Why I Can’t Stop Thinking About ‘The End of History’ | The Ezra Klein Show

Francis Fukyama's 1989 essay, The End of Francis Fukyama's 1989 essay, The End of History, is remembered as this History, is remembered as this History, is remembered as this triumphalist argument heralding the triumphalist argument heralding the triumphalist argument heralding the permanent victory of liberal democracy. permanent victory of liberal democracy. permanent victory of liberal democracy. After it, anything major that happened After it, anything major that happened After it, anything major that happened in the world, you would get these people in the world, you would get these people in the world, you would get these people saying, "Well, I guess history didn't saying, "Well, I guess history didn't saying, "Well, I guess history didn't really end, did it?" I remember this really end, did it?" I remember this really end, did it?" I remember this particularly after 9/11. This week, of particularly after 9/11. This week, of particularly after 9/11. This week, of course, is the 25th anniversary of 9/11. course, is the 25th anniversary of 9/11. course, is the 25th anniversary of 9/11. But this was such a terrible misreading But this was such a terrible misreading But this was such a terrible misreading of Fukiyama's argument because if you of Fukiyama's argument because if you of Fukiyama's argument because if you actually read his essay and particularly actually read his essay and particularly actually read his essay and particularly if you read the book that came out of if you read the book that came out of if you read the book that came out of that essay, he is saying something very that essay, he is saying something very that essay, he is saying something very different. The book was called the end different. The book was called the end different. The book was called the end of history and the last man and it was of history and the last man and it was of history and the last man and it was anything but triumphalist. anything but triumphalist. anything but triumphalist. Liberal democracy might win, Fukyama Liberal democracy might win, Fukyama Liberal democracy might win, Fukyama thought. [music] It might become the way thought. [music] It might become the way thought. [music] It might become the way most states organize themselves, but it most states organize themselves, but it most states organize themselves, but it might win at top a cramped and partial might win at top a cramped and partial might win at top a cramped and partial vision of the human soul. one that vision of the human soul. one that vision of the human soul. one that believed in our ability to consume but believed in our ability to consume but believed in our ability to consume but had little room for our desire for had little room for our desire for had little room for our desire for recognition, for greatness, for daring. recognition, for greatness, for daring. recognition, for greatness, for daring. And no political system without room for And no political system without room for And no political system without room for those parts of ourselves would be stable those parts of ourselves would be stable those parts of ourselves would be stable for very long. You cannot build a good for very long. You cannot build a good for very long. You cannot build a good society at top a flawed vision of human society at top a flawed vision of human society at top a flawed vision of human nature. My view is that very few books nature. My view is that very few books nature. My view is that very few books in politics are as insightful or [music] in politics are as insightful or [music] in politics are as insightful or [music] as important for understanding where as important for understanding where as important for understanding where liberal democracy went wrong, why liberal democracy went wrong, why liberal democracy went wrong, why figures like Donald Trump keep rising, figures like Donald Trump keep rising, figures like Donald Trump keep rising, and why the opposition to them seems so and why the opposition to them seems so and why the opposition to them seems so won and uninspiring so often. So, this won and uninspiring so often. So, this won and uninspiring so often. So, this is a book that I think needs to be is a book that I think needs to be is a book that I think needs to be cleared of a sin they didn't really cleared of a sin they didn't really cleared of a sin they didn't really commit because it has something to say

commit because it has something to say commit because it has something to say to us. Now, Fukyama is a political to us. Now, Fukyama is a political to us. Now, Fukyama is a political scientist at Stanford University. He's scientist at Stanford University. He's scientist at Stanford University. He's written many books since that one, written many books since that one, written many books since that one, including a two volume series on the including a two volume series on the including a two volume series on the nature of political orders, a critique nature of political orders, a critique nature of political orders, a critique of the neoonservative world that he was of the neoonservative world that he was of the neoonservative world that he was once part of, and a defense of once part of, and a defense of once part of, and a defense of liberalism from its attackers. [music] liberalism from its attackers. [music] liberalism from its attackers. [music] But his new book is a memoir in the But his new book is a memoir in the But his new book is a memoir in the realm of the last man. And so I wanted realm of the last man. And so I wanted realm of the last man. And so I wanted to begin with that idea of [music] the to begin with that idea of [music] the to begin with that idea of [music] the end of history and the last man. I end of history and the last man. I end of history and the last man. I wanted to begin by rediscovering the wanted to begin by rediscovering the wanted to begin by rediscovering the book that made Fukiyama famous so we can book that made Fukiyama famous so we can book that made Fukiyama famous so we can hear what it has to say about the world hear what it has to say about the world hear what it has to say about the world [music] we now live in. Francis Fukyama, welcome to the show. Francis Fukyama, welcome to the show. >> Thanks very much for having me. >> Thanks very much for having me. >> Thanks very much for having me. >> So, I want to begin the conversation in >> So, I want to begin the conversation in >> So, I want to begin the conversation in your most famous book, a book I'm a huge your most famous book, a book I'm a huge your most famous book, a book I'm a huge fan of, which is The End of History and fan of, which is The End of History and fan of, which is The End of History and The Last Man. So, this is built on an The Last Man. So, this is built on an The Last Man. So, this is built on an essay that comes out in 1989. It's a few essay that comes out in 1989. It's a few essay that comes out in 1989. It's a few months before the Berlin Wall Falls, a months before the Berlin Wall Falls, a months before the Berlin Wall Falls, a book comes out after the fall of the book comes out after the fall of the book comes out after the fall of the wall. you have this moment where liberal wall. you have this moment where liberal wall. you have this moment where liberal democracy really seems to be triumphing.

democracy really seems to be triumphing. democracy really seems to be triumphing. The end of history has become this The end of history has become this The end of history has become this highly memed in many ways simplified highly memed in many ways simplified highly memed in many ways simplified concept. So what was it? concept. So what was it? concept. So what was it? >> Well, this was not my phrase. It was a >> Well, this was not my phrase. It was a >> Well, this was not my phrase. It was a phrase of the German philosopher Hegel. phrase of the German philosopher Hegel. phrase of the German philosopher Hegel. Uh and he meant his history with a Uh and he meant his history with a Uh and he meant his history with a capital H. So we would use the word uh capital H. So we would use the word uh capital H. So we would use the word uh development or modernization today. Uh development or modernization today. Uh development or modernization today. Uh but it's directional, it's progressive, but it's directional, it's progressive, but it's directional, it's progressive, things are getting better. human reason things are getting better. human reason things are getting better. human reason is prevailing uh in structuring is prevailing uh in structuring is prevailing uh in structuring societies and the question of the end of societies and the question of the end of societies and the question of the end of history was not the end of events. It history was not the end of events. It history was not the end of events. It was to what objective does this uh was to what objective does this uh was to what objective does this uh historical process seemed to be leading. historical process seemed to be leading. historical process seemed to be leading. The Marxists took that same concept of The Marxists took that same concept of The Marxists took that same concept of history. They believed in history also. history. They believed in history also. history. They believed in history also. But they believed that the end was not a But they believed that the end was not a But they believed that the end was not a liberal society. it was a communist liberal society. it was a communist liberal society. it was a communist utopia and that you know was their utopia and that you know was their utopia and that you know was their guiding star uh in in their political guiding star uh in in their political guiding star uh in in their political movement and my observation back in the movement and my observation back in the movement and my observation back in the late 1980s when Gorbachev was uh in the late 1980s when Gorbachev was uh in the late 1980s when Gorbachev was uh in the Soviet Union was that we weren't going Soviet Union was that we weren't going Soviet Union was that we weren't going to get there uh we were going to stop at to get there uh we were going to stop at to get there uh we were going to stop at the penultimate stage which was some the penultimate stage which was some the penultimate stage which was some version of liberal democracy and a version of liberal democracy and a version of liberal democracy and a capitalist economy and for me that was capitalist economy and for me that was capitalist economy and for me that was you know the practical end of history you know the practical end of history you know the practical end of history that had it really emerged. So this is that had it really emerged. So this is that had it really emerged. So this is more the way to think about the term the more the way to think about the term the more the way to think about the term the end of history is the end of the process end of history is the end of the process end of history is the end of the process of figuring out how to politically of figuring out how to politically of figuring out how to politically organize organize organize >> the goal or the objective of that >> the goal or the objective of that >> the goal or the objective of that process.

process. process. >> Why did you think we were going to stop >> Why did you think we were going to stop >> Why did you think we were going to stop there? there? there? >> Well, I didn't know that we were going >> Well, I didn't know that we were going >> Well, I didn't know that we were going to stop, but all of these big systematic to stop, but all of these big systematic to stop, but all of these big systematic competitors had all either competitors had all either competitors had all either self-destructed or had been rejected uh self-destructed or had been rejected uh self-destructed or had been rejected uh by the people that once followed them. by the people that once followed them. by the people that once followed them. And I think the challenge that I was And I think the challenge that I was And I think the challenge that I was trying to make was to ask people, yeah, trying to make was to ask people, yeah, trying to make was to ask people, yeah, can you locate something that's better can you locate something that's better can you locate something that's better than this outcome? Uh not necessarily than this outcome? Uh not necessarily than this outcome? Uh not necessarily that you know our society uh is perfect. that you know our society uh is perfect. that you know our society uh is perfect. It obviously is not. But is there an It obviously is not. But is there an It obviously is not. But is there an alternative form of political and social alternative form of political and social alternative form of political and social organization that you think will make organization that you think will make organization that you think will make people in the end uh happier and and people in the end uh happier and and people in the end uh happier and and lead uh you know more fulfilled lives? lead uh you know more fulfilled lives? lead uh you know more fulfilled lives? And I to this day I've not seen anyone And I to this day I've not seen anyone And I to this day I've not seen anyone really posit. Well, what the Marxist really posit. Well, what the Marxist really posit. Well, what the Marxist thought and and you talk about this in thought and and you talk about this in thought and and you talk about this in the book is that a capitalist system has the book is that a capitalist system has the book is that a capitalist system has within it a contradiction that will within it a contradiction that will within it a contradiction that will inevitably lead to its undoing, which is inevitably lead to its undoing, which is inevitably lead to its undoing, which is you have this class conflict and you you have this class conflict and you you have this class conflict and you have a small number of people at the top have a small number of people at the top have a small number of people at the top who are exploiting the great mass of who are exploiting the great mass of who are exploiting the great mass of workers beneath them. And liberal workers beneath them. And liberal workers beneath them. And liberal democracy is lying when it says that it democracy is lying when it says that it democracy is lying when it says that it equally or even reasonably aortions equally or even reasonably aortions equally or even reasonably aortions freedom. that the you know as a famous freedom. that the you know as a famous freedom. that the you know as a famous line goes that the fact that the rich line goes that the fact that the rich line goes that the fact that the rich and the poor men are free to sleep under and the poor men are free to sleep under and the poor men are free to sleep under the bridge is not an equality of the bridge is not an equality of the bridge is not an equality of freedom. So why are you not convinced freedom. So why are you not convinced freedom. So why are you not convinced class is such a dangerous contradiction?

