UBC Phil Lind Initiative Presents: Anne Applebaum

hello i'm charmaine da silva journalist and news  director at news 11 30 and city news vancouver   welcome to the 2021 phil lind initiative speaker  series the anti-democratic turn i'm thrilled to be   your moderator for tonight before we begin i would  like to acknowledge that ubc is on the traditional   ancestral and unceded lands of the Musqueam  peoples who have called this area home for   thousands of years and continue to do so today  as many of you know the phil lind initiative   was established because of the generosity of ubc  alumnus phil lind who we would like to thank for   his ongoing support of this incredible initiative  the purpose of mr lin's donation was to create a   platform to provide opportunities for ubc students  to see and hear from prominent u.s intellectuals   on the most critical issues of our time i also  want to thank the organizers of tonight's event   for all of their efforts to ensure that we can  continue to host these events in the midst of a   global pandemic i am delighted that so many  of you could join us for this virtual event   this is i think it's fair to say an  incredibly timely series given recent events   so a big welcome to all of you and we hope  you're looking forward to this as much as we are   please feel free to tweet along with the event  using the hashtag lind21 i'll be taking audience   questions at the end of the event and we'll be  using zoom's q a feature which you can find at the   bottom of your screen please feel free to submit  your questions or to upvote questions you'd like   to hear asked but i'm going to ask you to please  avoid making any comments using that feature   the guiding question of this speaker series is  if we accept that the previous administration   is a symptom of more deeply rooted  problems in american society   how do we begin to address the emerging  fault lines of the democratic process   a few weeks ago we kicked off this year's series  with michael sandell and charles blow tonight   we will hear from ann applebaum with events to  come featuring timothy snyder and danielle allen   so without further delay i am thrilled to be able  to introduce pulitzer prize-winning historian and   staff writer for the atlantic and applebaum  she is a senior fellow at the johns hopkins   school of advanced international studies at  the agora institute where she co-directs arena   a program on disinformation and 21st century  propaganda her latest book twilight of democracy   the seductive lure of authoritarianism examines  the resurgence of of authoritarian tendencies   and democratic politics as a columnist and  editor and has written countless articles   and award-winning books covering everything from  the collapse of communism the history of the   gulag to cookbooks and travelogues it's now my  pleasure to turn the mic over to anne applebaum so thank you very much um it's lovely to be here  virtually or spiritually or however it is that   i'm here with you on zoom um i'm sorry i'm not  there tonight and maybe you know maybe in some   pandemic free future um we will we will be able  to do something something in person um thank you   to the organizers um and and thank you charmaine  for doing this uh i'm i'm gonna i'm gonna speak   tonight just informally um partly because i want  to make sure that we answer questions and that   that's the main part of the evening and partly  because i've just written a rather informal book   it's called twilight of democracy which sounds  very ominous but really the origin of the book   lies in a a reflection that i had round about 2018  2019 when i started thinking back initially about   a party that i gave in 1999. and so the book does  begin with a party which not because i'm a great   hostess or because i'm that good at giving parties  but because a party is a metaphor um for a group   of friends or acquaintances in a kind of milieu  um and the milieu that i was in at that time was   i mean you could have called us anti-communists  you could have called us center-right   um at that time the party was given in a  house that my husband who is polish and   i had bought and renovated the renovation was  not complete by that time but there was a roof   and um there was a lot of empty space there wasn't  a lot of furniture it was an old house it was a   19th century house that we that we fixed up  um and the party as i said we could if you   could have described most of the people there as  center-right maybe thatcherite some there were   some british friends um maybe maybe anti-communist  but we shared a set of values and ideas you know   this is ten years after the fall of communism this  is the millennium um most of us would have been   most most of the guests were polish most of them  would have been in favor of poland joining the   european union very excited about poland joining  nato um absolutely committed to the idea of polish   democracy um to the extent that everybody thought  about economics committed to markets and to some   um some some some kind of economic system that  looked like what people had in western europe   um and that was the that was the rough you know  that was a kind of rough agreement among people   who were there um 20 years later when i look  back on that group and i think about who came   i realized that there is a part of that party that  no longer speaks to the other part and this is not   a personal quarrel it's not just because i'm  difficult and i don't speak to people anymore   or because people are you know you know people  can't get along this was actually a political   division that there were some people who were  there and kind of vaguely part of our group or   people that we knew who have now become something  very different um and they can't really describe   them as center right anymore you have to use  you know expressions like nationalist or radical   in order to explain what they are and  quite a few of them are journalists or   spin doctors or one or two cases mps who are  affiliated with the ruling party in poland um   and that party is um it's been around for a  long time um i would have said 15 years ago   that it too was a center-right party um but  it's gone in a very different direction and   since winning an election in 2015 this is a party  that has made a kind of assault on the independent   judiciary in poland um that took over state media  public media you know the equivalent of your cbc   um and made it into a kind of party propaganda of  a kind that we haven't really seen in poland since   since the communist era very you know they  run smear campaigns it's it's homophobic   it's anti-semitic sometimes um it's very angry  uh it's very and of course very biased and pro   the ruling party um at the same time they've  put a lot of pressure on independent media   um they've sought to uh you know they've even  just recently there was a there's been a tax   announced on on advertising and private media  that's designed to make the independent media   go bankrupt it's their hope to take that  over um much as has been done in in other   authoritarian populist countries hungary turkey  places like that and many people who i know   some of them work for state media some of them  are crafting the policies for this government   um some of them are part of their assault on um on  on on on the european union on the liberal order   um even now increasingly beginning to be against  the united states they were very fond of the trump   administration um they're left they're now  very worried about the biden administration   and that's because they have reason to be i  mean they are deliberately taking a country   that was really the great success story of 1989  the great success story of polish com of of the   collapse of communism um and they're driving it  in a completely different direction um uh you   know there they will make they're making it much  more difficult for opposition to win elections   they're beginning to put even um judicial pressure  legal pressure on on their political opponents   there have been some strange arrests um and  they're they're heading they're heading in   a very different way and the question is why did  this happen why were people who were once on the   same side why did they split what was the what was  the explanation as i started to think about that   story and you know people who i know i  realize that you can tell a very similar story   about the center right in other countries  um there is a similar story you can tell   about the republican party in the united states  which also has split and is now very publicly   you know the two sides are at war with one another  there's a there's a different but parallel story   you can tell about the british conservatives  um who very much changed their orientation now   they're a completely different kind of political  grouping than they once were and you can look at   political groups actually all across europe um and  and around the democratic world and you can find a   similar phenomenon whether in france or whether  in spain which i also write about a little bit   or whether italy um and and i realized that what  i had lived through or what i was witnessing was   one of those very big moments of intellectual  shift when there's a big generational change um   and rules that were accepted and considered  you know sacrosanct you know the idea of   you know that a free press is sacrosanct that  an independent judiciary is something that we   all agree is necessary um that economic  integration and political integration   of poland or of the united states with the rest  of the world is necessary and good all these   things are now are now being questioned  and some of them are being questioned by   by people i know and so the question is what what  drove the change and there are a lot of different   ways to answer the question and maybe annoyingly  for some in my book i do not give one answer um i   will not