republican Party in the process so here's   a question from the audience how does the social  and economic context in America that I think ahead   of the election of Trump compared with the real  and economic context in other countries had also   elected authoritarian leaders yeah yeah so it's  what what certainly true is that these outsiders   who often don't have much political experience  think of Hugo Chavez Alberto Fujimori in Peru   often you have successful careers in reaction to  and take advantage of economic crises and so I   mean one of the reasons you go shabbos eventually  became president in Venezuela is a long period of   economic crisis and so you know it's unsung so  we might think that the financial crisis of 2008   played a played an important role one of the most  striking economic figures that I've seen recently   this is this is not an art book but I think that  has transformed our societies if you look at   growth and productivity rates from 1945 to 2016  I mean it's basically an even you know 45-degree   angle increasing productivity of American workers  if you look at average wage growth from in that   same period wage growth perfectly parallels it  and then suddenly in 1980 wage with flatlines   productivity continues to increase and so it's  that disjuncture which in effect you know it   contributes to inequality which means that people  have a decreased confidence that their children   will be better off than they are which you know  that that has never really happened before we're   and in the last hundred years and so these kinds  of economic conditions create right conditions   for for demagogues to appeal to people's  dissatisfactions and certainly our elected   leaders need to address these underlying concerns  but the questions to do it are the issues to do it   in a way that doesn't challenge our democratic  institutions another audience question you note   the importance of referees staying neutral I worry  that even if the referee stay neutral there's a   real belief that quote the system is rigged close  quote how can we regain democratic norms when much   of the country no longer trusts the norms yeah  well you know what so we in our book we argue   that there's two key norms two kind of big norms  in our political system that have made it work   one is this norm that we've already talked about  a mutual toleration and the other norm is a norm   we call forbearance which is essentially this is  unwritten so we the idea is that there are these   unwritten rules that govern the behavior of our  political leaders and this norm of forbearance is   essentially the self-conscious under utilization  of power in an order for our political system to   work we need to have political leaders who don't  actually use all of the rights that they have for   prerogatives that they have so the president  just to give you an example can pack the court   at any point he wants or the Congress can impeach  a president for any reason at once it's perfectly   legal I mean there's really nothing in the  Constitution saying you know under what you   know it's the high crimes and misdemeanors up to  Congress to decide this in order for our system   to remain stable the norm of forbearance where  politicians don't play to the hilt is necessary   and that is a norm that's actually eroding when we  see politicians you know shutting down government   when they don't get what they want this is the  opposite of forbearance so the question is how   do we restore these two norms of mutual toleration  and forbearance one that one of the dilemmas that   we I think face today is that when facing a norm  breaking president and if you don't like the norm   breaking president there's a great temptation to  respond in kind and to say well you know we need   to fight dirty too if we're going to be if you  know we're not going if the Republican Party for   instance you know when President Obama appointed  a Supreme Court justice nominated a Supreme Court   justice when the Republican Congress the Senate  didn't even hold hearings for him this was an   unprecedented violate I mean in my mind one of the  worst violations of norms he's seen in a long time   where the Senate essentially didn't even hold  hearings which was the firt this is the first   time they've done this since the 1860s to not  even hold hearings and so now the question is   if Democrats retake the Senate you know should and  president Trump gets the opportunity to nominate a   presidential or a Supreme Court justice should  Democrats respond in kind by not even holding   hearings and some people are this is what's  necessary there's a recent book that's come out   it's time to fight dirty I think it's what it's  long my David Harrison so in terms of restoring   our norms I you know that I we make the case in  our book that this although tempting to kind of   fight back in dirty ways isn't doesn't is not  the right way to go that this in fact leads to   an escalation leads for it to a tit-for-tat or  the eventually kind of death spiral is entered   into and this is what we've seen in the breakdown  of democracies in other parts of the world and so   you know how so I think one of the key things that  we have to do is citizens have an important role   and trying to get their elected leaders to  not behave in this way not not to not reward   them for a kind of no-holds-barred sort of stance  towards politics do you see that happening I mean   if you are you following what's happening yeah the  midterms yeah yeah I you know I think it's I think   the Democratic Party leaders in the Senate and  the house have actually been quite restrained I   mean for instance there is although there's lots  of push for for impeachment immediately without   seeing the results of the investigation you know  if there are kind of things that come out through   through this special counsel that suggests that  there needs to be you know there's been high   crimes and misdemeanors certainly there should be  impeachment but you know this should be