class is such a dangerous contradiction? class is such a dangerous contradiction? >> Well, it it could be especially with the >> Well, it it could be especially with the >> Well, it it could be especially with the rise of technology but um you know for rise of technology but um you know for rise of technology but um you know for much of the period after 1945 much of the period after 1945 much of the period after 1945 you didn't have pure capitalism. You had you didn't have pure capitalism. You had you didn't have pure capitalism. You had basically in most uh advanced countries basically in most uh advanced countries basically in most uh advanced countries a form of social democracy and I think a form of social democracy and I think a form of social democracy and I think the democracy part of it was absolutely the democracy part of it was absolutely the democracy part of it was absolutely necessary because unless you provide necessary because unless you provide necessary because unless you provide certain social protections unless you do certain social protections unless you do certain social protections unless you do a certain amount of redistribution the a certain amount of redistribution the a certain amount of redistribution the inequality in the society is going to inequality in the society is going to inequality in the society is going to become intolerable. And for most of that become intolerable. And for most of that become intolerable. And for most of that period you actually had rising real period you actually had rising real period you actually had rising real incomes for working people. And so even incomes for working people. And so even incomes for working people. And so even though there was inequality you had though there was inequality you had though there was inequality you had political stability because everybody political stability because everybody political stability because everybody could buy into it. Now I never argued could buy into it. Now I never argued could buy into it. Now I never argued that this would be true for all time and that this would be true for all time and that this would be true for all time and I think that the nature of technology is I think that the nature of technology is I think that the nature of technology is changing such that the degree of changing such that the degree of changing such that the degree of inequality has grown. I think inequality has grown. I think inequality has grown. I think globalization has also contributed to globalization has also contributed to globalization has also contributed to this and unless you moderate those this and unless you moderate those this and unless you moderate those inequalities uh through political means inequalities uh through political means inequalities uh through political means uh you're just not going to have stable uh you're just not going to have stable uh you're just not going to have stable democracy. So, one of the things that I democracy. So, one of the things that I democracy. So, one of the things that I think is fascinating about the way you think is fascinating about the way you think is fascinating about the way you frame this in the book is you try to frame this in the book is you try to frame this in the book is you try to move the foundation for liberalism off move the foundation for liberalism off move the foundation for liberalism off of some of the philosophers we normally of some of the philosophers we normally of some of the philosophers we normally give it to, Hobbes and and Lock and onto give it to, Hobbes and and Lock and onto give it to, Hobbes and and Lock and onto Hegel. And one of the ways you do that Hegel. And one of the ways you do that Hegel. And one of the ways you do that is to say that [gasps and sighs] is to say that [gasps and sighs] is to say that [gasps and sighs] Hobs and Lock had this much more narrow Hobs and Lock had this much more narrow Hobs and Lock had this much more narrow vision of what a liberal society or even vision of what a liberal society or even vision of what a liberal society or even just a just society is trying to achieve just a just society is trying to achieve just a just society is trying to achieve which is you know self-preservation. It

which is you know self-preservation. It which is you know self-preservation. It is simply almost existing at a is simply almost existing at a is simply almost existing at a reasonable level reasonable level reasonable level >> of material well-being. >> of material well-being. >> of material well-being. >> And you say Hegel understands the human >> And you say Hegel understands the human >> And you say Hegel understands the human soul better than that and that the human soul better than that and that the human soul better than that and that the human soul wants more than that. It wants soul wants more than that. It wants soul wants more than that. It wants recognition. And the fundamental recognition. And the fundamental recognition. And the fundamental question for liberal societies, the one question for liberal societies, the one question for liberal societies, the one that will decide whether or not they are that will decide whether or not they are that will decide whether or not they are the end of history, is whether they are the end of history, is whether they are the end of history, is whether they are actually able to spread recognition actually able to spread recognition actually able to spread recognition around society equally enough, not just around society equally enough, not just around society equally enough, not just freedom, recognition, being seen, being freedom, recognition, being seen, being freedom, recognition, being seen, being valued uh enough to survive. So, so tell valued uh enough to survive. So, so tell valued uh enough to survive. So, so tell me a bit about that move that it's me a bit about that move that it's me a bit about that move that it's actually recognition that is at the actually recognition that is at the actually recognition that is at the center of political life. Well, this is center of political life. Well, this is center of political life. Well, this is an idea that goes all the way back to an idea that goes all the way back to an idea that goes all the way back to Plato. Uh Socrates in the Republic asks, Plato. Uh Socrates in the Republic asks, Plato. Uh Socrates in the Republic asks, "Well, we have reason, we have desire, "Well, we have reason, we have desire, "Well, we have reason, we have desire, but isn't there a third part of the soul but isn't there a third part of the soul but isn't there a third part of the soul that he calls thumos, which can be that he calls thumos, which can be that he calls thumos, which can be translated as spiritedness or pride?" translated as spiritedness or pride?" translated as spiritedness or pride?" Uh, and it's a non-material drive that Uh, and it's a non-material drive that Uh, and it's a non-material drive that people have that they want other people people have that they want other people people have that they want other people to acknowledge their humanity. So, I to acknowledge their humanity. So, I to acknowledge their humanity. So, I have these I invented these two Greek have these I invented these two Greek have these I invented these two Greek words uh isothia and megalothumia.

words uh isothia and megalothumia. words uh isothia and megalothumia. Isothumia is basically, you know, it it Isothumia is basically, you know, it it Isothumia is basically, you know, it it it's the foundation of a liberal society it's the foundation of a liberal society it's the foundation of a liberal society that everybody by virtue of being born that everybody by virtue of being born that everybody by virtue of being born as a human being has a certain base as a human being has a certain base as a human being has a certain base level of dignity that has to be level of dignity that has to be level of dignity that has to be recognized by the rest of society. We recognized by the rest of society. We recognized by the rest of society. We recognize it in a liberal society by recognize it in a liberal society by recognize it in a liberal society by giving people rights. Uh and that means giving people rights. Uh and that means giving people rights. Uh and that means that you are seen as a human being that that you are seen as a human being that that you are seen as a human being that has you know some share of the power of has you know some share of the power of has you know some share of the power of the community. uh and that's um uh the community. uh and that's um uh the community. uh and that's um uh generates a huge amount of resentment if generates a huge amount of resentment if generates a huge amount of resentment if you feel that other people are being you feel that other people are being you feel that other people are being recognized uh in a way that you are not recognized uh in a way that you are not recognized uh in a way that you are not uh and that really I think drives a lot uh and that really I think drives a lot uh and that really I think drives a lot of democratic uh polic you know just to of democratic uh polic you know just to of democratic uh polic you know just to give you one example in the in the gay give you one example in the in the gay give you one example in the in the gay marriage movement you could have solved marriage movement you could have solved marriage movement you could have solved the economic uh problem of gay couples the economic uh problem of gay couples the economic uh problem of gay couples by giving them you know inheritance by giving them you know inheritance by giving them you know inheritance rights and and that sort of thing the rights and and that sort of thing the rights and and that sort of thing the ability to pass on property to the ability to pass on property to the ability to pass on property to the children they raised civil unions. children they raised civil unions. children they raised civil unions. >> Yeah, civil unions. But that wasn't >> Yeah, civil unions. But that wasn't >> Yeah, civil unions. But that wasn't enough because gay people wanted to have enough because gay people wanted to have enough because gay people wanted to have acknowledgment that their unions had acknowledgment that their unions had acknowledgment that their unions had just as much dignity and just as much just as much dignity and just as much just as much dignity and just as much value as that between a man and a woman.

value as that between a man and a woman. value as that between a man and a woman. And I think that was the fundamental And I think that was the fundamental And I think that was the fundamental drive that led to, you know, the drive that led to, you know, the drive that led to, you know, the legalization of of gay marriage. So legalization of of gay marriage. So legalization of of gay marriage. So that's just an example. But I think, you that's just an example. But I think, you that's just an example. But I think, you know, civil rights, um, Ralph Ellison know, civil rights, um, Ralph Ellison know, civil rights, um, Ralph Ellison wrote a a novel back in the, uh, 1950s wrote a a novel back in the, uh, 1950s wrote a a novel back in the, uh, 1950s about, you know, the experience of about, you know, the experience of about, you know, the experience of African-Ameans that had moved from the African-Ameans that had moved from the African-Ameans that had moved from the south to the north. You didn't have south to the north. You didn't have south to the north. You didn't have official legally sanctioned segregation. official legally sanctioned segregation. official legally sanctioned segregation. What you had was the invisibility. What you had was the invisibility. What you had was the invisibility. That's where the invisible man in the That's where the invisible man in the That's where the invisible man in the title comes from, that white people in title comes from, that white people in title comes from, that white people in the in the North simply didn't see a the in the North simply didn't see a the in the North simply didn't see a black person as a fellow human being. black person as a fellow human being. black person as a fellow human being. And that was really what I think And that was really what I think And that was really what I think generated the deep, you know, resentment generated the deep, you know, resentment generated the deep, you know, resentment and distrust that that existed in and distrust that that existed in and distrust that that existed in northern cities and in racial politics. northern cities and in racial politics. northern cities and in racial politics. >> One of the the really interesting >> One of the the really interesting >> One of the the really interesting sections of the book to me is where you sections of the book to me is where you sections of the book to me is where you talk about the ways in which talk about the ways in which talk about the ways in which material politics and a politics of material politics and a politics of material politics and a politics of recognition can blur into each other. recognition can blur into each other. recognition can blur into each other. that there are many places where people that there are many places where people that there are many places where people would they have a level of material would they have a level of material would they have a level of material wealth that say in another country be wealth that say in another country be wealth that say in another country be amazing but in the country they're in amazing but in the country they're in amazing but in the country they're in because it puts them further down the because it puts them further down the because it puts them further down the scale of recognition scale of recognition scale of recognition it for them is a terrible injury you it for them is a terrible injury you it for them is a terrible injury you have Adam Smith talking about this that have Adam Smith talking about this that have Adam Smith talking about this that much of what people want from wealth is much of what people want from wealth is much of what people want from wealth is to be seen it isn't simply to consume so to be seen it isn't simply to consume so to be seen it isn't simply to consume so so tell me a bit about that side of it so tell me a bit about that side of it so tell me a bit about that side of it because I think that also makes sense of because I think that also makes sense of because I think that also makes sense of some parts of our economic politics too some parts of our economic politics too some parts of our economic politics too where you'll sometimes have somewhat where you'll sometimes have somewhat where you'll sometimes have somewhat self-satisfied liberals say, "Well,

self-satisfied liberals say, "Well, self-satisfied liberals say, "Well, actually, if you look on a chart, you actually, if you look on a chart, you actually, if you look on a chart, you know, people have been getting richer know, people have been getting richer know, people have been getting richer and it's better than it was in the past and it's better than it was in the past and it's better than it was in the past and we have antibiotics now." But and we have antibiotics now." But and we have antibiotics now." But actually, if you understand that part of actually, if you understand that part of actually, if you understand that part of what people want from even the money what people want from even the money what people want from even the money they make is to be seen and recognized a they make is to be seen and recognized a they make is to be seen and recognized a certain way in society, that that certain way in society, that that certain way in society, that that actually contains within it a never actually contains within it a never actually contains within it a never enoughness, a constant instability enoughness, a constant instability enoughness, a constant instability because there is always a certain amount because there is always a certain amount because there is always a certain amount of inequality of recognition in society. of inequality of recognition in society. of inequality of recognition in society. >> [snorts] >> [snorts] >> [snorts] >> Well, uh, to expand a little bit on that >> Well, uh, to expand a little bit on that >> Well, uh, to expand a little bit on that Adam Smith, uh, uh, section that you Adam Smith, uh, uh, section that you Adam Smith, uh, uh, section that you referred to, he says, "The rich man referred to, he says, "The rich man referred to, he says, "The rich man glories in his wealth, and the poor man glories in his wealth, and the poor man glories in his wealth, and the poor man is unseen, is invisible to his fellow is unseen, is invisible to his fellow is unseen, is invisible to his fellow human beings." That's really the pain of human beings." That's really the pain of human beings." That's really the pain of poverty is this invisibility to to other poverty is this invisibility to to other poverty is this invisibility to to other people. And I think that still operates. people. And I think that still operates. people. And I think that still operates. And I think uh if you think about our And I think uh if you think about our And I think uh if you think about our politics, a lot of it is about politics, a lot of it is about politics, a lot of it is about recognition rather than simply the recognition rather than simply the recognition rather than simply the distribution of material resources. A distribution of material resources. A distribution of material resources. A lot of populism today is driven by lot of populism today is driven by lot of populism today is driven by people who feel they're invisible. You people who feel they're invisible. You people who feel they're invisible. You know, that uh the world is run by know, that uh the world is run by know, that uh the world is run by educated elites and they don't listen to educated elites and they don't listen to educated elites and they don't listen to the concerns of people like them and the concerns of people like them and the concerns of people like them and they don't recognize them as being fully they don't recognize them as being fully they don't recognize them as being fully equal because they don't have the equal because they don't have the equal because they don't have the educations or the sophistication. And I educations or the sophistication. And I educations or the sophistication. And I think that that unequally distributed uh think that that unequally distributed uh think that that unequally distributed uh recognition is actually at the at the recognition is actually at the at the recognition is actually at the at the base of a lot of our problems.