there is not you know how you're meant  to have when you write a book one sentence that   describes your thesis um i don't have that um  i i give you i give you a lot several different   people in their careers and several different  um several different kinds of explanations um   some of them i think are you know there's one  category of explanations that has to do with   deep what i can only describe is disappointment  um that the nature of political and and social   and demographic change that took place  in the 90s and 2000s um for some people   um made them feel alienated from the countries  that they lived in so this isn't the kind of   country i grew up in um you know i didn't grow  up in a country that was mixed race or had all   these different kinds of people in it i grew up in  some a different sort of country um or a different   kind of place or you know i i or or some who  haven't accepted um the you know the widespread   acceptance of gay marriage that's not something  that they can accept or they feel comfortable with   um changes in the treatment of women in the  status of women in society also that happened   too quickly for some people um in some cases it's  it's not social or demographic in some cases it's   um what what globalism and what or globalization  rather what globalization and economic integration   um made them feel that their countries were  losing something unique you know that the   again the england that i knew is now heart  you know is now so integrated and you know   you can't tell the difference between my england  and europe um something essential about my country   has been lost and this was another feeling that  that that people had and i'm trying to describe   this neutrally i mean there can be a you know  there can be better and worse versions of this um   you know there there was an impact of the  economic crash in 2008 and 9 not necessarily   just on people's personal finances although of  course that happened but also on the sense of   faith and trust that people had in particularly  american leadership but more generally western   leadership on the economy more general you know  do these people really know what they're doing   um you know we thought they did clearly they  don't um and that had that had an impact on the on   on the you know on these changes too and and  before i go into some of the worst versions of   this um one thing that's important to remember  is that we have just lived through a period of   extraordinary economic and political change um  and we are still living through this amazing   moment of informational change  when almost everything that we know   now comes to us in a different form and a  different way than it used to and at times past   in history when you've had these moments of rapid  change you very often have this disorientation um   and the book i actually point to a few parallel  you know you can look at the late 19th century   germany you get this very similar phenomenon of  what at the time which you could call cultural   despair you know people feel something essential  about my country has been lost it's changing too   fast you know people were simpler and better in in  a different era our leaders were more honest these   squabbling pygmies you know who lead us now these  these so-called democrats i mean they're nothing   compared to the great figures of of of history um  and you've had this you've had this kind of these   kind of instincts before and i also want to stress  that it's it's they're not wrong that things have   been lost or things have changed rapidly and that  ways of life that existed 20 years ago or the   the kind of town i grew up in or the neighborhood  i grew up in doesn't exist anymore they're not   wrong i mean it can it can be true um but  what what what then happened was that um   you know um uh paul again politicians journalists  intellectuals saw that there was this nostalgia or   this feeling of loss from rapid change and then  sought to weaponize it and use it and create   um political structures around it and create  nostalgia um i you know for something else   that that that was in the past and even to begin  to say you know this it's not just nostalgia these   are this is the society that we want back so let's  negate the present let's go back to something that   we had and this here's where you get slogans  like make america great again or um uh you know   or or or take back control you know stop that  which was the slogan of the brexit campaign in   2019 and 2016. um you know stop all this change  let's go back let's let's be what we used to be   um and this is often the impulses driving the  driving the radical right um and i should say that   it's i'm describing it in mild terms here but it  can be very um you know if you genuinely believe   that your society is going downhill and that it's  it reached its peak and it's now almost finished   and your civilization is dying then you know then  you'll do anything to to make it right again even   including engage in violence engage in radical  politics um you know argue for the smashing up of   the existing system you know if you really think  your society needs to be rescued then that's what   you'll do um on top of that very often there were  personal reasons as well and it's very hard to   pick apart people's personal or their and their  and their and their political um motivations but   i mean certainly in poland by by 1999 and and and  certainly by 2019 you certainly you had people who   who looked back on the on the on the decades  of transition since 1989 and said to themselves   i didn't get what i wanted to get or i didn't  achieve what i wanted to achieve or and these   are very often people who are educated they have  money i'm not talking about um about people who   are you know destitute but nevertheless the  free poland or um you know or post reagan   america or post thatcherite britain didn't  give them what they thought they didn't have   the role that they felt they should play having  having once been involved in these very exciting   political movements and so sometimes there's a  personal aspect to this as well you know people   want see the opportunity to make careers um or  or or gain power or be able to be able to um   you know use power in a different way if they  attach themselves to these radical movements   and that's part of part of the attraction as well  um what you know what why did i write about this   i wanted um americans and and canadians um  and others who live in liberal democracies   um to remember that a lot of the assumptions that  we've made for the last several decades certainly   since the second world war about the stability  of our societies you know that we are that there   is something special about our democracy that and  that our and that our democracy needs no special   help or or um or or reform you know the democracy  is something like water coming out of a tap and   we don't have to really do anything in order  to get the water we don't have to take part in   public life you know there are some professional  politicians over there who are doing things for   us we don't really have to vote we don't have to  be belong to parties it will just sort itself out   um that that that this was a mistake um precisely  because we didn't you know while we weren't   looking while we were off whatever we were doing  making money or writing novels or i mean i'm not   not that those are the wrong things to do but  while we weren't watching politics a large group   of dissatisfied people um i write mostly about  intellectuals and journalists and writers but   you know you could write about other from other  walks of life too were were beginning to change   the nature of politics um and we you know rather  than thinking about politics as water coming out   of a tap we would be better off thinking of it as  um you know water in a well you know you have to   it might be that that you know democratic politics  it's not enough to just let other people do it   it might be that um if we if we care about it and  we want to make it work um and we don't want um   you know people who use very you know easy slogans  to win elections um and we don't want um you know   to to let opportunities slide we might have to  treat water like it's from a well we have to go   and get it fetch it bring it back boil it we might  have to join political movements we might have to   be part of local politics in our you know in our  city or our region um we might have to interest   ourselves or contribute to politics in different  ways um and you know and it was by writing about   people who had been activated and motivated  by um you know you know by these you know um   you know these radically nostalgic movements  um that i hope readers will will be inspired to   think about what is you know what's good  about our societies what needs to be preserved   um and how we can preserve it anyway those are the  those are you know those that's those are the the   main themes of the book i also i i i look back on  to as i said other eras when you can get similar   patterns um there's a wonderful description the  the novelist marcel proust in his very very long   multi-volume novel remembrance of things past  also talks about how the politics of friendship   changes over you know over has changed over the  course of his lifetime i mean this is the narrator   not proust himself and he writes about how um  you know he writes there's a whole section of one   of his novels about the dreyfus trial in france  this was a this was a great um scandal around uh   you know a a jewish french army officer who was  condemned um for as a traitor and you know falsely   as it turned out and society absolutely split  and divided over whether he was a traitor or not   polarizing in many of the same ways that  we feel you know america feels polarized   now or poland feels polarized um and bruce  writes about this how this affected social   life and