undertaken   however until we have the final results of that I  think impeachment should not be something that's   on the table and I think actually and there's lots  of pressure to take a strong stand on this but I   think it you know I think actually Democratic  leaders have been actually pretty restrained   and and they've behaved quite responsible well in  the book you you cite when Obama was first elected   Paul Ryan statements Mitch McConnell statements  which basically we're our number-one goals right   just for the Obama presidency to fail right it  wasn't about what's best for America yeah so   again this is you know the idea that you know  it's so it's hard it's hard to make the case   and I'm sure there's people seeing it sitting here  in the audience you are thinking you know if this   makes no sense if one sides fighting dirty we have  to fight back it's just you know and that's it's   under certain conditions under certain extreme  conditions when there's no other opportunities   available for winning elections then that may  be necessary but as long as there's a chance   for a democratic opposition to play by the rules  we need to in a fight Democrats need to fight   hard but Democrats need to do so in a way that  reinforced democratic norms well I guess part   of you know in reading the book I was asked in one  facet of fantasizing you were wondering if you or   your co-authored ever with some of the Republican  leadership or and I asked if they jokingly if they   read your book because what you're really talking  about or what you're saying is well they really   they're just playing a game they don't really  think this bad things will happen but your book   also shows historically that when the political  leaders sort of step aside or this isn't serious   you know we'll play along for a little while boom  the mousetrap right there's there's a I think all   of us have had have been guilty of the idea that  some way our elected leaders can act as recklessly   as they want and it doesn't matter our political  institutions can endure and we sort of taken   democracy for granted in the United States and I  think one thing that's become apparent again and   that's part of the purpose of writing the book is  that that's not the case I mean but Paul elected   leaders can't act as recklessly as they want  and so we have to demand of them that they act   in ways that reinforce democratically so a couple  of questions I'm not gonna read them exactly but   asked or concerned about younger people high  school kids Millennials and their knowledge or   lack of history or even service I mean if you had  a chance to talk to any people like that I'm not   sure your students maybe not in that group or what  you're feeling about I just spoke at a high school   yesterday out in Danville and so and spoke to two  different groups a group of students and then some   of the teachers yeah you know I think this is  this is certainly critical the you know there is   one of my colleagues and friends Yoshi monk has a  book called the people against democracy which he   cites some survey evidence showing that younger  people tend to be less committed to democratic   norms than older people you know I'm not sure if  I fully believe the results of that I mean I think   that there's a lot of noise in the data but there  there are all people who have made the case that   younger people Zinn and some surprising ways are  less committed to democratic norms again I'm not   sure if that's right but it's certainly the case  that one thing that has passed away to some degree   is the kind of role of civics education so another  colleague of mine Robert Putnam is doing research   on the kind of evolution of civics education in  America from the beginning of the 20th century   to today and there's actually a bill and and  from front of the Massachusetts State Assembly   calling for a revamping of civics education  in Massachusetts which is a really an exciting   project I've heard a bit about it that was the  League of Women Voters was involved and helping   design this and what they call it as an act of  civics engagement active civics curriculum where   where students not only sit in class but actually  participate in service and I think these kinds of   things are really critical well one of the things  is striking and reminder to me in reading the book   again was sort of the role of and especially in  the South blocking people's voting rights and you   know obvious contemporary can you talk a little  bit about the history of like the poll tax and   what the Democrats did in the south after the  Civil War and sort of the vestige of what we're   seeing that activated today yeah we often forget  that the United States was really not a democracy   until 1965 within sixty four sixty five with the  passage of the Voting Rights Act in the Civil   Rights Act because until this period from the  late so after the Civil War with reconstruction   there was imposition of voting rights for for  all Americans across the u.s. south when the   federal troops were there in part to enforce it  but at the end of Reconstruction and deal struck   between national political leaders the Republicans  withdrew from the south and it was left up to the   states to enforce voting rights and Democratic  Party in the south gradually first through legal   changes the first through violence then through  legal changes then through constitutional changes   impose these restrictions the poll tax and all  of these kinds of neutral sounding taxes reforms   that were intended often justified with the  language of cleaning up elections getting rid   of election fraud which were in effect literacy  tests all sorts of creative there's one called   the 7/7 box test where they would have it was an  effective literacy test for each ballot for each   office so would be a like a congressional and  gubernatorial race all at the same time with   the names of the races in each box and you had  to put about separate ballot in each box and so   if you