base of a lot of our problems. base of a lot of our problems. >> I think something you see you see it in >> I think something you see you see it in >> I think something you see you see it in some cases on the left. I think wokeness some cases on the left. I think wokeness some cases on the left. I think wokeness had a lot of this in it, but you see it had a lot of this in it, but you see it had a lot of this in it, but you see it some cases on the populist right, which some cases on the populist right, which some cases on the populist right, which is I don't have a a word to make up for is I don't have a a word to make up for is I don't have a a word to make up for it, but a desire to invert status in a it, but a desire to invert status in a it, but a desire to invert status in a society. So, a belief that your white society. So, a belief that your white society. So, a belief that your white privilege or your wealth and your riches privilege or your wealth and your riches privilege or your wealth and your riches make you suspect and should be you make you suspect and should be you make you suspect and should be you should be treated as suspect until you should be treated as suspect until you should be treated as suspect until you say prove yourself otherwise. On the say prove yourself otherwise. On the say prove yourself otherwise. On the right, this can take forms of attacks on right, this can take forms of attacks on right, this can take forms of attacks on their chosen, you know, elites. their chosen, you know, elites. their chosen, you know, elites. journalists and cosmopolitans and you journalists and cosmopolitans and you journalists and cosmopolitans and you know populism has a lot of this in it. know populism has a lot of this in it. know populism has a lot of this in it. the people who have been judged the people who have been judged the people who have been judged excellent or who have attained power excellent or who have attained power excellent or who have attained power there's an effort to sort of alter the there's an effort to sort of alter the there's an effort to sort of alter the moral veilance of that power in the way moral veilance of that power in the way moral veilance of that power in the way society sees them society sees them society sees them >> and I actually see see the last couple >> and I actually see see the last couple >> and I actually see see the last couple of years as in some ways a fight between of years as in some ways a fight between of years as in some ways a fight between these some of the radicalization of the these some of the radicalization of the these some of the radicalization of the tech right comes from you know their tech right comes from you know their tech right comes from you know their feeling of well we did what you wanted feeling of well we did what you wanted feeling of well we did what you wanted we made our money under capitals and we we made our money under capitals and we we made our money under capitals and we built these great companies and now you built these great companies and now you built these great companies and now you hate us hate us hate us >> um and that pushed them into a very very >> um and that pushed them into a very very >> um and that pushed them into a very very different and eventually quite scary different and eventually quite scary different and eventually quite scary politics politics politics >> no that's absolutely right I think that >> no that's absolutely right I think that >> no that's absolutely right I think that uh your judgment of the moral character uh your judgment of the moral character uh your judgment of the moral character of the people you don't like then blends of the people you don't like then blends of the people you don't like then blends with uh resentment at the fact that they with uh resentment at the fact that they with uh resentment at the fact that they are unjustly um recognized and uh that's are unjustly um recognized and uh that's are unjustly um recognized and uh that's really the the source of many of the really the the source of many of the really the the source of many of the forms of uh backlash that we see in our forms of uh backlash that we see in our forms of uh backlash that we see in our society both on the left and the right.

society both on the left and the right. society both on the left and the right. uh you don't want to be seen as lesser uh you don't want to be seen as lesser uh you don't want to be seen as lesser than other people and you get very than other people and you get very than other people and you get very resentful when you're treated that way. resentful when you're treated that way. resentful when you're treated that way. Uh and the inversion I think is simply a Uh and the inversion I think is simply a Uh and the inversion I think is simply a demand that that stop you know that you demand that that stop you know that you demand that that stop you know that you be recognized uh at least as the equal. be recognized uh at least as the equal. be recognized uh at least as the equal. So just because you've made a lot of So just because you've made a lot of So just because you've made a lot of money doesn't mean that you're a bad money doesn't mean that you're a bad money doesn't mean that you're a bad person. the real anger uh comes from person. the real anger uh comes from person. the real anger uh comes from people that feel that they're people that feel that they're people that feel that they're victimized, that they are marginalized, victimized, that they are marginalized, victimized, that they are marginalized, you know, as a result of their you know, as a result of their you know, as a result of their identities and that, you know, is now uh identities and that, you know, is now uh identities and that, you know, is now uh something that's occurred to a lot of something that's occurred to a lot of something that's occurred to a lot of people that occupied previously people that occupied previously people that occupied previously privileged positions in the society. privileged positions in the society. privileged positions in the society. >> So you you define there the version in >> So you you define there the version in >> So you you define there the version in which recognition is equal. But you said which recognition is equal. But you said which recognition is equal. But you said you invented another word. you invented another word. you invented another word. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yes. Okay. >> Megalothia is >> Megalothia is >> Megalothia is >> me. Yes. Megaloia. So that is the desire >> me. Yes. Megaloia. So that is the desire >> me. Yes. Megaloia. So that is the desire to be recognized as greater than other to be recognized as greater than other to be recognized as greater than other people. Uh and I think that this is people. Uh and I think that this is people. Uh and I think that this is obviously a threat in a democracy obviously a threat in a democracy obviously a threat in a democracy because a liberal democracy is based on because a liberal democracy is based on because a liberal democracy is based on the premise that all people all citizens the premise that all people all citizens the premise that all people all citizens are essentially equal. But that's not are essentially equal. But that's not are essentially equal. But that's not enough for a certain group, a certain enough for a certain group, a certain enough for a certain group, a certain subset of human beings. They want to subset of human beings. They want to subset of human beings. They want to dominate. They want to be uh more than dominate. They want to be uh more than dominate. They want to be uh more than others. Uh it takes often times a very others. Uh it takes often times a very others. Uh it takes often times a very negative uh form of political negative uh form of political negative uh form of political domination. So you want to be a dictator domination. So you want to be a dictator domination. So you want to be a dictator or an autocrat. Uh but it's also or an autocrat. Uh but it's also or an autocrat. Uh but it's also necessary because you can't have any necessary because you can't have any necessary because you can't have any kind of human excellence if you didn't kind of human excellence if you didn't kind of human excellence if you didn't have the desire to be better than other have the desire to be better than other have the desire to be better than other people. You know, if you want to be a people. You know, if you want to be a people. You know, if you want to be a great pianist or uh you know, a football great pianist or uh you know, a football great pianist or uh you know, a football star or you know, a great artist, uh I

star or you know, a great artist, uh I star or you know, a great artist, uh I think that's also driven by a certain think that's also driven by a certain think that's also driven by a certain kind of desire to be recognized, you kind of desire to be recognized, you kind of desire to be recognized, you know, as better than other people. So I know, as better than other people. So I know, as better than other people. So I think that you can't have a society of think that you can't have a society of think that you can't have a society of perfectly equal recognition. that has to perfectly equal recognition. that has to perfectly equal recognition. that has to be the basis for uh social cohesion. But be the basis for uh social cohesion. But be the basis for uh social cohesion. But you also can't have a dynamic uh society you also can't have a dynamic uh society you also can't have a dynamic uh society without people that want something more without people that want something more without people that want something more than that. Now I actually wrote about than that. Now I actually wrote about than that. Now I actually wrote about Donald Trump in the original book, The Donald Trump in the original book, The Donald Trump in the original book, The End of History on the Last Man. End of History on the Last Man. End of History on the Last Man. >> He comes up a few times. >> He comes up a few times. >> He comes up a few times. >> Yeah. Uh and you know, back then I >> Yeah. Uh and you know, back then I >> Yeah. Uh and you know, back then I thought, well, one of the virtues of thought, well, one of the virtues of thought, well, one of the virtues of living in a capitalist democracy is that living in a capitalist democracy is that living in a capitalist democracy is that this desire for unequal recognition can this desire for unequal recognition can this desire for unequal recognition can be satisfied just be by becoming rich. be satisfied just be by becoming rich. be satisfied just be by becoming rich. and it's a way of bleeding off that and it's a way of bleeding off that and it's a way of bleeding off that energy. Uh little did I know that, you energy. Uh little did I know that, you energy. Uh little did I know that, you know, 30 years later that wouldn't be know, 30 years later that wouldn't be know, 30 years later that wouldn't be enough for Donald Trump and that he'd enough for Donald Trump and that he'd enough for Donald Trump and that he'd want political power as well as uh you want political power as well as uh you want political power as well as uh you know, fortune. know, fortune. know, fortune. >> So that brings us to the other side of >> So that brings us to the other side of >> So that brings us to the other side of the book which gets talked about the book which gets talked about the book which gets talked about somewhat less. And maybe the way to get somewhat less. And maybe the way to get somewhat less. And maybe the way to get into this is simply to say who is the into this is simply to say who is the into this is simply to say who is the last man?

last man? last man? So the last man is the creature that So the last man is the creature that So the last man is the creature that Friedrich Nichzche the um other great Friedrich Nichzche the um other great Friedrich Nichzche the um other great German philosopher of the 19th century German philosopher of the 19th century German philosopher of the 19th century identified as the product of the end of identified as the product of the end of identified as the product of the end of history. Uh a person that was satisfied history. Uh a person that was satisfied history. Uh a person that was satisfied with the things that liberalism provides with the things that liberalism provides with the things that liberalism provides basically peace and prosperity but had basically peace and prosperity but had basically peace and prosperity but had no further aspirations no uh desires for no further aspirations no uh desires for no further aspirations no uh desires for a better vision of the world. Nothing a better vision of the world. Nothing a better vision of the world. Nothing that they would risk their lives on that they would risk their lives on that they would risk their lives on behalf of. And for Nichzche it was behalf of. And for Nichzche it was behalf of. And for Nichzche it was really that extraordinary ambition that really that extraordinary ambition that really that extraordinary ambition that was really uh what made a human being a was really uh what made a human being a was really uh what made a human being a human being. And instead in a liberal human being. And instead in a liberal human being. And instead in a liberal society you got this very flat world society you got this very flat world society you got this very flat world where everybody has to tolerate where everybody has to tolerate where everybody has to tolerate everybody else and nobody wants to think everybody else and nobody wants to think everybody else and nobody wants to think of themselves as better. of themselves as better. of themselves as better. >> So there's something interesting here. >> So there's something interesting here. >> So there's something interesting here. One of the constant critiques of at One of the constant critiques of at One of the constant critiques of at least a portion of the right towards least a portion of the right towards least a portion of the right towards liberalism, for that matter, towards liberalism, for that matter, towards liberalism, for that matter, towards socialism, is that it's fundamentally socialism, is that it's fundamentally socialism, is that it's fundamentally built on a lie. And that that lie is built on a lie. And that that lie is built on a lie. And that that lie is equality. And the form of equality that equality. And the form of equality that equality. And the form of equality that is a lie can take different versions, is a lie can take different versions, is a lie can take different versions, right? You can have people who see right? You can have people who see right? You can have people who see racial equality as a lie and they get racial equality as a lie and they get racial equality as a lie and they get obsessed with race and IQ and things of obsessed with race and IQ and things of obsessed with race and IQ and things of that nature. You can have people who see that nature. You can have people who see that nature. You can have people who see just individual equality as a lie.