his in the cells of paris and hostesses  didn't speak to one another and then the narrator   um he's ill and he he leaves he leaves the  city for a number of years and convalesces   he returns back and he finds that all of paris  has reconfigured itself and now they're talking   about world war one the issues are different  the battle lines are going a different place   um different people are at different parties and  and you see them in different configurations so   i i wanted people to understand  that these kinds of changes are   you know are normal um you know there's there's  a circularity to political life that i think we   forgot about i mean in our in our in our  in the complacency that we attained after   you know the great success actually of  the post-war years of the democratic bloc   um and then the kind of crowning moment of success  which was the collapse of the communist bloc   um and the accession of so many democracies into  the democratic camp um i think we began to think   of democracy or or politics as a kind of linear  you know it's always a straight line upwards   um it you know we don't have to do that much it'll  just keep getting better and better and we're on   a sort of autopilot and actually history doesn't  work like that um history is often circular old   ideas come back um things that you thought  were forgotten or or we you know we got over   that we solved that problem maybe not they they  return again and again um and it's my hope that   those who read the book will be inspired by that  not to despair and say you know our democracy is   finished or our civilization is over but to ask  themselves um what we can do to make sure that   this you know radical reactionary way of seeing  the world um doesn't win and i'll stop there   well it's uh it's more clear than ever  and i think the uh about the relevance   of of your book given what we're experiencing what  we've seen and and most definitely uh the events   over the past several months in in the united  states i know you know you're originally from uh   washington dc and i wanted to ask you i think many  of us watched the events that unfolded uh in the   capital uh on the capitol on january 6th and while  shocking and upsetting uh not entirely surprising   that that they happened that way what was running  through your mind as as you were watching uh   watching the events unfold and and the aftermath  and what we've seen since so in a way you're right   i mean the events of the capital i mean they were  they were they were shocking but not surprising in   other words no i didn't predict that things would  unfold in exactly that way but i wasn't entirely   surprised that they did i mean think about think  about what it was that we saw at the capitol   because you can you can analyze it the  wrong way that wasn't what we saw there   that night wasn't polarization that wasn't  the division between right and left in america   um the people who were at the capitol were not  there they weren't republicans fighting democrats   they were there to fight congress itself um they  were trying to prevent congress from recognizing   the next president they were trying to vet  you know mike they were trying to prevent   um the the vice president from certifying the  results of the election um you know they were   chanting hang mike pence i mean they were looking  for him whether they were hoping to kidnap him or   actually murder him we don't know they were  also looking for nancy pelosi because she's   the speaker and the most important um person  in congress in the in the house um and that was   that was why they were there um and so what what  that group represented was really an anti-systemic   um political movement or party or group i mean it  wasn't they i don't think they represent i mean   i know they don't represent all republicans and  i know they don't certainly don't represent all   conservatives but they were a group of people who  no longer believe in the institutions of american   democracy they don't believe in congress they  didn't have any trust in what congress was doing   um they don't believe in the electoral system  they don't believe in the the republican elected   republican officials who were responsible for  counting votes in states like georgia and arizona   and they simply you know you know  and they and they now live in an   alternative world and they have an  alternative vision of their nation   where they have alternative sources  of truth and information that don't   you know that clash with that and so in in many  ways i mean they they they are the you know   they're the embodiment of this long process i mean  once you began to as i said this is where this is   where that form of right-wing radicalism led um it  you know it it taught its it taught its followers   not to trust first not to dress the media not  to trust politicians not to trust congress   not to trust the government um and eventually what  did they trust well they trust this you know these   groups of news services and and um you know you  know people in facebook groups who repeat the same   lines and the same mantras that they believe in  and they've come to live in this alternate reality   um and the and really the task facing um  america now is you know i mean it's almost   it's more than a normal political task i mean  it's about reintegrating a part of the society   that has rejected the system has rejected the  norms um you know they they're they're they're   you know radical enough to commit violence certain  certainly radical enough to break the law um you   know and they i mean it's you know you have to  now think of american politics a little bit more   more like i don't know northern irish politics  once upon a time you know in that you have groups   of people who have very different definitions  of what the nation is um is the nation you know   in you know that in in the old days in northern  ireland it was some people believed that northern   ireland was british some that it was irish and  they were willing to kill one and over over this   definition and in the us now you you know you  have some group of some people who believe that   joe biden won the election you know which he did  and some who live in an alternative reality where   trump won the election they therefore don't accept  the legitimacy of the current president so um so   reintegrating those groups is now is you know  is now an enormous uh political task ahead of us   is it is it possible in in your opinion based  on on where we're at and what we're seeing   so you know everything is possible um you  know i'm one of these people i think it's   very irresponsible to be pessimistic i mean i  you know telling people younger than me you know   that there's no hope seems seems pretty unfair um  and there are lots of examples of countries that   have gotten gone through you know very bitter  polarization in the past and have come out of   it um i mean sometimes some i've even you know  occasionally people use the example of canada   um you know the the the bitter divisions  in quebec once upon a time that have now   faded and and don't matter so much anymore as an  example of one place where polarization has has   kind of calmed down and northern ireland itself  is a great example um and you know when you look   at what was done in northern ireland what were the  um what were the political tactics and strategies   um that were used in that conflict um um you know  some of them apply one one of the great lessons of   in many kind of peace building or conflict  post-conflict situations is that you know the the   most important thing to do um when you have this  bitter polarization and groups that don't accept   the you know don't accept the same status quo is  change the subject so instead of arguing over you   know whether northern ireland is british or irish  or instead of arguing over who won the election   let's talk about how to fix the roads or how to  fix the economy or um you know let's talk about   you know the vaccination program and how we can  make it work better i mean changing the subject   away from um from the culture wars and from the  issues that inflame people and make them angry   and getting them to talk about things that we  all care about um or that affect all of us that   make us less angry um this is this is this is  a this is a tactic that's been used in the past   um another way is to think a little bit  differently about building coalitions um   you know if you're a if you're a liberal democrat  um you might not you know things that you say   might not have much effect on your you know  far-right friends who don't affect the or or   your cousins more more normally who who you know  who don't believe in the in the electoral result   um but you can but you might know or you might  have a contact to a you know religious leaders   or business leaders or others who have who  have influence more influence than you do   um and you might try and go through them to you  know to to make some impact and i think you know   by that what i mean to say is that there are um  you know we need to think harder about who are the   you know who are the kind of trusted speakers  i mean who are the trusted messengers um who   you know who might we be able to work with  inside those communities who can talk people   at least talk people down from violence and  maybe talk them down from division um and once   you begin to think in this way you know once you  begin to understand that what we're talking about   is a group of people who live in an alternate  reality and want a different kind of country   um and you know you know you and you know then  then you begin to think along you know what do   we do what did we do in northern ireland what did  we do in colombia how did colombia reintegrate its   you know 50 year old terrorist  movement once once the civil war ended   um thinking along those lines i think  can help us think about america in the   