were illiterate you wouldn't know which  box to put it in if you put it in the wrong box   then the ballot would be tossed out so these kind  of very creative ways of restricting the right to   vote which which in turn gave rise to a single  party south and an authoritarian regime within   the United States for you know 70 80 years and  so you know what's a couple of things that aren't   important about that is first of all that this  kind of thing does happen in the United States   second of all that that often efforts to clean  up election so to implement election restrictions   and restrictions and voting rights go on sort of  justified with this neutral and sort of positive   sounding things of cleaning up elections and again  you know we've seen this kind of thing and happen   in other countries and so I think you know it's  important to see that this can happen in the US   as well so another audience question which type of  democracy is better at preventing the slide to non   democracy presidential or parliamentary majority  rien or consensus oriented that sounds like a   question asked by a political scientist I think  must be in the audience in a comparative plus   to know comparative politics well it's I would  have often thought that it would be presidential   assuming a lot of the Latin American cases that  they're all of the allot of America cases that   my co-author really is expert in has these are  all presidential systems where you get this kind   of escalating tit-for-tat between the different  branches of government and when these norms of   mutual toleration and forbearance disappear you  get escalation where each branch of government   really when that when the same were the when  the party the president's party's in control   of the Congress the Congress acts as a lapdog  and lets the president get away with whatever   he or she wants when the Congress is in the  opposite party's hands they caught the Congress   rather than just being a guard dog becomes you  know that you there's a kind of institutional   warfare that takes place so the presidential  system is extremely vulnerable to this kind   of escalating politics in general presidential  systems died at higher rate than parliamentary   systems that that's correct but there are some  exceptions to this and Viktor Orban in Hungary   that this is a parliamentary system and once you  know you kind of reconfigure the electoral rules   so to turn 45 percent which pluralities into  super majorities and then he can rule without   any constraint so if in a parliamentary system  an elected leader gets control of the government   with a supermajority it's very dangerous but  in general presidential systems seem to be more   vulnerable to these problems and I'm gonna skip  around here but do a couple of questions about   the DNC acting like gatekeepers with Bernie  Sanders which you can address but also when   you look at history and authoritarians who are  in power what kind of opponent can beat in the   sort area so there's two parts once they're  in power yeah yeah and also what do you think   I mean did this DNC role yes yeah so the the  Bernie Sanders is not a threat to democracy by   any means I mean he's showed know him he's an  outsider outsiders are not necessarily threats   to democracy outsiders are often very democratic  and Barack Obama was arguably an outsider to the   Democratic Party when he ran for president 2008  Bernie Sanders is an outsider these are political   leaders there have been Republican outsiders who  remain committed to democratic norms so the kind   of system of gatekeeping that I've described it  dominated historically the downside of that system   is that it probably kept out some good Democratic  Outsiders and some mediocre insiders one one of   the my favorite examples that we cite in the book  is warren g harding who looked like a president   yeah the square jaw and that's sort of partly  why these guys picked him but he was a mediocre   president so and the insiders in the smoke-filled  back room picked this guy so many cases these kind   of gatekeeping systems keep out good potential  candidates but on the other hand they also keep   out lots of bad guys and so I think you know  somebody so somebody like Bernie Sanders and   arguably was hurt by the fact that he was not part  of the Democratic Party actually was not a member   of the Democratic Party and the party insiders the  the super-delegates didn't favor him but you know   it's not that wasn't the entire story with Bernie  Sanders but you know I don't I think sometimes   people read our book as being in some ways that  kind of we have a hidden agenda of keeping you   know justifying keeping Bernie Sanders out that's  not at all the case I mean we're just Anders   doesn't really at all fit within this framework  I mean it's just an unintended potential negative   effect of this is it keeps out people liked it  I like Bernie Sanders what's assets I mean you   know back to yes you've really studied Trump and  his and his skills and his ability to communicate   is what what kind of opponent is going to be able  to stand up to that or you think gather strength somebody's asked me to say which presidential  nominee should be we choose skills I'm really   attributes or the yeah even in terms of  communications why don't I don't think we   should look for solutions with single individual  leaders I think we have to think about the kinds   of coalition's that beat these guys system  typically and actually there's something   happening right now in Turkey that's fascinating  that hasn't gotten a lot of media attention so   that's a press Erewhon who's a classic electoral  authoritarian who's entrenched himself in power he   called elector li elections in june that are  coming up and the kind of assumption was he   would there's parliamentary and presidential  elections he would sweep the table and clean   and when again but what's happened is that the  opposition has gotten its act together and this   very diverse opposition has begun