just individual equality as a lie. just individual equality as a lie. Obviously, some people are either more Obviously, some people are either more Obviously, some people are either more morally good than others. Other people morally good than others. Other people morally good than others. Other people are more talented, more capable, they are more talented, more capable, they are more talented, more capable, they work harder. But that many on the right work harder. But that many on the right work harder. But that many on the right see it as a dangerous lie that a society see it as a dangerous lie that a society see it as a dangerous lie that a society could or should be equal. And that the could or should be equal. And that the could or should be equal. And that the the particular danger of that lie is the particular danger of that lie is the particular danger of that lie is that it blunts ambition. It pulls down that it blunts ambition. It pulls down that it blunts ambition. It pulls down those who would strive for excellence. those who would strive for excellence. those who would strive for excellence. And I certainly see in much of the the And I certainly see in much of the the And I certainly see in much of the the sort of techright reaction in the last sort of techright reaction in the last sort of techright reaction in the last couple of years in some parts of the new couple of years in some parts of the new couple of years in some parts of the new right and how they look at society a right and how they look at society a right and how they look at society a sort of sense that that this happened. sort of sense that that this happened. sort of sense that that this happened. This is why so many on the right are This is why so many on the right are This is why so many on the right are rediscovering Nietze like who is there rediscovering Nietze like who is there rediscovering Nietze like who is there in your title you know the the sort of in your title you know the the sort of in your title you know the the sort of originator of the last man idea. originator of the last man idea. originator of the last man idea. >> No that's right. Uh well first of all >> No that's right. Uh well first of all >> No that's right. Uh well first of all let me just defend the idea of universal let me just defend the idea of universal let me just defend the idea of universal equality because I do think you know and equality because I do think you know and equality because I do think you know and ultimately if you look historically it ultimately if you look historically it ultimately if you look historically it derives from uh a certain Christian derives from uh a certain Christian derives from uh a certain Christian interpretation interpretation interpretation uh that human beings are fundamentally uh that human beings are fundamentally uh that human beings are fundamentally equal. Uh there's a passage in Galatians equal. Uh there's a passage in Galatians equal. Uh there's a passage in Galatians that says there's neither Jew nor that says there's neither Jew nor that says there's neither Jew nor Gentile, master nor slave, male nor Gentile, master nor slave, male nor Gentile, master nor slave, male nor female, but all are equal uh in Jesus female, but all are equal uh in Jesus female, but all are equal uh in Jesus Christ. And you know that fundamental Christ. And you know that fundamental Christ. And you know that fundamental insight I think has a real meaning insight I think has a real meaning insight I think has a real meaning because there's a core uh something in because there's a core uh something in because there's a core uh something in one of my books I labeled factor X that one of my books I labeled factor X that one of my books I labeled factor X that makes every single human being makes every single human being makes every single human being recognizably human. Uh so I think that recognizably human. Uh so I think that recognizably human. Uh so I think that there is something really genuinely to there is something really genuinely to there is something really genuinely to be protected in this idea that every one be protected in this idea that every one be protected in this idea that every one of us has a certain moral core that is

of us has a certain moral core that is of us has a certain moral core that is of great value and and needs to be of great value and and needs to be of great value and and needs to be protected by the system. Uh but it's protected by the system. Uh but it's protected by the system. Uh but it's also true that it leads to a flattening also true that it leads to a flattening also true that it leads to a flattening of our societies because liberalism is of our societies because liberalism is of our societies because liberalism is necessarily pluralistic. It's a necessarily pluralistic. It's a necessarily pluralistic. It's a recognition of the fact that uh recognition of the fact that uh recognition of the fact that uh different people pursue different ends different people pursue different ends different people pursue different ends that they have different visions of the that they have different visions of the that they have different visions of the good life. uh uh the reason you created good life. uh uh the reason you created good life. uh uh the reason you created liberalism in the first place in the liberalism in the first place in the liberalism in the first place in the 17th century was the wars of religion in 17th century was the wars of religion in 17th century was the wars of religion in which people killed themselves over you which people killed themselves over you which people killed themselves over you know minor theological differences and know minor theological differences and know minor theological differences and uh there was a lowering deliberate uh there was a lowering deliberate uh there was a lowering deliberate lowering of the human horizon to mean uh lowering of the human horizon to mean uh lowering of the human horizon to mean uh survival you know the the right to life survival you know the the right to life survival you know the the right to life is superior to the right to the good is superior to the right to the good is superior to the right to the good life but this does take away something life but this does take away something life but this does take away something people want to live the good life they people want to live the good life they people want to live the good life they they want to have higher aspirations if they want to have higher aspirations if they want to have higher aspirations if you look at modern America we don't ask you look at modern America we don't ask you look at modern America we don't ask that much of of citizens. You know, you that much of of citizens. You know, you that much of of citizens. You know, you obey the law, you pay your taxes, and obey the law, you pay your taxes, and obey the law, you pay your taxes, and that's fine. Uh you don't um have to that's fine. Uh you don't um have to that's fine. Uh you don't um have to sacrifice. You don't have to take any sacrifice. You don't have to take any sacrifice. You don't have to take any grave risks on behalf of the society as grave risks on behalf of the society as grave risks on behalf of the society as a whole. And I think that there is a a whole. And I think that there is a a whole. And I think that there is a part of the human psych psyche that part of the human psych psyche that part of the human psych psyche that actually wants that kind of life, you actually wants that kind of life, you actually wants that kind of life, you know, that feels flattened if they don't know, that feels flattened if they don't know, that feels flattened if they don't have the ability to, you know, to uh, have the ability to, you know, to uh, have the ability to, you know, to uh, you know, as the declaration says, risk you know, as the declaration says, risk you know, as the declaration says, risk their, you know, their lives, their their, you know, their lives, their their, you know, their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor uh, for fortunes, and their sacred honor uh, for fortunes, and their sacred honor uh, for a cause. And that's why I think you get a cause. And that's why I think you get a cause. And that's why I think you get these jokers on Febru on January 6th these jokers on Febru on January 6th these jokers on Febru on January 6th dressed up in camo pretending that they

dressed up in camo pretending that they dressed up in camo pretending that they are these patriots that are defending are these patriots that are defending are these patriots that are defending nobly defending this way of life. I nobly defending this way of life. I nobly defending this way of life. I think that you know you you have that think that you know you you have that think that you know you you have that striving for that uh degree of sacrifice striving for that uh degree of sacrifice striving for that uh degree of sacrifice and it doesn't exist in our society and and it doesn't exist in our society and and it doesn't exist in our society and so you invent a cause. so you invent a cause. so you invent a cause. >> So why in the original essay do you end >> So why in the original essay do you end >> So why in the original essay do you end on saying that the end of history will on saying that the end of history will on saying that the end of history will be a sad time? be a sad time? be a sad time? Well, I think uh it would be sad Well, I think uh it would be sad Well, I think uh it would be sad precisely because of that lack of risk precisely because of that lack of risk precisely because of that lack of risk and and of a vision of a noble future and and of a vision of a noble future and and of a vision of a noble future that you know you are willing to that you know you are willing to that you know you are willing to struggle on behalf of. I have another struggle on behalf of. I have another struggle on behalf of. I have another line in the original book that said that line in the original book that said that line in the original book that said that if you're living in a society that uh is if you're living in a society that uh is if you're living in a society that uh is peaceful and democratic because of peaceful and democratic because of peaceful and democratic because of struggles of an earlier uh generation struggles of an earlier uh generation struggles of an earlier uh generation that were successful then you're going that were successful then you're going that were successful then you're going to struggle against uh peace and to struggle against uh peace and to struggle against uh peace and democracy because what you want to do is democracy because what you want to do is democracy because what you want to do is struggle for struggle's sake and I think struggle for struggle's sake and I think struggle for struggle's sake and I think it's that impulse that you know really it's that impulse that you know really it's that impulse that you know really uh drives a lot of extremist politics uh drives a lot of extremist politics uh drives a lot of extremist politics and um disturbs the you know the the and um disturbs the you know the the and um disturbs the you know the the potential stability of a of a liberal potential stability of a of a liberal potential stability of a of a liberal society. It's also a generational thing.

society. It's also a generational thing. society. It's also a generational thing. Um, you know, it's clear that the people Um, you know, it's clear that the people Um, you know, it's clear that the people that want most desperately to live in a that want most desperately to live in a that want most desperately to live in a liberal society are people that live in liberal society are people that live in liberal society are people that live in dictatorships. Uh, you know, there's dictatorships. Uh, you know, there's dictatorships. Uh, you know, there's genuine joy when communism fell in genuine joy when communism fell in genuine joy when communism fell in Eastern Europe in the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe in the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. Uh you can see this in the late 1980s. Uh you can see this in the late 1980s. Uh you can see this in all the people that get on boats you all the people that get on boats you all the people that get on boats you know desperate to get to out of a poor know desperate to get to out of a poor know desperate to get to out of a poor corrupt uh uh you know destitute country corrupt uh uh you know destitute country corrupt uh uh you know destitute country and to get to America or to Europe. Uh and to get to America or to Europe. Uh and to get to America or to Europe. Uh and so you know there is uh a real uh and so you know there is uh a real uh and so you know there is uh a real uh enthusiasm for pe for liberalism on the enthusiasm for pe for liberalism on the enthusiasm for pe for liberalism on the part of people that don't have it. And I part of people that don't have it. And I part of people that don't have it. And I think that we do go in these think that we do go in these think that we do go in these generational cycles where, you know, generational cycles where, you know, generational cycles where, you know, once you have it, you take it for once you have it, you take it for once you have it, you take it for granted and increasingly you look for granted and increasingly you look for granted and increasingly you look for something further. And so you're not something further. And so you're not something further. And so you're not living in a dictatorship any longer. So living in a dictatorship any longer. So living in a dictatorship any longer. So you think Brussels is the dictatorship you think Brussels is the dictatorship you think Brussels is the dictatorship that you have to struggle against. Uh so that you have to struggle against. Uh so that you have to struggle against. Uh so there there may be kind of a rise and there there may be kind of a rise and there there may be kind of a rise and fall in the support for liberalism. Uh fall in the support for liberalism. Uh fall in the support for liberalism. Uh but in the end, it's it's you know but in the end, it's it's you know but in the end, it's it's you know [music] going to be the most stable [music] going to be the most stable [music] going to be the most stable outcome that um you know that a human outcome that um you know that a human outcome that um you know that a human society can achieve.

society can achieve. society can achieve. If you're not a subscriber to [music] If you're not a subscriber to [music] If you're not a subscriber to [music] the New York Times, we have some news the New York Times, we have some news the New York Times, we have some news for you. You can now explore the Times for you. You can now explore the Times for you. You can now explore the Times for free without any payw walls at all for free without any payw walls at all for free without any payw walls at all during your [music] first month in the during your [music] first month in the during your [music] first month in the New York Times app. New York Times app. New York Times app. You have a quote I often think about You have a quote I often think about You have a quote I often think about where you say, "We inhabitants of where you say, "We inhabitants of where you say, "We inhabitants of liberal democratic countries are by now liberal democratic countries are by now liberal democratic countries are by now so used to accounts of current events, so used to accounts of current events, so used to accounts of current events, the reduced motivation economic causes, the reduced motivation economic causes, the reduced motivation economic causes, so thoroughly bourgeois in our own so thoroughly bourgeois in our own so thoroughly bourgeois in our own perceptions that we are frequently perceptions that we are frequently perceptions that we are frequently surprised to discover how totally surprised to discover how totally surprised to discover how totally non-economic most political life is." non-economic most political life is." non-economic most political life is." And I think that's a bridge to something And I think that's a bridge to something And I think that's a bridge to something worth talking about this week. This is worth talking about this week. This is worth talking about this week. This is the 25th anniversary of 911. I think the the 25th anniversary of 911. I think the the 25th anniversary of 911. I think the first time I remember a lot of people first time I remember a lot of people first time I remember a lot of people all of a sudden saying, "Well, I guess all of a sudden saying, "Well, I guess all of a sudden saying, "Well, I guess the end of history wasn't the end." was the end of history wasn't the end." was the end of history wasn't the end." was actually 9/11 and an attack on America actually 9/11 and an attack on America actually 9/11 and an attack on America from people coming out of an ideology from people coming out of an ideology from people coming out of an ideology that was fundamentally non-economic, that was fundamentally non-economic, that was fundamentally non-economic, that was religious, it was very much that was religious, it was very much that was religious, it was very much concerned with recognition and concerned with recognition and concerned with recognition and humiliation, people willing to uh launch humiliation, people willing to uh launch humiliation, people willing to uh launch attacks in which they knew they attacks in which they knew they attacks in which they knew they themselves would die.