future um my instinct by the way is that the  biden administration knows this i mean if you   if you see biden since he's come since he's become  president he's almost never mentioned trump i mean   even when he's asked about trump he kind of  changes the subject um he stayed well out of   the impeachment um debate and and trial didn't  didn't have much much to say about it um and i   think those are all deliberate policy ideas i mean  that you know his idea is to lower the temperature   you know get people to talk about things  that don't make them angry um and and try and   build on that to create some you know a broader  base for for for political and economic reform   now in the midst of all everything that's  happening south of the border uh and around the   world uh we of course are also in the midst of a  global pandemic and um you know one of the impacts   i think on on global institutions that that i'm  particularly interested in as a newsroom leader   is uh you know the the impact on access access to  information from from government because of the   pandemic you know journalists around the world  are having a much harder time getting access   to officials it's so easy to get  muted there are no follow-up questions   you know we see this here in our own backyard and  you know because of the pandemic and because of   limitations on on gatherings and such uh this  could be the the state for some time um you know   you have talked about and written about in the  past the impact of uh and i apologize for for   the the background noise if you can hear it from  there is a train passing so i apologize for that   um but you've written in the past and and talked  about um you know journalism and that access to   news and that access to information and how that's  impacted the situation where we are in today   around information around the discourse um do you  have any thoughts on the impact of of the pandemic   on access to news sure well let me let me answer  it first a little broad a little more broadly   by saying that one of the really striking things  about the pandemic aside from the fact that almost   every phase has created new kinds of problems that  we didn't think of in the in the original phase   um and that may still be the case going forward  so almost anything i say now might be canceled out   three months from now when everything looks  different again but one of the interesting   lessons of the pandemic is that the big division  in the way that countries react to it reacted to   it was not between authoritarian countries and  democracies that wasn't the important division   the important division was between countries where  people trusted and had faith in you know in in   in government institutions and in science and  countries where they didn't or countries where   political leaders you know used um you know you  know use the did politics around the pandemic and   and deliberately sought to destroy that trust  and so on the one hand you know you look at you   look at taiwan you look at south korea um to some  extent you look at germany and the way they dealt   with the pandemic and then you can compare you  know the other extreme is the united states   and brazil um who both two countries where they  dealt very badly with it and where information   was politicized and undermined and where people um  and people as a consequence lost trust and faith   in public health officials with you know very  detrimental consequences and we now have 500 000   dead in the united states from this pandemic you  know in the in the country with the most advanced   biomedical industry and some of the greatest  hospitals and doctors in the world um and that's   it you know it's just an illustration of the  direct result of of politics um but i mean i   think more generally you know your your question  is about how to how to journalists you know both   in the pandemic world but also outside how do  they create trust how do how can they be sure   they're giving people good information and how can  they build um you know you know trust among their   readers i mean if you are um you know and then  this has been this has been you know this this   is almost a it's it's almost an emergency the the  the issue of core coronavirus misinformation and   now vaccine misinformation which journalists are  in a are in a really important position to combat   and they haven't always had the backing from  the government or they haven't always had   backing from their newspapers or they haven't  always had the the financial foundation to to to   push back um and i you know i do hope that one of  the lessons of the pandemic is that people begin   to understand how important not just um it's not  just about the existence of good information but   building um circles of trust around information um  you know it's something that i hope newspapers and   other you know and other you know television you  know television programs and others will think   harder in future about how to build trust between  themselves and their audiences i mean what are the   what are the tactics what are the techniques  um how can we avoid we as journalists avoid   polarizing issues that you know that that that  that are focusing on the polarizing issues that   make people um um uh you know hate one another  and you know and and how can we be you know what   what's the how can we how can we tell the news how  can we tell the stories um that will bring people   together and at least create civic conversation i  mean i think that's the um that's the lesson but   i mean there's no there's no question that this  has been a terrible moment for journalism it's   been a terrible moment for public health um it's  been a terrible moment for government officials um   it's been a terrible moment really for anybody um  who needs to be trusted in order to do their job and and speaking of that the the terrible moment  for journalism i think you know we i i've heard   you speak about um you know the the loss of local  and regional news outlets um over the past number   of years and the impact that that's had on our  discourse and and that information and we know   uh that this pandemic uh you know  from an economic perspective has been   uh very devastating um to media um exactly why  regional news is so important in local news   because it's much it's it touches things that  people can see and so you know they're writing   about you know the local bridge has broken or we  need we have potholes in our roads or um you know   this is happening in our city in our town hall and  issues that people can see and discuss are much   less polarizing than these big national issues of  identity and um you know and as i said culture i   mean when you're asking people you know am i this  kind of person am i uh you know do i identify   with the republican brand is that my identity you  know and therefore i you know i direct all of my   animosity against people who might perceive to be  left-wing or democrats or marxists or vice versa   um you know you know when you're in that realm  of conversation you don't have good conversation   um however when you're all talking about you know  the the the park around the corner and how um   you know we need we need it to be better taken  care of and someone to mow the grass every week   you know then that's something that  doesn't polarize people and it doesn't   it doesn't have people falling back on  these big questions of identity and culture   um and the more and the and the value and  advantage of local news and locally based   news organizations and actually by the way this  is true of universities too which i think can play   a big role in the kind of information ecosystem  too is that they have local connections they have   you know they're part of the community um they can  build trust i mean for example around the question   of should you get a vaccine or not in a way that  some politician in ottawa or washington can't   um and so yes i think the the importance of  local local journalism and news local sources of   information universities libraries all of these  things you know we're making sure that all these   institutions and organizations are playing a  role in the information ecosystem i think is   really important now we have a number of questions  that are that are coming in uh on our q a feature   so i'll remind everyone that if you do have a  question you can go ahead and ask it in the q   a section at the bottom of your screen or you  can check out some of the questions that have   already been asked and you can upload them so and  i'm going to start with a question from michael   and he writes you describe the people who you  no longer talk who attended your party as people   who have changed in the intervening years would  these people say that you and your allies have   also changed in the intervening years have both  sides shifted in their thinking or has only one   side moved to a more authoritarian place while  the other has remained true to its original ideas   so if you ask me that i feel that i have exactly  the same opinions about everything that i always   had i mean i mean i'm joking a little bit but not  entirely probably if you asked them they would not   they would disagree they would say you know i've  shifted i've become more you know more pro i don't   know more more in favor of global integration even  though it would be my view that i always was that   um or they would say that i haven't acknowledged  the the you know many damaging things that have   happened sufficiently enough and i mean i do think  that actually what's happened um it's a little bit   like you know in proust's novel you know everybody  was talking about the dreyfus trial and then   ten years later everybody was talking about  world war one and that meant that the issues and   alliances were different i would i think it's more  the case that that's what's happened um that the   what we're talking about is different now