to coalesce in  very surprising ways and there are lots of people   were beginning to think that actually opposition  has a chance and so one of the things that has   to happen is that you have that diverse groups  that disagree and a lot of things have to come   together and what they often have in common  are a commitment to democratic norms and so   when facing a real democratic emergency it's it's  absolutely critical for political rivals to put   aside those differences to defeat somebody who's  a threat to democracy to get to give you another   example of this in 2017 the french presidential  election there's a two-round election system   that the mainstream parties didn't make it to  the second round in the second round you had   marine lepen anti-immigrant right-wing you know  maybe not a explicit threat to democracy some of   these other figures but somewhat of a threat to  democracy and running against in the second round   Emmanuel macron who had been a minister in the  former socialist government Francois fiown who   had didn't make it to the second round was the  leading republican party the main center-right   party's candidate for president didn't make it to  the second round so the question was in the second   round what would he do would he remain silent  as for instance our Republican Party did in the   presidential election for the most part people  who didn't like candidate Trump would he endorse   lepen because he's India logically quite close  he's a center-right politician already crossed   the political aisle and support a former socialist  so a member of the Socialist government and that's   what he did he actually endorsed the socialist and  many of his voters fiona's voters went to micron   so I think again this is a case where you have  to have that the way to defeat authoritarians is   the kind of politics of strange bedfellows people  who disagree on a lot but that need to that agree   on a kind of common commitment to democratic  norms so just to overlook those differences at   least in the short run right and do you think  and I'm gonna read again I like reading this   because you haven't read it but can that happen  I'm gonna I want to read this and then I want you   to come back and ask can this happen in this  country around the issue it's really I think   at the center of our one of our great problems  which is polarization polarization can destroy   democratic norms when socio-economic racial  or religious differences give rise to extreme   partisanship in which societies sort themselves  into political camps whose worldviews are not   just different but mutually exclusive toleration  becomes harder to sustain some polarization is   healthy even necessary for democracy and indeed  the highly historical experience of democracies   in Western Europe shows there's us what norms can  be sustained even where parties are separated by   considerable ideological differences but when  societies grow so deeply divided that parties   become wedded to incompatible worldviews and  especially when their members are so socially   segregated that they really interact stable  partisan rivalries eventually give way to   perceptions of mutual threat as mutual toleration  disappears politicians grow tempted to abandon   forbearance and try to win at all costs this  may encourage the rise of anti-system groups   that reject democracy's rules altogether when that  happens democracy is in trouble I think you could   say that's happening now so can these coalition's  form or do you see any examples of that happening   yeah you know I depending on the day you ask me  I have different answers to that question I mean   I wake up in the morning and you know watch news  programs and go from one extreme together probably   as many people here have that share that feeling  you want you know one thing one kind of concrete   example of this level of polarization in the  book we cite this statistic there was a study   done in 1960 asking Republicans and Democrats you  know how they would feel if their child married   somebody of the other political party and four  percent and five percent of Democrats said that   they would be upset if their demo and this is a  1960 if their child married somebody of another   but the other political party the same survey  was conducted in 2015 and that number now is 50   to 60% on both sides and so there's really a kind  of deep sense of fear and loathing on both sides   I would argue there's another Pew survey that we  cite where I think it's 50% of again each party   reports being afraid of the other party afraid  I mean so this is not just disagreement it's a   kind of level of fear so the question is how can  that be overcome I mean that's that's in effect   what you're asking and you know there's no there's  no quick and easy single silver bullet answer to   this I mean one of the things that we argue that  is necessary to happen is the Republican Party   itself needs to be transformed I mean this is  Annie and we actually are it needs to be refunded   I mean easier said than done certainly but needs  to be rebounded and in particular what we think is   that the Republican Party is essentially a white  Christian party in a very diverse society racially   ethnically religiously diverse society and if  you have a political party the syste centrally   a white predominately white Christian party in  this kind of setting it's going to be tempting   to make white nationalist appeals for this party  and so in order for the party to kind of break   out of this syndrome it needs to be rebounded as  a much more diverse party and that you know this   is not such a radical proposal and some you know  the 2012 autopsy of the Republican Party they did   their own study and well this is one of the things  they themselves recognized at least the authors   of their own study of their own of this their  own autopsy why did they lose the election and   one of the things they say need to reach out to  Latino voters and you know to have a more diverse   voter