themselves would die. themselves would die. And you know, one of the things that I I And you know, one of the things that I I And you know, one of the things that I I think has come since then is that think has come since then is that think has come since then is that politics has been driven externally and politics has been driven externally and politics has been driven externally and internally by I think people whose internally by I think people whose internally by I think people whose motivations are much more about motivations are much more about motivations are much more about recognition. And liberalism, as you say, recognition. And liberalism, as you say, recognition. And liberalism, as you say, in the way this quote continues, does in the way this quote continues, does in the way this quote continues, does not even have a common vocabulary for not even have a common vocabulary for not even have a common vocabulary for talking about the prideful and assertive talking about the prideful and assertive talking about the prideful and assertive side of human nature that is responsible side of human nature that is responsible side of human nature that is responsible for driving most wars and political for driving most wars and political for driving most wars and political conflicts. So, how do you think about conflicts. So, how do you think about conflicts. So, how do you think about that? that blind spot and the way maybe that? that blind spot and the way maybe that? that blind spot and the way maybe 911 forced the um resumption of 911 forced the um resumption of 911 forced the um resumption of recognizing that side of politics. recognizing that side of politics. recognizing that side of politics. >> Well, it certainly forced the >> Well, it certainly forced the >> Well, it certainly forced the recognition that there were other people recognition that there were other people recognition that there were other people around the world that were driven by around the world that were driven by around the world that were driven by very non-economic uh factors. You know, very non-economic uh factors. You know, very non-economic uh factors. You know, if you're willing to be a suicide if you're willing to be a suicide if you're willing to be a suicide bomber, you obviously feel that there is bomber, you obviously feel that there is bomber, you obviously feel that there is a completely non-material cause that a completely non-material cause that a completely non-material cause that you're, you know, that you're uh you're, you know, that you're uh you're, you know, that you're uh serving. I don't think that it directly serving. I don't think that it directly serving. I don't think that it directly challenged liberalism in the way that challenged liberalism in the way that challenged liberalism in the way that people thought at the time. Uh I think people thought at the time. Uh I think people thought at the time. Uh I think that radical Islamism is not a u it's that radical Islamism is not a u it's that radical Islamism is not a u it's not an ideology that's going to ever not an ideology that's going to ever not an ideology that's going to ever conquer the world. Uh certainly not at conquer the world. Uh certainly not at conquer the world. Uh certainly not at at this point. It only takes root in at this point. It only takes root in at this point. It only takes root in relatively poor disorganized societies relatively poor disorganized societies relatively poor disorganized societies that are Muslim to begin with. So in that are Muslim to begin with. So in that are Muslim to begin with. So in that sense it was different from that sense it was different from that sense it was different from Marxism, Leninism that genuinely had a Marxism, Leninism that genuinely had a Marxism, Leninism that genuinely had a kind of universal appeal in uh many kind of universal appeal in uh many kind of universal appeal in uh many different societies. And so I think that different societies. And so I think that different societies. And so I think that the direct threat that here was an the direct threat that here was an the direct threat that here was an alternative to liberalism that was very

alternative to liberalism that was very alternative to liberalism that was very powerful was simply not true. And in powerful was simply not true. And in powerful was simply not true. And in fact uh in the years since 9/11 it's fact uh in the years since 9/11 it's fact uh in the years since 9/11 it's it's kind of faded. Uh what I think 9/11 it's kind of faded. Uh what I think 9/11 it's kind of faded. Uh what I think 9/11 triggered was actually the western triggered was actually the western triggered was actually the western reaction or overreaction to both reaction or overreaction to both reaction or overreaction to both Afghanistan and and to Iraq. uh that Afghanistan and and to Iraq. uh that Afghanistan and and to Iraq. uh that then set in motion a lot of other you then set in motion a lot of other you then set in motion a lot of other you know I think very dangerous trends uh know I think very dangerous trends uh know I think very dangerous trends uh militarization of foreign policy uh I militarization of foreign policy uh I militarization of foreign policy uh I think the um uh beginnings of a think the um uh beginnings of a think the um uh beginnings of a surveillance state you know in the surveillance state you know in the surveillance state you know in the United States because of the fear of of United States because of the fear of of United States because of the fear of of terrorism uh and also because the wars terrorism uh and also because the wars terrorism uh and also because the wars never resulted in a in a good outcome in never resulted in a in a good outcome in never resulted in a in a good outcome in either Afghanistan or Iraq great either Afghanistan or Iraq great either Afghanistan or Iraq great cynicism about American power and the cynicism about American power and the cynicism about American power and the use of American power that led directly use of American power that led directly use of American power that led directly to the emergence of people like Donald to the emergence of people like Donald to the emergence of people like Donald Trump. Trump. Trump. >> So you you were a neoconservative at >> So you you were a neoconservative at >> So you you were a neoconservative at that time. Um you signed some of the that time. Um you signed some of the that time. Um you signed some of the early letters arguing for the removal of early letters arguing for the removal of early letters arguing for the removal of Saddam Hussein and then the Iraq war Saddam Hussein and then the Iraq war Saddam Hussein and then the Iraq war itself led you to break with itself led you to break with itself led you to break with neoonservatism broadly. Why?

neoonservatism broadly. Why? neoonservatism broadly. Why? >> Well, uh I don't have a problem with the >> Well, uh I don't have a problem with the >> Well, uh I don't have a problem with the use of force to get rid of a dictator. I use of force to get rid of a dictator. I use of force to get rid of a dictator. I mean, we did that in World War II with mean, we did that in World War II with mean, we did that in World War II with Germany and Japan, and that was a very Germany and Japan, and that was a very Germany and Japan, and that was a very positive uh outcome. Uh what I had been positive uh outcome. Uh what I had been positive uh outcome. Uh what I had been spending much of the 1990s studying was spending much of the 1990s studying was spending much of the 1990s studying was actually the use of power in developing actually the use of power in developing actually the use of power in developing countries that were culturally quite countries that were culturally quite countries that were culturally quite different in Central America, uh you different in Central America, uh you different in Central America, uh you know, in Southeast Asia, in in other know, in Southeast Asia, in in other know, in Southeast Asia, in in other places. And I was very skeptical whether places. And I was very skeptical whether places. And I was very skeptical whether the United States itself had the staying the United States itself had the staying the United States itself had the staying power to really transform uh a very power to really transform uh a very power to really transform uh a very different society. Uh in my uh view we different society. Uh in my uh view we different society. Uh in my uh view we tried to do this in the Philippines, in tried to do this in the Philippines, in tried to do this in the Philippines, in Nicaragua, in uh Vietnam, in many other Nicaragua, in uh Vietnam, in many other Nicaragua, in uh Vietnam, in many other places. And you know the American public places. And you know the American public places. And you know the American public gets tired after about four or five gets tired after about four or five gets tired after about four or five years and then they give up and the years and then they give up and the years and then they give up and the society's left uh worse off. And I was society's left uh worse off. And I was society's left uh worse off. And I was very worried that the Bush very worried that the Bush very worried that the Bush administration administration administration would succeed in getting rid of Saddam would succeed in getting rid of Saddam would succeed in getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but then would be at a loss and Hussein, but then would be at a loss and Hussein, but then would be at a loss and how to actually create a stable country how to actually create a stable country how to actually create a stable country uh in its wake. And uh it was worse than uh in its wake. And uh it was worse than uh in its wake. And uh it was worse than I anticipated. They were even less I anticipated. They were even less I anticipated. They were even less prepared, you know, for that long-term prepared, you know, for that long-term prepared, you know, for that long-term effort uh when they did the invasion.

effort uh when they did the invasion. effort uh when they did the invasion. And that was the real problem that I I And that was the real problem that I I And that was the real problem that I I had with it. One thing you talk about in had with it. One thing you talk about in had with it. One thing you talk about in the memoir that you've released is you the memoir that you've released is you the memoir that you've released is you describe that as kind of a reckoning describe that as kind of a reckoning describe that as kind of a reckoning with how much of your own thinking can with how much of your own thinking can with how much of your own thinking can be generated by who you're around, what be generated by who you're around, what be generated by who you're around, what social circles you're moving in. social circles you're moving in. social circles you're moving in. Just tell me about that sort of meta Just tell me about that sort of meta Just tell me about that sort of meta realization. realization. realization. >> Yeah. Well, you know, there coming out >> Yeah. Well, you know, there coming out >> Yeah. Well, you know, there coming out of the enlightenment, we have a certain of the enlightenment, we have a certain of the enlightenment, we have a certain view of human cognition that says, well, view of human cognition that says, well, view of human cognition that says, well, human beings take in empirical human beings take in empirical human beings take in empirical information, they process it, they draw information, they process it, they draw information, they process it, they draw inferences, and that's how they end up inferences, and that's how they end up inferences, and that's how they end up believing that uh certain things are believing that uh certain things are believing that uh certain things are true. Uh Jonathan hate the social true. Uh Jonathan hate the social true. Uh Jonathan hate the social psychologist, wrote a um a very psychologist, wrote a um a very psychologist, wrote a um a very interesting book about what he called interesting book about what he called interesting book about what he called motivated reasoning. He said that's motivated reasoning. He said that's motivated reasoning. He said that's actually not the way that uh human actually not the way that uh human actually not the way that uh human reason works. that we start with the reason works. that we start with the reason works. that we start with the conclusions that we want to believe in conclusions that we want to believe in conclusions that we want to believe in and we use our enormous cognitive and we use our enormous cognitive and we use our enormous cognitive abilities to marshall the evidence to abilities to marshall the evidence to abilities to marshall the evidence to support those views. And uh I have to support those views. And uh I have to support those views. And uh I have to say that uh that enlightenment view say that uh that enlightenment view say that uh that enlightenment view looks less and less uh true you know looks less and less uh true you know looks less and less uh true you know when you watch the politics of the when you watch the politics of the when you watch the politics of the present day and it was true for me as present day and it was true for me as present day and it was true for me as well. you know, I moved in a uh in this well. you know, I moved in a uh in this well. you know, I moved in a uh in this neoconservative social circle. You know, neoconservative social circle. You know, neoconservative social circle. You know, I wrote a lot for commentary magazine I wrote a lot for commentary magazine I wrote a lot for commentary magazine and uh you know, other uh publications and uh you know, other uh publications and uh you know, other uh publications in that genre. And my own sense of, you in that genre. And my own sense of, you in that genre. And my own sense of, you know, who I was was very much shaped by know, who I was was very much shaped by know, who I was was very much shaped by the appribation of, you know, people the appribation of, you know, people the appribation of, you know, people that were also in that movement and that were also in that movement and that were also in that movement and that's what made it hard to break with that's what made it hard to break with that's what made it hard to break with them because it means you know, not just

them because it means you know, not just them because it means you know, not just um uh changing policies, but it means um uh changing policies, but it means um uh changing policies, but it means changing friendships. And that, you changing friendships. And that, you changing friendships. And that, you know, that's what happened. know, that's what happened. know, that's what happened. >> One thing you saw right after 9/11 and >> One thing you saw right after 9/11 and >> One thing you saw right after 9/11 and in that period of run-up to war in Iraq, in that period of run-up to war in Iraq, in that period of run-up to war in Iraq, particularly particularly particularly was a huge number of neoonservatives and was a huge number of neoonservatives and was a huge number of neoonservatives and other cultural commentators other cultural commentators other cultural commentators celebrating the return of a thumatic celebrating the return of a thumatic celebrating the return of a thumatic passionate politics. This view that passionate politics. This view that passionate politics. This view that America had become decadent and soft, America had become decadent and soft, America had become decadent and soft, full of uh metrosexuals and management full of uh metrosexuals and management full of uh metrosexuals and management consultants. And here finally we had a consultants. And here finally we had a consultants. And here finally we had a struggle again, a clash of struggle again, a clash of struggle again, a clash of civilizations. Uh, you know, a reason we civilizations. Uh, you know, a reason we civilizations. Uh, you know, a reason we needed this manly Texas rancher as our needed this manly Texas rancher as our needed this manly Texas rancher as our president. president. president. Looking back, some of the rhetoric on Looking back, some of the rhetoric on Looking back, some of the rhetoric on this has a real quality of the absurd. this has a real quality of the absurd. this has a real quality of the absurd. But one thing I think you also see is But one thing I think you also see is But one thing I think you also see is that the Iraq war, the highly aggressive that the Iraq war, the highly aggressive that the Iraq war, the highly aggressive reaction America had for a long time reaction America had for a long time reaction America had for a long time afterwards, it's done very lasting afterwards, it's done very lasting afterwards, it's done very lasting damage to our politics. I see Trump is a damage to our politics. I see Trump is a damage to our politics. I see Trump is a direct descendant of it, direct descendant of it, direct descendant of it, >> right?