um you  know what what was the center right in the 1980s   and 1990s i mean and i speak from my experience  not that this is not maybe the exact canadian   experience but certainly american or polish or or  british you know the center right was a coalition   you know the anti-communists let's talk about the  cold war coalitions you know anti-communists were   anti-communists for for different reasons some  of them were um because you know they were in it   because they they believed in human rights and  democracy okay some of them were in it because   they were religious and they believed that  communism with atheists and therefore it   had to be fought and pushed back against some of  them were people who were interested in who were   worried about nuclear weapons and were interested  in um you know grand strategy in america's place   in the world and that was why they were part  of the anti-communist coalition when communism   disappeared and this is just an example of one way  in which you know things have changed those people   in that broad coalition many of them suddenly  found they didn't have that much in common   anymore you know that actually you know some  went on to you know because religion was at   the center of who they were and what they thought  should be at the center of politics they went on   they went off in one direction others because  they thought that you know the promotion of   democracy or human rights was at the center  of who they were they went off in a very   different direction and and i would say it's  more that something like that has happened i mean   somebody asked me recently we there's one  particular person who i describe in my book who   um is now who was at this new year's eve party  in 1999 and who is now a famous anti-semite i   mean that's actually what he's known for  he he he writes anti-semitic screeds he's   been on television making anti-semitic  statements i mean this is sort of his   trademark and somebody said to me well how could  you be friends with him or invite him to your   party if he was in 87 and the answer was i  didn't know or he didn't voice those views   at that time and whatever it was that changed in  politics um meant that he you know i mean and man   i should say maybe he did feel the same way the  whole time but he but his you know the political   situation changed made him comfortable with or saw  the advantage of speaking that way and so in that   sense um he became different but that's you know  maybe that is a reflection of who he always was i   mean you could say the same about me that i there  are things that i talk and speak and write about   now that i didn't talk and speak and write about  30 years ago because they weren't they didn't seem   as important or as central um so i don't know that  it's so much that any of us have changed it's that   the that the circumstances have changed and what  we think is important has changed along with it now milland asks uh or writes it seems that  intellectuals in the anglo-american world   have difficulty seeing beyond europe and north  america there has been a lot more written about   for example hungary's turn to the right than  the takeover of india by a right-wing hindu   nationalist and authoritarian government india  is more than 100 times bigger than hungary   for decades it was a shining example of how poor  postcolonial countries can also be functional   democracy warts and all why do you think this sort  of parochialism persists and what might be done   to start global conversation on this topic and  not just a eurocentric one so there is a global   conversation on this topic um you know my book  and what i wrote about was about people i know   and therefore it was a in that sense a parochial  book um but that was deliberate i i wrote it that   way because i recognized that i had lived  through this kind of intellectual shift   and i had lived through it as a kind of  participant you know that i was a character   in the story and that therefore it wasn't a story  i could write about as a objective observer you   know and so i thought all right i'm going to  write about it from the perspective that i know   and i'm going to write about people that i  know and so i wrote about the countries that i   that i've lived in and i know the best but you are  absolutely right um this is a global phenomenon   and usually when i talk about this um i i you  know you can talk about india you can talk about   the philippines um you can talk about turkey  um you know you can talk about brazil um and   and and what's really extraordinary about  what's happening right now is that the   pattern of change in all of these countries um  is so similar um which leads me to believe that   it's you know i mean the real you know the really  parochial way to look at these stories is for   you know americans very often look at their  own history you know this is to do with   the civil war and the failure of reconstruction  and that explains where we are today and   you get this often in europe oh well the um you  know what's happening in poland and hungary is   explained by the by the post-communist experience  i mean actually um i mean you're absolutely right   that the better way to look is this look at  this phenomenon happening in all these places   you know what is it you know and of course there  are regional differences and nuances and so on um   racial issues are very different in different  countries religious issues are different but   you have this phenomenon what you know what  is it illustrative of i mean it's and it's my   it would be you know i would agree with you that  it's a broader phenomenon i would link it again   to this rapid change i would call it a backlash  against global you know globalization integration   um i would also call it a um a kind of  the result of this this dramatic change   in information that we were just talking about  um and the and the profound lack of trust in   existing institutions that that has helped create  and helped fuel and the change in information by   which i mean the internet more broadly social  media more specifically as well but um you know   i would just say one other thing which is that  i don't think you can blame um you can't ever   blame anybody for being parochial in that they  everybody's always more concerned about about you   know their own countries it's funny polls often  ask exactly you know why doesn't anyone in america   care about us why don't they why don't they talk  about us and and you know or you know and i say   to them well you know do you know what's going on  um in azerbaijan you know and how you know are you   paying attention to the politics of i don't know  um rwanda and of course they aren't um and you   know we we are all we you know we are all focused  on on the on the places that seem most similar   um to us but but it's important very often to  step back and look at the global picture too   now anand asks how do you how do you see these  changes as they relate to our movement to late   stage capitalism is there an intersection between  the two that you would say has contributed to   political polarization in society i don't really  know what's meant by late stage capitalism   so i i might need more elaboration um i certainly  think there's a relationship of this phenomenon to   economic change um i i pointed to the lack of  faith in in in the in the economic leadership that   was created by the pandem not the pandemic by the  by the by the um the by the crash in 2008 and 2009   um i do think that growing inequality um  has also had a big impact on people and the   the sense that you know how can we how can we all  be treated as equal in a society where there's so   you know it's so evident that um you know the  wealthy have more political influence than i do   um you know i i think that is a um you know  although although i don't know that there's   a clear there's not a clear formula in my  head for how to fix that because many of the   solutions can can create further problems but  clearly the expansion of inequality and the   expansion of these um um you know global companies  that aren't that that are no longer even bound by   the legal systems and by the political systems  of the countries they originate in i mean is   is google really an american company anymore  or is it a global company that owes no loyalty   to anybody um you know i mean the the problem of  kleptocracy and money laundering which is endemic   in all of our countries and has i think also a  much bigger impact on politics than we usually see   um is also evidence that you know so much of  what used to be under the control of national   governments is now out of their control and i  think in that sense this sense of in particular   the sense of insecurity that you know my  government doesn't control anything anymore   um a decision can be made in beijing that means  that my factory closes um here in vancouver   um you know i think those kinds of you  know that that's contributed to the   um you know to the sense of insecurity and  the and the feeling that government is weak   and it needs some radical change i don't  know if that's the that's the answer that you   that you wanted that's the answer they're gonna  get isn't it um and you know you you've talked   uh you were talking about this this earlier  but this question is is quite popular um when   speaking specifically about american democracy um  how vulnerable is it uh if trump or a follower of   trump is elected as president in 2024. how strong  are the institutions uh protecting democracy i mean there isn't really a um there's no i  can't really give you a clear answer to that   it would depend who the you know who is elected  and um i mean funnily enough i think if trump   were reelected i would you know i mean one  of one of trump's signature qualities was   his incompetence he was not a i mean even though  i think he probably wanted to be more autocratic   than he was