base one of the striking things though is  that this didn't happen and you know you can ask   why didn't it happen and I think part of it is  gets back to this issue if we know who is the   Republican Party establishment there really is no  party to implement this agenda so I think one of   the things that needs to happen is parties need  to be strengthened and the Republican Party and   organizationally I mean what about what I mean  by this is the parties to be put in a position   where it's not so completely dominated by outside  moneyed interests and that public elected leaders   who want to win elections and want to make these  kinds of Appeals actually have a chance to do so   this is one thing a second thing that needs to  happen though is that Democrats I think need   to get out of their most comfortable zones I mean  I've lived in Cambridge Massachusetts for the last   14 years and you know I don't I don't know many  Republicans I have to say and the few Republicans   I know report to me they don't know anybody who  voted for Donald Trump so you know my social so   on social circles I think lots of people are in  this kind of kind of situation and that you know   that's that's fine but the point is these kind  of coalition's need to people need to learn to   speak across the across the party on well I mean  what really comes through loud and clear again in   the book not only currently but historically the  issue of race and you know you-you-you the white   nationalistic trend or feelings are not unique  to this time period and religion and and again   I mean you touch that you know can you talk a  little bit more about how do you see a solution   of bridging this gap between on these issues or  and historically what kind of leadership did it   take in in countries that had these problems sort  of they had there there have to be violence first   before it yeah so we got the boils yeah so  we look we looked you know long and hard   for a lot for cases of overcoming polarization  and one of the things that we've discovered is   lots of cases where national catastrophe proceeds  overcoming polarization and so you know clearly   like an example of you know the German experience  after world war two that's an extreme example but   even let's say Chile after the rise of Pinochet  and the breakdown of democracy which was really   driven in the u.s. played a role but this there  was a kind of right conditions in Chile with   incredible levels of polarization which before  1973 at the end of the Pinochet era christian   democrats and socialists who had been opposed  to each other throughout the time came together   and started getting together on a regular basis  and working together in a collaborative way and   realize you know how much had been lost by not  cooperating and so they got together and they   kind of realized that they need and they set  up a system of concerts at sea on where they   met regularly and remain committed to the tree  committed themselves to democratic rules and   so this became the basis for forming of the new  Chilean Chilean democracy so one of our the points   of our book is to try to say that you know these  catastrophes are the things that have often kind   of spurred a kind of recommitment to overcoming  polarization part of the point of the book is   to say well you know hopefully we don't have to  go through that in order to in order to kind of   reach this kind of level overcoming polarization  a second big thing though kind of more concretely   that the you know the in a democracy the best way  to convince people to change is to Lucilla if you   lose an election and so I think what's absolutely  necessary is for in order to compel the Republican   Party to transform itself it needs to suffer  a series of devastating electoral losses you   know in the short run that may be not sufficient  it's not certainly necessary it's not sufficient   I mean if you imagine so I think November  elections are absolutely critical you know   what may happen of course though in the November  elections if Democrats retake a bunch of kind   of purplish districts that are sort of you know  red districts that have been there slightly blue   you you can imagine what the Republican median  member of Congress is going to look like after   this they're gonna be even further to the right  and so in the short run at least the Republican   Party is going to face this kind of crisis where  the party even if faces an electoral defeat will   be further to the right but you know I think you  know in a democracy the only way these system   these kind of kind of processes of self you know  reform take place is through election laws so that   that's absolutely necessary so the three I mean  the three big themes are racial divide religious   divide and economic inequality yeah really come  through in the book and how to manage that and   that's more of a statement but one thing one  thing I would add this is sort of somewhat   of a joke but intermarriage that's a solution for  everybody across racial and ethnic divides that's   a solution to this role I mean so there are so  the point of that though is that there are social   transformations that are taking place that are  independent of our politics and so some of these   things can you know and so I think California you  know everywhere I travel at this the first time   I've talked about this book in California every  time everywhere we go we never to get an idea   a question from the audience saying what wasn't  California possibly our future where you have you   know essentially a white you know it's rare for  a ethnic majority to lose its majority status and   its dominance its its status so in the United  States the idea that white Christian majority   is losing its dominant status I mean throughout  history this is a date this this kind of creates a   vulnerable situation so but California seems to be  a model potentially for that these kinds of things   can be overcome have you given any talks in red  states invite oh yeah