>> right? >> right? >> And >> And >> And there is this constant belief I think on there is this constant belief I think on there is this constant belief I think on the part of some intellectuals that the part of some intellectuals that the part of some intellectuals that violent struggle is an enobbling thing violent struggle is an enobbling thing violent struggle is an enobbling thing for societies. for societies. for societies. And yet I look at, you know, certainly And yet I look at, you know, certainly And yet I look at, you know, certainly in more modern times, Vietnam and Iraq in more modern times, Vietnam and Iraq in more modern times, Vietnam and Iraq and I see Israel right now. And I think and I see Israel right now. And I think and I see Israel right now. And I think the dangers of having your politics the dangers of having your politics the dangers of having your politics become profoundly oriented around become profoundly oriented around become profoundly oriented around violence, around reprisal, around violence, around reprisal, around violence, around reprisal, around struggle, around these kinds of more struggle, around these kinds of more struggle, around these kinds of more warlike virtues is also very very warlike virtues is also very very warlike virtues is also very very present and visible. So I I'm curious present and visible. So I I'm curious present and visible. So I I'm curious what lessons you take not just about the what lessons you take not just about the what lessons you take not just about the question of in what cases can America question of in what cases can America question of in what cases can America export democracy at the point of a gun, export democracy at the point of a gun, export democracy at the point of a gun, but what does it do to a polity when it but what does it do to a polity when it but what does it do to a polity when it sometimes gets the wish of people who sometimes gets the wish of people who sometimes gets the wish of people who think that we've grown soft and think that we've grown soft and think that we've grown soft and calculating and all of a sudden we have calculating and all of a sudden we have calculating and all of a sudden we have this return to to the virtues or the this return to to the virtues or the this return to to the virtues or the vices of war?

vices of war? vices of war? >> Yeah. You know, I actually talked about >> Yeah. You know, I actually talked about >> Yeah. You know, I actually talked about that in the last few chapters of the end that in the last few chapters of the end that in the last few chapters of the end of history and the last man that uh you of history and the last man that uh you of history and the last man that uh you know, there were certain thinkers uh know, there were certain thinkers uh know, there were certain thinkers uh including Hegel that kind of felt that including Hegel that kind of felt that including Hegel that kind of felt that every now and then you had to have a war every now and then you had to have a war every now and then you had to have a war to recharge our batteries so to speak to recharge our batteries so to speak to recharge our batteries so to speak and to get us serious about things. Uh and to get us serious about things. Uh and to get us serious about things. Uh the trouble is that technology has moved the trouble is that technology has moved the trouble is that technology has moved on and that's just impossible. I mean on and that's just impossible. I mean on and that's just impossible. I mean it's not just nuclear weapons you know it's not just nuclear weapons you know it's not just nuclear weapons you know you can't have a little war with nuclear you can't have a little war with nuclear you can't have a little war with nuclear weapons but conventional weapons have weapons but conventional weapons have weapons but conventional weapons have become so destructive that uh the become so destructive that uh the become so destructive that uh the negative impact of any kind of conflict negative impact of any kind of conflict negative impact of any kind of conflict right now is so potentially devastating right now is so potentially devastating right now is so potentially devastating that that's simply not uh an alternative that that's simply not uh an alternative that that's simply not uh an alternative and so I think for a successful society and so I think for a successful society and so I think for a successful society that wants to bleed off that uh that wants to bleed off that uh that wants to bleed off that uh megalothumia megalothumia megalothumia uh you need to find you know peaceful uh uh you need to find you know peaceful uh uh you need to find you know peaceful uh [music] outlets for that kind of uh [music] outlets for that kind of uh [music] outlets for that kind of uh ambition >> I want to talk about the politicians who >> I want to talk about the politicians who follow this um Obama and and Trump. And follow this um Obama and and Trump. And follow this um Obama and and Trump. And maybe the place to start because I think maybe the place to start because I think maybe the place to start because I think this is almost the more interesting this is almost the more interesting this is almost the more interesting question for liberalism is is Barack question for liberalism is is Barack question for liberalism is is Barack Obama.

Obama. Obama. I'll begin broad which is how in the I'll begin broad which is how in the I'll begin broad which is how in the broad story of America do you now see broad story of America do you now see broad story of America do you now see the Obama presidency? the Obama presidency? the Obama presidency? >> Well, I think it was well-intentioned >> Well, I think it was well-intentioned >> Well, I think it was well-intentioned but in a certain way it wasn't uh but in a certain way it wasn't uh but in a certain way it wasn't uh ambitious enough. And I think that's ambitious enough. And I think that's ambitious enough. And I think that's probably what a lot of his progressive probably what a lot of his progressive probably what a lot of his progressive uh critics uh think, you know, that uh uh critics uh think, you know, that uh uh critics uh think, you know, that uh he said very soothing things about, you he said very soothing things about, you he said very soothing things about, you know, kind of post-racial America. Uh know, kind of post-racial America. Uh know, kind of post-racial America. Uh just his very presence as president was just his very presence as president was just his very presence as president was an affirmation of that. but it didn't an affirmation of that. but it didn't an affirmation of that. but it didn't really change any of the underlying really change any of the underlying really change any of the underlying social uh and economic inequalities that social uh and economic inequalities that social uh and economic inequalities that were driving the racial divide in the were driving the racial divide in the were driving the racial divide in the United States. Uh and one of you know I United States. Uh and one of you know I United States. Uh and one of you know I think another perfectly just criticism think another perfectly just criticism think another perfectly just criticism was he was too bought into what we now was he was too bought into what we now was he was too bought into what we now call neoliberalism call neoliberalism call neoliberalism uh with the kinds of economic advisers uh with the kinds of economic advisers uh with the kinds of economic advisers that he surrounded himself with who kind that he surrounded himself with who kind that he surrounded himself with who kind of accepted the this new form or the new of accepted the this new form or the new of accepted the this new form or the new evolution of capitalism that was evolution of capitalism that was evolution of capitalism that was producing oligarchs and very large uh producing oligarchs and very large uh producing oligarchs and very large uh wealth inequalities which you could have wealth inequalities which you could have wealth inequalities which you could have addressed through antitrust through uh addressed through antitrust through uh addressed through antitrust through uh you know different tax policy but under you know different tax policy but under you know different tax policy but under Obama you saw this problem that I Obama you saw this problem that I Obama you saw this problem that I describe in a couple of my books as describe in a couple of my books as describe in a couple of my books as vetocracy that we uh have a vetocracy that we uh have a vetocracy that we uh have a constitutional a very complex constitutional a very complex constitutional a very complex constitutional system built around constitutional system built around constitutional system built around checks and balances. The essence of checks and balances. The essence of checks and balances. The essence of liberalism is the rule of law that there liberalism is the rule of law that there liberalism is the rule of law that there should be rules that govern and limit should be rules that govern and limit should be rules that govern and limit executive power. But I think that the executive power. But I think that the executive power. But I think that the American government at that point had American government at that point had American government at that point had become so complex that it became really

become so complex that it became really become so complex that it became really hard for anybody to do anything either hard for anybody to do anything either hard for anybody to do anything either in a conservative direction which in a conservative direction which in a conservative direction which frustrated Reagan but also in a frustrated Reagan but also in a frustrated Reagan but also in a progressive direction. You know, issues progressive direction. You know, issues progressive direction. You know, issues of climate change really require fairly of climate change really require fairly of climate change really require fairly strong controversial decisions because strong controversial decisions because strong controversial decisions because you have clashing interests and you you have clashing interests and you you have clashing interests and you know, somebody's got to uh resolve know, somebody's got to uh resolve know, somebody's got to uh resolve those. And so I think that the those. And so I think that the those. And so I think that the underlying institutional problems were underlying institutional problems were underlying institutional problems were really never addressed. You know, take really never addressed. You know, take really never addressed. You know, take the filibuster. It's completely the filibuster. It's completely the filibuster. It's completely non-constitutional limitation on the non-constitutional limitation on the non-constitutional limitation on the power of Congress. And you know, you power of Congress. And you know, you power of Congress. And you know, you could have gotten rid of the filibuster, could have gotten rid of the filibuster, could have gotten rid of the filibuster, but uh even that relatively low uh but uh even that relatively low uh but uh even that relatively low uh hurdle, you know, was not even attempted hurdle, you know, was not even attempted hurdle, you know, was not even attempted in that in that period. The other thing in that in that period. The other thing in that in that period. The other thing I think that I would criticize Obama for I think that I would criticize Obama for I think that I would criticize Obama for more was that in the absence of the more was that in the absence of the more was that in the absence of the ability of the government to take on ability of the government to take on ability of the government to take on frontly many of these uh challenges frontly many of these uh challenges frontly many of these uh challenges because it didn't have the power to do because it didn't have the power to do because it didn't have the power to do it, you had the flourishing of a certain it, you had the flourishing of a certain it, you had the flourishing of a certain kind of identity politics in civil kind of identity politics in civil kind of identity politics in civil society. Uh and that, you know, was not society. Uh and that, you know, was not society. Uh and that, you know, was not I I don't think that was the core of his I I don't think that was the core of his I I don't think that was the core of his presidency, but it certainly, you know, presidency, but it certainly, you know, presidency, but it certainly, you know, took hold in that period. I do think it took hold in that period. I do think it took hold in that period. I do think it took hold in that period, but I think it took hold in that period, but I think it took hold in that period, but I think it took hold for a reason not unrelated to took hold for a reason not unrelated to took hold for a reason not unrelated to what you're describing, which is one of what you're describing, which is one of what you're describing, which is one of the ways I think about what has gone the ways I think about what has gone the ways I think about what has gone wrong in liberalism because I think wrong in liberalism because I think wrong in liberalism because I think quite a bit has. And I think liberalism quite a bit has. And I think liberalism quite a bit has. And I think liberalism right now, even though I'm a liberal, right now, even though I'm a liberal, right now, even though I'm a liberal, has real exhausted feeling to it is my has real exhausted feeling to it is my has real exhausted feeling to it is my my one line on this is that first my one line on this is that first my one line on this is that first liberalism captured the institutions and liberalism captured the institutions and liberalism captured the institutions and then the institutions captured then the institutions captured then the institutions captured liberalism. And what I mean by that is liberalism. And what I mean by that is liberalism. And what I mean by that is that liberals in many cases built

that liberals in many cases built that liberals in many cases built America's political institutions. They America's political institutions. They America's political institutions. They certainly as uh liberals and became like certainly as uh liberals and became like certainly as uh liberals and became like the reigning ideology of the the reigning ideology of the the reigning ideology of the universities, liberals became the people universities, liberals became the people universities, liberals became the people who staffed these institutions. who staffed these institutions. who staffed these institutions. And so then liberals became the people And so then liberals became the people And so then liberals became the people who owned their failures, who governed who owned their failures, who governed who owned their failures, who governed with the horizons of what these with the horizons of what these with the horizons of what these institutions could achieve, institutions could achieve, institutions could achieve, >> right? >> right? >> right? >> And if you are the defenders of the >> And if you are the defenders of the >> And if you are the defenders of the system, that doesn't work. If you are, system, that doesn't work. If you are, system, that doesn't work. If you are, if your moral ambition if your moral ambition if your moral ambition is boundaried is boundaried is boundaried by what failing institutions can by what failing institutions can by what failing institutions can achieve, achieve, achieve, you're not going to have a very exciting you're not going to have a very exciting you're not going to have a very exciting political philosophy. political philosophy. political philosophy. >> No, you're absolutely Yeah, you're >> No, you're absolutely Yeah, you're >> No, you're absolutely Yeah, you're absolutely right about that. I think absolutely right about that. I think absolutely right about that. I think that um at this point, you know, for me that um at this point, you know, for me that um at this point, you know, for me it would be absolutely wrong to think it would be absolutely wrong to think it would be absolutely wrong to think that we need to go back to the pre206 that we need to go back to the pre206 that we need to go back to the pre206 world because that world was one in world because that world was one in world because that world was one in which the government was basically which the government was basically which the government was basically hobbled from doing anything ambitious. hobbled from doing anything ambitious. hobbled from doing anything ambitious. Uh I think you know um what propelled Uh I think you know um what propelled Uh I think you know um what propelled Trump to power was the belief that it Trump to power was the belief that it Trump to power was the belief that it was too constraining and so he simply was too constraining and so he simply was too constraining and so he simply wanted to become a dictator, violate you wanted to become a dictator, violate you wanted to become a dictator, violate you know all sorts of rules in order to get know all sorts of rules in order to get know all sorts of rules in order to get things done. But you need a little bit things done. But you need a little bit things done. But you need a little bit of that in order to do progressive of that in order to do progressive of that in order to do progressive things. Uh you know it takes 10 years to things. Uh you know it takes 10 years to things. Uh you know it takes 10 years to get the permitting done to do a get the permitting done to do a get the permitting done to do a transmission line to get power from the transmission line to get power from the transmission line to get power from the middle of the country where alternative middle of the country where alternative middle of the country where alternative energy is produced to the west coast energy is produced to the west coast energy is produced to the west coast where it's consumed and that's the where it's consumed and that's the where it's consumed and that's the product of you know this kind of product of you know this kind of product of you know this kind of proceduralism that was ushered in uh by