able to be uh he was not good at  governing um nor was he able to appoint people   who were good at governing um and he just was he  was he was he was incapable of gathering around   him an efficient team um if you had a different  kind of person with those kinds of goals um who   who got to the wise house and said right my goal  is to make sure that i never lose another election   um in other words if you had someone who  did what victor orban has done in hungary or   modi in india or or um you know or putin in  russia 20 years ago who who said right i'm   going to you know while i'm in office here i'm  going to fix the rules and change the system   so that i can't lose again um you know then you  would have um you know then you might have a um   you know then then we would see whether  whether the institutions could stand up i mean   um you know you you know if you were able to  change voting laws if you were able to change um   you know undermine the stability of the media i  mean the us does have some built-in advantages   that some particularly smaller countries don't  have um one of them is that we're a federal system   and so things that happen in washington don't  necessarily penetrate down to california or   texas or iowa um and there and it's and power  is actually very decentralized i mean just   just the simple fact that you know in a smaller  european country for example the the government   would control the police or would have you know  control there would be something like a you know   national police system we don't have that in the  united states i mean there's a that was one of   the reasons why last summer that's the scene of  those strange federal troops fighting in portland   oregon was so odd because we're not we don't have  federal troops you know we don't who who who are   who who are dispatched to um to deal with domestic  you know domestic political situations i mean we   have we have some who are on the borders  who do various kinds of jobs but not that   um and so that's one of the things that that that  you could that would protect democracy in america   i mean another thing that is um you know that that  that makes a big difference is that we you know we   have the separation of powers we also have um i  mean funnily enough a very strong court system   as the events of the last three months have  illustrated um one of the tactics that i mean   by the way one of the taxis that was planned  well in advance that trump was hoping to use   um to undermine the election um was these you  know was this kind of law fair you know using this   series of lawsuits against um against election  officials um and they were thrown out i mean   systematically one by one i mean the courts  were not corrupted in that sense they were not   um you know they were they were thrown out  sometimes in minutes um and and the you know in   that you know the the the supreme court has stood  up the lower courts have stood up um none even   when they were trump appointed judges um the they  didn't they proved to be sufficiently independent   and they continue to see themselves as loyal to  the constitution um and not to the president um   the military sees itself as loyal to the  constitution um and not to the president and there   been there were a number of statements in the last  few months to that effect as well so as long as we   have institutions like that that see themselves  as um as having a higher calling or as having   independence from politics um then then the united  states is in good shape i mean we simply aren't as   small and as centralized as poland is for example  um uh and and it's much more it's much more   difficult to run the united states as an autocracy  um but does that does that mean that someone won't   try no i mean somebody might try um and um you  know and even in the act of trying they will do   a lot of damage i mean look trump didn't succeed  in creating an autocracy in america either but he   did a lot of damage um he you know he he convinced  a part of the country um that our electoral system   doesn't work um you know he you know he he damaged  and undermined a lot of important institutions   even though he was incompetent and so  what someone who's competent would do   is very hard to say now speaking of that the  the damage to the the faith and the trust in   the electoral system i mean that that has been  central to what we've seen since since the u.s   election and you know leading up to what happened  at the capitol um how does that trust get rebuilt   or can it be well i mean first of all i  mean one one point worth making is that   um distrust in the electoral system was how trump  got elected in the first place so this wasn't just   the effect of trump this predates  trump um remember how he came to power   um what was the issue that he came to know you  know to public attention as a political figure   you know what was it it was birtherism so  this was the conspiracy theory that barack   obama was born in in kenya and therefore he  was an illegitimate president and therefore   he had no right to to be the president um  and this you know and if you think about   what that means i mean if that were true and that  barack obama were an illegitimate president that   would mean that a lot of people i mean congress  and the white house and the courts and um lots   of institutions of american life were lying i mean  they were supporting this illegitimate president   and that trump got so much traction making this  argument about the legitimacy of obama um and then   he remember that even after he won the election he  went on denigrating the electoral system he went   on you know he refused ever to accept that he'd  lost the popular vote for example he kept over   over overstating what his vote had been um you  know he and he went on and he and he never you   know even in advance of 2016 i mean sorry of the  2020 election he never said he would accept the   result you know he always essentially said if  if i'm not if i didn't win then it's fake um   and you know so all of that cumulatively created  this distrust going back over many years and and   predating trump together so this is a you know  this is a long-term problem not a short-term one none of the answers are simple or easy um  some of them are the ones i've given already   how do you lower the tone of u.s politics  how do you get people involved in civic   conversation or civil conversation um so that  they aren't yelling at each other um and and   part of doing that will be part of bringing  people who live in this alternative reality   where you know where they are easily manipulated  part of bringing them into a different kind of   conversation so that they can hear different kinds  of information um you know it's the same tactic um   you know again you find trusted messengers  you find ways to change the subject   um you think about how to you know what what are  the messages that biden can give to the polarized   or alienated part of the country that will make  them feel comfortable with his presidency i mean   actually when i've spoken about this before  written about it sometimes i know these this   kind of language can annoy people you know i've  had people say well you know how come they don't   have to get used to living in our country or how  come you know why does why don't the you know the   you know why doesn't fox news send reporters to  brooklyn and ask yoga teachers why did they vote   for joe biden you know what is this attraction  to biden why don't they interview black women in   georgia and ask them um you know why they didn't  you know why they voted for democratic senators   you know so they so it is it feels often like a  one-way project um nevertheless if we're going to   um you know if we're going to avoid violence um  and we're going to tone down political debate   and we're going to keep people inside  some kind of democratic consensus i mean   it is going to be necessary for um democratic  leaders you know at all levels actually   to find ways to reach that group of people to  involve them in conversations to get them talking   about something um something that's real um and  so that it's not and so that they hear something   other than the culture war on fox news and newsmax  and and as all of this is going on and and we're   talking about trust in democratic institutions and  the electoral system we also saw in november you   know more people cast ballots uh than they have  in the history of the u.s so is is there a reason   to be optimistic that you know the the turn of  events that we've seen as as as scary or troubling   could could actually have been a wake-up call for  many people about the definitely you know the no   number of votes was hugely encouraging i mean i  also think there's been a kind of civics lesson   you know you know even of the last few months um  you know how does our electoral college work um   you know what is the role of congress and in  certifying the votes um how do these procedures   and processes work um i mean another you know i  i you know another solution or another part of   the answer that a lot of people talk about and  i i'm always hesitant because it sounds so um   it's so obvious i mean a lot of  people talk about civic education   um and the problem with civic education  at least as it's done in the united and it always makes states think  of something really boring um   you know on the other hand the musical hamilton  was civic education um if if there can be more   creative ways to remind people how the system  works i can think of internet campaigns or you   know viral media messaging i'm actually part of  a group that that is trying to do that um are   there ways in which we can remind people what our  common heritage is and you know and this is also   a problem in um you know there's part of the left  in the united states and we haven't really talked   about this yet that also increasingly feels  alienated from mainstream