yeah I'm going to Kentucky   in a couple of weeks to speak with the League of  Women Voters so you know which is a nonpartisan   organization I went to central Pennsylvania which  is you know they've kind of red red territory but   it's yeah so it's and you know we wrote this book  really actually with kind of a couple of different   audiences in mine but one is exactly the point  you made it you know kind of Republicans who we   thought could step up and protect our democracy  as well see we think that's critical and you   know it's been reviewed and some to some in some  conservative publications and some of the review   say well this is a great book when dealing with  you know countries outside of the US but soon   as they get to the US it all goes wrong and so you  know I think what that suggests to me is that this   is part of the polarization that we face you know  we're the same guys who wrote the first half in   the second half so you know again historically  you look and this is question I'm interested   in personally it's journalists but you know you  talk about the rise of Hitler in the 20th century   other totalitarians you know Pinochet others you  mentioned none of them really happened in the age   of the internet or technology so the role of media  and I differentiate between media and journalism   what role does it play and how crucial is it to  either helping the authoritarian or stopping him   or her yeah well we you know it's if you look  back over the past year which of our social and   political institutions have done have performed  well some have performed better than others you   know for instance our Congress has not performed  very well one institution that has performed very   well is in the media and and journalism in  particular you know I think a lot of people   could say the media did not do so great during the  campaign but since the election I think the media   is you know there's been a real attention and  incredible work being done exposing and trying to   you know hold our elected leaders accountable and  exposing you know exposing all sorts of wrongdoing   and so I think this is absolutely critical  and that's one thing that gives me a lot of   hope actually is because you know a lot of other  countries this has not been the case and so in   general I think that media have done a good job  we were talking back well you said you know you   distinguish between media and journalism which may  I'd like to hear what I mean what you mean by that   but I think in general the media and journalists  have done it quite a good job well I think media   you know media is a lot of its entertainment and  and business models like Fox and MSNBC which are   based on total political point of view and people  like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or they're not   their media they're not journalists in there and  you could argue purely propagandists or you know   clearly the poor you so I think that's really  confusing and I think another big issue obviously   if the audience just reflects the polarization in  terms of where they get their information and when   the president calls journalists the enemy that  media the enemy the people I mean he's setting up   a dynamic or fake news where media journalism were  blended and for the depending on your political   point of view it's a part of this whole toxic  brew of polarization and I don't know historically   have that plays out well one thing that's that's  clear is that I mean there's actually lots of good   social scientific evidence now on this people  are beginning to work on this so what is the   effect of echo chambers on people but does this  contribute to political polarization so the only   hearing news that you agree with and so people and  experimental settings have social science will pay   people to only listen to media they agree with and  you know see where you know and ask them a series   of questions before and then ask them a series of  questions later and it's clear that this has some   kind of polarizing effect both on left and right  that when you only hear media that you agree with   it pushes you further to the extremes that said I  think I mean it's the findings tend to be I mean   they're an experimental kind of artificial  settings they're you know small percentage   shifts and I think in many ways under Pitt so the  you asked about the role of social media in new   forms of media people have argued to contribute  to polarization and you know looking at only on   your Twitter feed or Facebook account where you  only look at things that you know you did unfriend   people you disagree with you know this probably  contributes but I but I I really do have the   feeling that these at the margins have an impact  but underlying this are these deeper demographic   trends I mean so in the book we argue since you  know beginning in the 60s with the passage of   the Voting Rights in the Civil Rights Act and the  major immigration reform you had a transformation   in the American electorate and before in the 1960s  you had you know essentially two political parties   Democrats and Republicans that were a mixed bag  of conservatives and liberals and so in there were   predominantly white parties with the passage of  the Voting Rights in the Civil Rights Act southern   blacks went to the Democratic Party or southern  whites went to the Republican Party immigrants and   their children went to the started supporting the  Democratic Party and evangelical Christians who   tended to be split between both parties by the  1980s we're voting for the Republican Party so   by the time you got to the era of Newt Gingrich  here two very different political parties there   was a kind of the Democratic Party party event  urban educated whites and the mixed demographic   and ethnic minorities the Republican Party  predominantly a white Christian party so with   deal with these kinds of underlying demographic  patterns this is what I think is really driving   polarization and media and these other