proceduralism that was ushered in uh by proceduralism that was ushered in uh by people basically on the left. Uh so people basically on the left. Uh so people basically on the left. Uh so you're right that they created this you're right that they created this you're right that they created this institutional straight jacket and I institutional straight jacket and I institutional straight jacket and I think one of the big challenges is how think one of the big challenges is how think one of the big challenges is how to go back to uh a stronger government to go back to uh a stronger government to go back to uh a stronger government that can actually do good things. Well, that can actually do good things. Well, that can actually do good things. Well, this proceduralism is, I think, a very this proceduralism is, I think, a very this proceduralism is, I think, a very biting tension right now because on the biting tension right now because on the biting tension right now because on the one hand, much of the critique that one hand, much of the critique that one hand, much of the critique that liberals, even the left liberals, even the left liberals, even the left has of Donald Trump, is the evisceration has of Donald Trump, is the evisceration has of Donald Trump, is the evisceration of procedure, of procedure, of procedure, >> right? >> right? >> right? >> He wants to build a ballroom. He just >> He wants to build a ballroom. He just >> He wants to build a ballroom. He just bulldozes his E-wing. bulldozes his E-wing. bulldozes his E-wing. And on the other hand, and that's true, And on the other hand, and that's true, And on the other hand, and that's true, I mean, he is eviscerating procedure. He I mean, he is eviscerating procedure. He I mean, he is eviscerating procedure. He is firing inspectors general. He is is firing inspectors general. He is is firing inspectors general. He is doing all kinds of things that properly doing all kinds of things that properly doing all kinds of things that properly you are not supposed to be able to do you are not supposed to be able to do you are not supposed to be able to do under our system of government. under our system of government. under our system of government. It is very very hard I think to become It is very very hard I think to become It is very very hard I think to become very spun up about violations of very spun up about violations of very spun up about violations of procedure and not then accidentally wrap procedure and not then accidentally wrap procedure and not then accidentally wrap yourself as a defender of procedure. And yourself as a defender of procedure. And yourself as a defender of procedure. And so procedure is both the problem in the so procedure is both the problem in the so procedure is both the problem in the sense that it is being ignored, but also sense that it is being ignored, but also sense that it is being ignored, but also a little bit when you're in power, the a little bit when you're in power, the a little bit when you're in power, the problem in the sense it is being overly problem in the sense it is being overly problem in the sense it is being overly followed.

followed. followed. >> That doesn't leave you a very >> That doesn't leave you a very >> That doesn't leave you a very comfortable place to stand. I think if a comfortable place to stand. I think if a comfortable place to stand. I think if a Democrat is elected in 2028, uh they're Democrat is elected in 2028, uh they're Democrat is elected in 2028, uh they're going to have a big um conundrum because going to have a big um conundrum because going to have a big um conundrum because they're going to want to do things, they're going to want to do things, they're going to want to do things, especially if it's a more progressive especially if it's a more progressive especially if it's a more progressive left-leaning Democrat, and they're going left-leaning Democrat, and they're going left-leaning Democrat, and they're going to find themselves uh up against these to find themselves uh up against these to find themselves uh up against these same procedures that have hobbled, you same procedures that have hobbled, you same procedures that have hobbled, you know, Obama and Biden. You know, Biden know, Obama and Biden. You know, Biden know, Obama and Biden. You know, Biden wanted to have uh high-speed internet in wanted to have uh high-speed internet in wanted to have uh high-speed internet in rural areas, and he was completely rural areas, and he was completely rural areas, and he was completely unable to produce that in in the three unable to produce that in in the three unable to produce that in in the three years that, you know, after the passage years that, you know, after the passage years that, you know, after the passage of of that act. So, uh, they're going to of of that act. So, uh, they're going to of of that act. So, uh, they're going to want more authority and they're going to want more authority and they're going to want more authority and they're going to have to in a way look a little bit more have to in a way look a little bit more have to in a way look a little bit more like Trump. Uh, I think that the trick like Trump. Uh, I think that the trick like Trump. Uh, I think that the trick is going to be to fundamentally stay is going to be to fundamentally stay is going to be to fundamentally stay within the law. Um, but to modify the within the law. Um, but to modify the within the law. Um, but to modify the law in ways that grant, you know, law in ways that grant, you know, law in ways that grant, you know, essentially more power to the government essentially more power to the government essentially more power to the government to to do things. Uh, and I think that's to to do things. Uh, and I think that's to to do things. Uh, and I think that's going to be a hard thing to sell going to be a hard thing to sell going to be a hard thing to sell because, uh, the immediate charge is, because, uh, the immediate charge is, because, uh, the immediate charge is, oh, you're just acting like Donald oh, you're just acting like Donald oh, you're just acting like Donald Trump. uh but in fact you know he was Trump. uh but in fact you know he was Trump. uh but in fact you know he was responding to a real problem this real responding to a real problem this real responding to a real problem this real institutional problem in the way that institutional problem in the way that institutional problem in the way that American government was operating.

American government was operating. American government was operating. >> You wrote a book in 2021 that I think >> You wrote a book in 2021 that I think >> You wrote a book in 2021 that I think introduces an interesting tension into introduces an interesting tension into introduces an interesting tension into this which is called liberalism and its this which is called liberalism and its this which is called liberalism and its discontents and discontents and discontents and that book ends on a call I wouldn't that book ends on a call I wouldn't that book ends on a call I wouldn't really call it a stirring call. I think really call it a stirring call. I think really call it a stirring call. I think it's hard to have a stirring call for it's hard to have a stirring call for it's hard to have a stirring call for this for moderation as the answer for this for moderation as the answer for this for moderation as the answer for what is ailing liberalism, a sense of what is ailing liberalism, a sense of what is ailing liberalism, a sense of temperance. temperance. temperance. >> Here I ask you, you know, what you think >> Here I ask you, you know, what you think >> Here I ask you, you know, what you think of the Obama presidency and what you of the Obama presidency and what you of the Obama presidency and what you fundamentally say to me is it wasn't fundamentally say to me is it wasn't fundamentally say to me is it wasn't radical enough. I ask you about American radical enough. I ask you about American radical enough. I ask you about American institutions and procedures and you say institutions and procedures and you say institutions and procedures and you say liberals are going to have to be more liberals are going to have to be more liberals are going to have to be more like Donald Trump. They got to get rid like Donald Trump. They got to get rid like Donald Trump. They got to get rid of the filibuster. I've been arguing for of the filibuster. I've been arguing for of the filibuster. I've been arguing for ending the filibuster for a long time. I ending the filibuster for a long time. I ending the filibuster for a long time. I can tell you with certainty people do can tell you with certainty people do can tell you with certainty people do not experience that as moderate. not experience that as moderate. not experience that as moderate. So I'm curious how you think about So I'm curious how you think about So I'm curious how you think about resolving these. resolving these. resolving these. >> I I guess as you're you're right that >> I I guess as you're you're right that >> I I guess as you're you're right that there is a contradiction there. You know there is a contradiction there. You know there is a contradiction there. You know the same um uh vices that characterize the same um uh vices that characterize the same um uh vices that characterize bad uh dictatorial governments will also bad uh dictatorial governments will also bad uh dictatorial governments will also come to characterize good progressive come to characterize good progressive come to characterize good progressive ones. You know people have been ones. You know people have been ones. You know people have been complaining about the Supreme Court complaining about the Supreme Court complaining about the Supreme Court overturning Humphrey's executive. Uh overturning Humphrey's executive. Uh overturning Humphrey's executive. Uh this is this rule that um that allowed this is this rule that um that allowed this is this rule that um that allowed Congress to set terms under which a Congress to set terms under which a Congress to set terms under which a president could or could not fire an president could or could not fire an president could or could not fire an executive branch official in a executive branch official in a executive branch official in a multi-member, you know, commission.

multi-member, you know, commission. multi-member, you know, commission. Roosevelt wanted to fire this guy, Roosevelt wanted to fire this guy, Roosevelt wanted to fire this guy, William Humphre, that had been a William Humphre, that had been a William Humphre, that had been a commissioner for the FTC because he felt commissioner for the FTC because he felt commissioner for the FTC because he felt that guy was getting in the way of his that guy was getting in the way of his that guy was getting in the way of his New Deal agenda, progressive uh agenda. New Deal agenda, progressive uh agenda. New Deal agenda, progressive uh agenda. So the very same constraint on executive So the very same constraint on executive So the very same constraint on executive power that we're now criticizing, you power that we're now criticizing, you power that we're now criticizing, you know, a conservative Supreme Court for know, a conservative Supreme Court for know, a conservative Supreme Court for uh overturning was something that uh overturning was something that uh overturning was something that progressives wanted. I just think that progressives wanted. I just think that progressives wanted. I just think that that's kind of built into uh built into that's kind of built into uh built into that's kind of built into uh built into our politics that the same set of our politics that the same set of our politics that the same set of institutions can either be good or bad institutions can either be good or bad institutions can either be good or bad depending on the goal that you set. So depending on the goal that you set. So depending on the goal that you set. So you have to, you know, have a good set you have to, you know, have a good set you have to, you know, have a good set of ends that you are trying to achieve, of ends that you are trying to achieve, of ends that you are trying to achieve, but you also need power. but you also need power. but you also need power. >> Let's talk about the man who stepped >> Let's talk about the man who stepped >> Let's talk about the man who stepped into some of the failures here or some into some of the failures here or some into some of the failures here or some of the resentments here, which is Donald of the resentments here, which is Donald of the resentments here, which is Donald Trump. As you mentioned, Trump uh Trump. As you mentioned, Trump uh Trump. As you mentioned, Trump uh appears a couple of times in end of appears a couple of times in end of appears a couple of times in end of history and the last man. But when he history and the last man. But when he history and the last man. But when he emerges into politics, he emerges as emerges into politics, he emerges as emerges into politics, he emerges as something other than simply an icon of something other than simply an icon of something other than simply an icon of capitalist success. He emerges as capitalist success. He emerges as capitalist success. He emerges as somebody bringing a renewed nationalism, somebody bringing a renewed nationalism, somebody bringing a renewed nationalism, a renewed belief in borders, a renewed belief in borders, a renewed belief in borders, uh belief in maybe more traditional uh belief in maybe more traditional uh belief in maybe more traditional hierarchies in America.