america how do we   how do we make sure that all of us at least  some of the time are talking on the same   page or operating um you know have at least the  same basics but you know basis for conversation   um so so you know so so those kinds of solutions  i think have to be part of the answer too   now since you opened the door speaking of of the  left and and those on the left that feel alienated   or or ignored or or not heard um are some of the  the things that you talked about that have led   to this rise in authoritarianism um or the the  risk of for example violence if if not realized   are those risks there for for that for that group  on on the left as well of course i mean you know   the the one of the um one one of the people who  i describe whose ideas i describe in the book   um who's very is a she's a kind of behavioral  psychologist behavioral economist i think   called karen stenner who has written very  interestingly about what she calls an   authoritarian predisposition um which is something  different from an authoritarian personality   you know that there are people who in times  of rapid change um you know in moments when   there's a lot of cacophony and noise and  political confusion begin to look for very   simple answers simple solutions um sometimes for  violent solutions and this is a you know and this   this this way of thinking this desire to kind  of end this conflict and make everyone be quiet   or find violent answers to to problems is  something you can find on the right and the   left and of course history you know i've written  three long history books about soviet communism   um and so i'm well aware that you can there there  is a there are forms of left-wing authoritarianism   as well um and you could absolutely i mean  one of the things that i was worried about   had trump won the election is that i was worried  that there would be you know in addition to that   problem there would be people on the left in the  united states who felt so alienated from politics   you know that you know that their votes  didn't matter that um that they were um   you know that that the kind of person in the  white house was so alien to them that they might   have ended up in in in in groups that rejected  the system or and or in you know carrying out   violent actions too so we're you know that that's  a that's a future that didn't happen but i did   did at one point worry about it last fall now  going back to to the questions that are coming   coming in from the audience uh hiron asks michael  lynn's book the new class war talks about how   the dismantling of labor unions and the rise of  neoliberalist managerial class whose policies   overshadowed the concerns of the working-class  majority has created discontent among this   majority which has given the opportunity for  demagogues to capitalize on such sentiments   based on what you've said you seem to take the  opposite approach that the dissatisfaction of   people primarily has created this change how do  you envision a political system that accounts   for the major concerns of the working class so  there's a couple of different questions in there   um i would i would caution everybody to remember  that the stereotype we have of trump voters that   they are they represent the poor and the working  class is not proven statistically in other words   the very poorest americans voted for joe  biden um and the same is actually true   for example in poland where um the the the the the  people whom i write about in my book um many of   the supporters of the far right um the far right  ruling party are not the poorest people in the   country they are very often middle class um and  and in poland you have the special case where not   only are they middle class they're people who have  achieved quite a lot in the last several decades   um and they're much better off than their parents  which is you know you can argue about whether   that's the case in the u.s same phenomenon in  britain where wrongly um many analysts initially   when after the brexit referendum um took place  many analysts said well this is the you know   this is the result or the revolt of the working  class against the managerial class or against the   rich or whatever that's also not true um quite  a lot of the brexiteers many of their leaders   certainly the funders many of the funders were  were among the wealthiest people in the country   and many of the voters were also middle class  or upper middle class people from you know the   wealthiest parts of the country so be careful  with that with that you know with with with the   with the kind of marxist classification of who's  a worker and who's you know who's in which class   and that that that is an absolute determination  of how they vote um you know i and i want to be   nuanced um i don't want to say that those things  don't matter um that um that the the nature of the   economy isn't part of the story i mean i i alluded  to that before um but a lot of what we're talking   about is really um is cultural rather than  economic um it's people who resent changes in   hierarchies um people who resented the fact that  we had a black president in the united states um   you know somehow that upset the traditional  hierarchy or people who didn't like women in high   positions of power people who felt for a variety  of reasons some rightly some wrongly that they or   people like them weren't given the same respect  that they once had or they didn't have the same   status that they once had so this is that's a  big part of the story and not all of those people   are working class people um and so a kind of  schematic class analysis of of what's happened   i think misses a lot of nuance which again isn't  to say that economics aren't important they ve   they are but it's not the i don't find it a you  know more and more i think that i mean this is by   the way as true the right as is of the left more  and more i tend to think that you know all of us   like economic descriptions of problems because  they imply that there's an economic solution   and an economic solution is one all right okay  we can have higher taxes i mean then we have a   we have an easy policy you know or a prescription  you know there's something we can do and this   will fix it and if we readjust this you know  you know it appeals to the to the economist   or the technocrat you know the inner technocrat  of all of us but not all problems have economic   solutions um or not ones that are um not ones that  are easy or not ones that don't have trade-offs   um and and i think the you know the problem of  the growing discontent with democracy and with   the political system more generally has a lot  of sources that aren't aren't only economic   now when you were describing that  stereotype of of of the trump supporter um   and actually you know what the reality is when  you look at some of the the voting stats um   one of the the realities too is that there are  elites on on both sides very with huge interests   in how all of this plays out um can you talk a  little bit about the elites on the side that are   that are pushing for uh authoritarianism um  particularly from a u.s perspective and and trump   so that's really what my book is about i mean if  i'm if i'm honest it's a book about elites i mean   it's not about rich people but it's about until as  i said intellectuals and writers and journalists   and people who are pretty well off um and who  are nevertheless discontented either personally   or politically um with their country and and you  know a lot of what we saw what we've seen in in in   washington over the last four years is really one  kind of elite battling another kind of lead i mean   trump had support from a big part of you know  there's a whole there's a whole world of far-right   media intellectuals and writers um who supported  him so it's not true that he didn't you know laura   ingram who's one of the characters in my book  she went to dartmouth i mean she's an ivy league   trained lawyer who um was a supreme court clerk  and she's a you know she was she was probably   trump's most important early um advocate on fox um  so she is a you know by any measure actually what   is she she's an elite east coast intellectual um  and yet she was she was pro-trump um there are a   lot of very wealthy people um i mean i you know  from some of whom i know i mean who are who are   you know run you know work in the financial  world in new york or um or who are well off   you know who own big companies and businesses who  also liked trumpism and and trump um and you know   and the the oddity of hearing people like that  talking about themselves being anti-elitist or   you know against the you know again against the  east coast elite you know you would often want   to shake them and say well what are you you know  i mean and what for that matter what was trump   i mean trump was a a a rich person um who went  to an ivy league school actually university of   pennsylvania um who lived in new york and that  he was able to caricatu you know cast himself   somehow um as the voice of you know the masses or  pretend um that's what he was doing um is a is a   is a tribute to the power of of the lies that he  told um um you know i mean one of the you know   there were you know i i i i've ever find that even  even the word populist when used about trump is   sometimes frustrating because he did use classic  populist language and that he spoke of himself as   a man of the people fighting against the elite but  actually he governed in the interests of the elite   um and he came from the elite and he embodied the  values of a part of the elite so it was always a   that was always the thing about him that was  the most phony um the thing about him that was   authentic though the thing about trump that was  real and that will be hard for others to reproduce   was his sense of grievance that i have been  mistreated and i haven't been given my due   and