factors  certainly are contributing to it and exacerbating   it but I don't think we can blame is the support  of this Recordings question as well of the   evangelicals for Trump based on race yeah I don't  know that's a good question that's an audience   question yeah this is movie something that'll be  very easy to answer kind of impaired mean I think   one could try to disentangle it say you know I  think there are I think there's certain key issues   that the president Trump has remained committed  to I mean with the coordinate sort of handed   things over in terms of picking just justices  and been very much a mainstream Republican and   not and sort of abdicating in some sense to to  what the Republican Party wants and I think you   know with the idea that courts are you know that  fights over abortion rights for instance this is   something that's really important the court as  long as you know he delivers on that then this   is like the only thing that really matters so I  mean I'm not sure if it's all just about race and   you know there's a lot of distraction obviously  at the top and as you study the authoritarian   but underlying all the distraction from the White  House a lot of things are happening that are sort   of undermining the norms I mean there are other  things we should be watching or the things that   you're tracking related to the norms we've  mentioned the courts other things because   you have all the noise at IHOP yeah I think the  attacks on the media but that's gotten a lot of   attention I mean one kind of thing where the you  know when people say it's just all talk you know   that the kind of verbal attacks on the on media  and on court on and so on I mean one wanted one   striking figure I've seen is that you know over  a majority of Republicans think the media are the   enemy of the people and that media restrictions  should be imposed on another major areas the   the constant attacks on the legitimacy of our  elections and the baseless accusations that are   made that that our elections are rigged in there  there's lots of voter ID fraud which for which   there's absolutely no evidence but the frequent  repeating of that you know again people may say   well this is just words but actually a majority of  Republicans I'll say that election voter ID fraud   is rampant and so this is way these are ways in  which the attacks on our norms actually weaken our   institutions because if you think you know is it  possible really to have a viable democracy where a   majority of one party think the media are totally  corrupt and think our elections are rigged these   are two pillars of any democracy and if voters  don't have trust in those institutions then that   that's certainly very worrying so this is where  Matt words do matter that's scary what it's there   I mean and following that up is there if we're  watching are there signals or bells or things we   should be even that frightened you in terms of the  norms that you're watching yeah well what I just   said to you is one thing but I think another thing  that when we one area well I guess what area where   I've become more pessimistic I mean some areas  have been more optimistic some areas where become   more let's start with pessimism and then go down  okay that's good it's a sunny day but I've been   after pessimism I'd have to say something okay  so well the the unwillingness of the Republican   Party to stand up provides two obvious violations  of things that they mean you see these guys being   interviewed and you know what do you think of  this and they obviously uncomfortable don't like   the kind of attacks and rhetoric that are taking  place by the President and yet they're unwilling   to directly criticize them and so this complete  unwell and one of the key lessons I mean this is   about political courage in large part I mean one  of the key lessons of the history of democracy   in juan linz this great political scientist who  lived through via our German in the Spanish Civil   War said to save a democracy people even when you  agree with somebody ideologically when you when   they're violating democratic rules you need to  step up and criticize this okay now I have to say   something we'll go to optimism yeah and a solution  hopefully but it's time it's time we have one last   question when the program that flew by but I  want to offer our thanks to dr. Daniel Z blood   professor of government at Harvard University and  co-author of the new book how democracies die we   also thank our audiences here and on radio  television and the internet I want to remind   everyone here that dr. Z Butz book is for sale and  I'll sign outside the room immediately following   the program and last question yeah on optimism  yeah well one you know I'm not sure if this is   the syllable I mean part of the story is that  there's a lot of lots of people need to do lots   of things to restore our democracy but one thing  that we don't write about in the book but that   I've experienced since talking to people are the  role of professions and professional ethics and so   the weather lawyers journalists teachers people  who abide by a set of professional codes which   inoculate them from authoritarian appeals and I  think it's absolutely critical that journalists   continue to abide by their professional ethics  and that lawyers and judges do as well as well   as academics and social scientists and scientists  and that you know that I hadn't fully appreciate   to what degree that actually helps protect our  democracy okay well thank you again thank you dr.   Zee Blatt thank you thank and I'm Robert Rosenthal  of the Center for Investigative Reporting and now   this meeting of the Commonwealth Club the  place where you're in the know is adjourned

Channel: Commonwealth Club of California

Views: 3,133

Rating: 4.7090907 out of 5

Keywords: DANIEL ZIBLATT: HOW DEMOCRACIES DIE, democracies, history, politics, Commonwealth Club, San Francisco

Id: Oj-olR6OCoE

Length: 65min 43sec (3943 seconds)

Published: Tue May 22 2018