i haven't been you know um the the journalists  are mean to me or the you know people in new york   were snobby to me or i mean there's a there's  a deep grievance that he expresses constantly   in the way that he speaks um and in his language  and that sense of grievance i think was authentic   and i think people found that appealing so  people who had some feeling of grievance   against whatever it was against um you know  whoever they thought the elite was or whoever   they thought was in charge or whatever unfairness  they perceived there to be they found his message   attractive um and that could be people from all  social classes i mean up and down the income scale now barry asks in your book you describe  authoritarianism in countries with weak democratic   traditions and in countries with strong ones and  that doesn't seem to make any difference are you   not surprised that strong democratic traditions  don't save countries from this authoritarian term   well they can i mean you know you could argue that  this in the end the strong democratic tradition   saved the united states i mean that um they can  it's just that i wouldn't rely on them alone um   the the bad habit that americans got into over the  last several decades was saying we're a democracy   we've been a successful democracy for 250 years  um there's nothing in particular that we need to   do to fix our democracy it's all going fine  um and and and because we have such strong   traditions nothing can break it um i mean the  truth is that if you look back through history   starting with ancient greece in rome um  most democracies do decline um and and   many of them have collapsed and the there is a  long history of democratic collapse in crisis   um and even in countries and and states that  had that had strong traditions um you know and   it's very interesting the the founders of  america the people who wrote the founding   documents um those the people who wrote the  constitution um were very conscious of that um   you know the all of them at the time of  the revolution and in the years afterwards   all of them were reading um cato and cicero  um they talked off frequently about the roman   republic and how the roman republic had declined  um they talked about the rise of caesar and the   the example of caesar as a kind of arctic  demagogue and they wrote the constitution   with that in mind i mean what they were what they  were what they were um trying to protect against   was the collapse of the decline of democracy that  they read about in um in in ancient greece and   rome um and so they you know they were conscious  of the fact that democracies can decline or that   the public can lose its virtue and be taken in by  a demagogue i mean they knew that it's just that   somehow by the 1980s and 1990s we didn't know that  anymore we somehow thought that it couldn't happen   here because you know we're so you know we we've  been going on for so long and we're so stable but   but i mean i think the i do think the last four  years and particularly the last couple of months   i hope have jolted people um into a realization  that it's not that it's not that easy so   you know here here we are in the aftermath of of  what has happened in the in the u.s and and quite   frankly is continuing there um and as you describe  all over the world we're in the the middle of this   global pandemic with a lot of people wondering  you know when when the end is in sight for that   what are the most important things in your mind  that that citizens should be watching out for i didn't know that so much that citizens  should be watching out for it's what   citizens should ask themselves what they could  do what can and i recognize that people are busy   and i don't suggest that everybody become a  political activist and you know some people   hate politics and that's kind of understandable um  but what can you know ask yourself what can you do   um in your community or in your state you know or  in your your in your city um you know to improve   you know to to to improve the situation for  other people what what organizations can you   be involved in um you know if your thing is  the arts then maybe you should head in that   direction if you you know if there are you know  if there are other big national organizations you   feel comfortable joining and supporting i mean  ask yourself what you can do to make sure that   um the democratic institutions around you are are  are holding up i mean there are a lot of really   good interesting groups and organizations that  have been created in the last few years there's   a group called protect democracy in the united  states which which funds um lawsuits that defend   the right to vote for example but you know there  are there are you know you can you can volunteer   to help out on voting day um you can be involved  in a community organization that takes care of   i don't know i mean not making it up i mean  uh you know cleans up the local park i mean   whatever it is that you can do um to be  involved in your community and be part of it   um i think that's a that's the best way to  be to to contribute to democracy and then   the second thing to do is to listen to politicians  on the left and on the right um and and watch out   for the ones who um who who who use as their  main tactic um the increase of your distrust   you know the people who say you know um you know  listen to me because everyone else is wrong or   um you know don't have any faith in the  institutions of your country they're all   fake um all these democratic political parties  and these politicians they're just yelling at   each other they're getting nothing done it's  all a waste of time let's have a let's have an   easy and radical alternative um listen hard for  people who talk like that because they can come   from you know they can be part of different  political groupings and don't vote for them now with with that you know not not just about our  institutions and how how we can be involved and   and um you know what we can do the reality  is this pandemic has has changed the way   that we are and there's a lot of conversation  about whether certain things will go back uh   to the way that they were uh pre-pandemic are are  there lasting impacts in your mind uh outside of   what we've seen in the rise of authoritarianism  that have been driven by the reality of the   pandemic and how it's changed our lives so i've  been i'm reluctant to answer that question yet   um because as i say the pandemic has had different  phases you know in the early lockdown phase um   you know don't let anybody out over  the border phase you know that was a   moment when the pandemic looked like it was  going to be good for authoritarians actually   later on as it became clear that getting through  the pandemic you know more or less in a civilized   way was you know required some level of public  trust and decent bureaucrats and good public   health messaging then suddenly it looked like the  pandemic was going to be bad for authoritarians   or at least bad for authoritarian populists like  bolsonaro and trump and maybe it was um and so the   you know and we're now in another phase you know  now we're talking about vaccines and you know some   countries have made good and bad decisions about  the vaccine and that may also affect how people   feel about their governments and their systems um  when that is done um so i'm a little reluctant to   make any any sweeping generalizations about what  it's going to mean um i do think it's going to   um you know the the the you know the sense of  caution that people feel and the anxiety that   some people feel anyway in public is going  to last for a while um the it's going to be   a while before people are comfortable again in big  groups you know in i don't know rock concerts or   um or in big crowds um you know it it may take  some time you know and i it may even be that there   are certain kinds of um ways of being that we  don't return to i mean will there ever really be   business travel again like there used to be with  people flying all around to go to conferences you   know when we've all learned that okay maybe this  event would be better in real life but actually   quite a lot of business meetings aren't um um  you know there may be less travel of that kind um   there may be less travel in general actually um as  people begin to weigh the costs and and and think   a little bit harder and there may be more you  know more caution about about mixing and mingling   i mean i i you know i i think i think we're going  to be in a more cautious more nervous more wary   world for a long time i mean even even once we're  all vaccinated you know even even once the numbers   are are below zero i think it will take i think  it'll take i think it'll take some time to recover well this conversation has  been uh absolutely riveting and   uh was there anything that you  wanted to sort of say in in closing   no i just thank you to the organizers um thank  you to all those who who sat through this um it's   a you know i'm sorry it was zoom and that i can't  now go and have a drink with you somewhere and um   you know in real life and and maybe we'll be able  to do that again soon i hope so well i want to uh   first of all give a big thanks to phil lind uh our  organizers and of course to our wonderful audience   uh please do not forget to join us for the final  two events of our series the highly anticipated   conversation with timothy snyder on march 4th and  our final event with danielle allen on march 18th   finally i want to thank you and applebaum for  joining us tonight uh this was absolutely my   pleasure thank you and have a good night thanks  for your questions much appreciated thanks you

Channel: UBC School of Public Policy and Global Affairs

Views: 3,633

Rating: 4.6626506 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: Pct_VQhDzao

Length: 84min 19sec (5059 seconds)

Published: Wed Mar 10 2021