hierarchies in America. hierarchies in America. And over time he emerges in your telling And over time he emerges in your telling And over time he emerges in your telling as somebody who is as somebody who is as somebody who is either proposing or modeling a different either proposing or modeling a different either proposing or modeling a different form of government, a different regime, form of government, a different regime, form of government, a different regime, not just a different leader. You've not just a different leader. You've not just a different leader. You've described him as repatrimonializing described him as repatrimonializing described him as repatrimonializing the government. What does that mean? the government. What does that mean? the government. What does that mean? >> So um let's begin with another bit of >> So um let's begin with another bit of >> So um let's begin with another bit of psychology. It's not natural to favor a psychology. It's not natural to favor a psychology. It's not natural to favor a well-qualified stranger over your well-qualified stranger over your well-qualified stranger over your relatives or your friends. It's a very relatives or your friends. It's a very relatives or your friends. It's a very natural human desire to want to reward natural human desire to want to reward natural human desire to want to reward friends and family. Uh so most states in friends and family. Uh so most states in friends and family. Uh so most states in human history were patrimonial, meaning human history were patrimonial, meaning human history were patrimonial, meaning that they basically were run for the that they basically were run for the that they basically were run for the benefit of the rulers. It was the benefit of the rulers. It was the benefit of the rulers. It was the ruler's household, the friends and ruler's household, the friends and ruler's household, the friends and family of the ruler that were given family of the ruler that were given family of the ruler that were given privileges and were able to enrich privileges and were able to enrich privileges and were able to enrich themselves. And the reason you went into themselves. And the reason you went into themselves. And the reason you went into politics was to enrich yourselves. And I politics was to enrich yourselves. And I politics was to enrich yourselves. And I think that every u society that has think that every u society that has think that every u society that has managed to create modern state managed to create modern state managed to create modern state institutions that are impersonal has had institutions that are impersonal has had institutions that are impersonal has had this constant uh backsliding temptation this constant uh backsliding temptation this constant uh backsliding temptation because the rulers themselves would like because the rulers themselves would like because the rulers themselves would like their friends and family to you know to their friends and family to you know to their friends and family to you know to be favored. Uh just one simple be favored. Uh just one simple be favored. Uh just one simple historical example, the Ottomans had the historical example, the Ottomans had the historical example, the Ottomans had the one of the weirdest ways of getting to a one of the weirdest ways of getting to a one of the weirdest ways of getting to a modern state. They literally captured modern state. They literally captured modern state. They literally captured young boys in the Balkans, brought them young boys in the Balkans, brought them young boys in the Balkans, brought them to Istanbul and trained them to be to Istanbul and trained them to be to Istanbul and trained them to be administrators and generals, but they administrators and generals, but they administrators and generals, but they couldn't have families because they couldn't have families because they couldn't have families because they didn't want nepotism, right? And uh they didn't want nepotism, right? And uh they didn't want nepotism, right? And uh they couldn't resist the demand of the couldn't resist the demand of the couldn't resist the demand of the janiseries uh uh to have children and

janiseries uh uh to have children and janiseries uh uh to have children and have families. So eventually a sultan have families. So eventually a sultan have families. So eventually a sultan gave in and you're back in the whole gave in and you're back in the whole gave in and you're back in the whole nepotistic patrimonial world that the nepotistic patrimonial world that the nepotistic patrimonial world that the Ottomans had briefly managed to to get Ottomans had briefly managed to to get Ottomans had briefly managed to to get beyond. We're doing that right now. You beyond. We're doing that right now. You beyond. We're doing that right now. You know, instead of professional diplomats know, instead of professional diplomats know, instead of professional diplomats handling our Middle East policy, you get handling our Middle East policy, you get handling our Middle East policy, you get Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, you Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, you Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, you know, two friends and family of uh know, two friends and family of uh know, two friends and family of uh Donald Trump, and you're paying the Donald Trump, and you're paying the Donald Trump, and you're paying the price for it because a modern state price for it because a modern state price for it because a modern state really does need kind of meritocratic, really does need kind of meritocratic, really does need kind of meritocratic, you know, impersonal uh people running you know, impersonal uh people running you know, impersonal uh people running the state apparatus. Are you surprised the state apparatus. Are you surprised the state apparatus. Are you surprised how easy it was for Trump to begin to how easy it was for Trump to begin to how easy it was for Trump to begin to build or rebuild that structure in a build or rebuild that structure in a build or rebuild that structure in a system that seemed just choked with system that seemed just choked with system that seemed just choked with rules and procedures to keep that from rules and procedures to keep that from rules and procedures to keep that from happening? happening? happening? >> Yeah, I'm totally astounded uh that the >> Yeah, I'm totally astounded uh that the >> Yeah, I'm totally astounded uh that the American people don't seem to really American people don't seem to really American people don't seem to really care that much. I mean maybe in the care that much. I mean maybe in the care that much. I mean maybe in the fullness of time uh there'll be some fullness of time uh there'll be some fullness of time uh there'll be some accountability but yeah I would not have accountability but yeah I would not have accountability but yeah I would not have expected that the degree of corruption expected that the degree of corruption expected that the degree of corruption that exists in the current that exists in the current that exists in the current administration would have been tolerable administration would have been tolerable administration would have been tolerable to you know mainstream Republicans for to you know mainstream Republicans for to you know mainstream Republicans for example when Trump sort of roar back in example when Trump sort of roar back in example when Trump sort of roar back in the 2024 election the 2024 election the 2024 election much more so than in 2016 much more so than in 2016 much more so than in 2016 he ran and assembled a coalition as a he ran and assembled a coalition as a he ran and assembled a coalition as a candidate of [sighs] candidate of [sighs] candidate of [sighs] courage and thumos and passions. You courage and thumos and passions. You courage and thumos and passions. You know, this really took hold after the uh know, this really took hold after the uh know, this really took hold after the uh nearly successful assassination attempt nearly successful assassination attempt nearly successful assassination attempt with his bloodied fist in the air.

with his bloodied fist in the air. with his bloodied fist in the air. >> You saw a sort of rallying around him as >> You saw a sort of rallying around him as >> You saw a sort of rallying around him as a almost mythic man of history figure. a almost mythic man of history figure. a almost mythic man of history figure. I think a lot of that has drained out of I think a lot of that has drained out of I think a lot of that has drained out of the system now as he seems a little bit the system now as he seems a little bit the system now as he seems a little bit more more more ridiculous, dangerous, campy, you know, ridiculous, dangerous, campy, you know, ridiculous, dangerous, campy, you know, spending his time on the ballroom. spending his time on the ballroom. spending his time on the ballroom. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But is there something to be learned or But is there something to be learned or But is there something to be learned or be seen about what at least some people be seen about what at least some people be seen about what at least some people wanted to see in him? What they thought wanted to see in him? What they thought wanted to see in him? What they thought he might represent that felt to them he might represent that felt to them he might represent that felt to them like it was missing? like it was missing? like it was missing? >> Well, I think it's all about power. You >> Well, I think it's all about power. You >> Well, I think it's all about power. You know, I think that many of Trump's uh know, I think that many of Trump's uh know, I think that many of Trump's uh defenders currently would say that we defenders currently would say that we defenders currently would say that we still, you know, that the Democrats only still, you know, that the Democrats only still, you know, that the Democrats only produced weak leaders and we want a produced weak leaders and we want a produced weak leaders and we want a strong leader. They'll excuse the strong leader. They'll excuse the strong leader. They'll excuse the corruption by saying, "Well, okay, maybe corruption by saying, "Well, okay, maybe corruption by saying, "Well, okay, maybe uh you're getting corruption, but that's uh you're getting corruption, but that's uh you're getting corruption, but that's the price you have to pay to have the price you have to pay to have the price you have to pay to have somebody that really wanted to close the somebody that really wanted to close the somebody that really wanted to close the border and was able to uh to do that." border and was able to uh to do that." border and was able to uh to do that." Um, and they'll look past, you know, all Um, and they'll look past, you know, all Um, and they'll look past, you know, all of the other institutional depradations of the other institutional depradations of the other institutional depradations that have happened under him because that have happened under him because that have happened under him because they want that that strength. It's they want that that strength. It's they want that that strength. It's something that I wouldn't have expected something that I wouldn't have expected something that I wouldn't have expected in American politics because really our in American politics because really our in American politics because really our system is really designed to guard system is really designed to guard system is really designed to guard against, you know, that kind of leader.

against, you know, that kind of leader. against, you know, that kind of leader. There's a famous letter of Alexander There's a famous letter of Alexander There's a famous letter of Alexander Hamilton that anticipates Trump Hamilton that anticipates Trump Hamilton that anticipates Trump perfectly. He said there will be a point perfectly. He said there will be a point perfectly. He said there will be a point in American politics where some uh uh in American politics where some uh uh in American politics where some uh uh person with great ortorial skills will person with great ortorial skills will person with great ortorial skills will come and rally people again, you know, come and rally people again, you know, come and rally people again, you know, in favor of his own personal power. Uh in favor of his own personal power. Uh in favor of his own personal power. Uh and that, you know, was um part of the and that, you know, was um part of the and that, you know, was um part of the reason they designed this complex reason they designed this complex reason they designed this complex constitutional system. By the way, I'm constitutional system. By the way, I'm constitutional system. By the way, I'm not completely pessimistic. I think our not completely pessimistic. I think our not completely pessimistic. I think our institutions actually are going to hold institutions actually are going to hold institutions actually are going to hold uh at the end of this story, but you uh at the end of this story, but you uh at the end of this story, but you know, we're being taken for a very know, we're being taken for a very know, we're being taken for a very dangerous ride in, you know, in the dangerous ride in, you know, in the dangerous ride in, you know, in the meantime. meantime. meantime. >> You wrote uh I I forget when they >> You wrote uh I I forget when they >> You wrote uh I I forget when they actually came out, but these two books actually came out, but these two books actually came out, but these two books about the origins of modern political about the origins of modern political about the origins of modern political states. states. states. And the central question in those books And the central question in those books And the central question in those books was about how do you get to Denmark? How was about how do you get to Denmark? How was about how do you get to Denmark? How do you get from, you know, more do you get from, you know, more do you get from, you know, more rudimentary forms of human organization rudimentary forms of human organization rudimentary forms of human organization to the advanced, efficient, fair, to the advanced, efficient, fair, to the advanced, efficient, fair, neutral state sort of both neutral state sort of both neutral state sort of both metaphorically and literally represented metaphorically and literally represented metaphorically and literally represented by Denmark? And I remember, you know, by Denmark? And I remember, you know, by Denmark? And I remember, you know, reading those books at the time and reading those books at the time and reading those books at the time and thinking that that statement made sense.

thinking that that statement made sense. thinking that that statement made sense. And I was, as I was thinking about them And I was, as I was thinking about them And I was, as I was thinking about them again for this conversation, again for this conversation, again for this conversation, some part of me when I framed the some part of me when I framed the some part of me when I framed the question, how do you get to Denmark? it question, how do you get to Denmark? it question, how do you get to Denmark? it no longer felt like the right question no longer felt like the right question no longer felt like the right question that Denmark does not feel like the that Denmark does not feel like the that Denmark does not feel like the future. I mean, one, Europe itself does future. I mean, one, Europe itself does future. I mean, one, Europe itself does not seem all that stable. You just saw not seem all that stable. You just saw not seem all that stable. You just saw the AFD posting a huge result in um uh the AFD posting a huge result in um uh the AFD posting a huge result in um uh regional German election. You have regional German election. You have regional German election. You have faright populism rising all across the faright populism rising all across the faright populism rising all across the continent. But also the the generalized continent. But also the the generalized continent. But also the the generalized sense that Europe is falling behind, sense that Europe is falling behind, sense that Europe is falling behind, that it is itself being somewhat choked that it is itself being somewhat choked that it is itself being somewhat choked by rules and procedures, that you know, by rules and procedures, that you know, by rules and procedures, that you know, China is roaring forward. China is roaring forward. China is roaring forward. If you were writing those books today, If you were writing those books today, If you were writing those books today, if you were thinking about the if you were thinking about the if you were thinking about the formations of states and the the the formations of states and the the the formations of states and the the the pathway they're traveling, do you still pathway they're traveling, do you still pathway they're traveling, do you still see Denmark as a goal? see Denmark as a goal? see Denmark as a goal? >> No, absolutely. I mean, the reason I >> No, absolutely. I mean, the reason I >> No, absolutely. I mean, the reason I like Denmark, it was not for the same like Denmark, it was not for the same like Denmark, it was not for the same reason as Bernie Sanders. It's not cuz reason as Bernie Sanders. It's not cuz reason as Bernie Sanders. It's not cuz it's got this huge welfare state. It's it's got this huge welfare state. It's it's got this huge welfare state. It's because it's run competently. And I just because it's run competently. And I just because it's run competently. And I just don't see any period in human history in don't see any period in human history in don't see any period in human history in which competence in state administration which competence in state administration which competence in state administration is not a virtue. uh and it's a going to is not a virtue. uh and it's a going to is not a virtue. uh and it's a going to be a virtue if your goal is to restrict be a virtue if your goal is to restrict be a virtue if your goal is to restrict um uh immigration. It's interesting uh um uh immigration. It's interesting uh um uh immigration. It's interesting uh Danish politics uh has been you know Danish politics uh has been you know Danish politics uh has been you know more stable than ours but they've really more stable than ours but they've really more stable than ours but they've really closed off immigration uh despite the closed off immigration uh despite the closed off immigration uh despite the fact that there's still you know fact that there's still you know fact that there's still you know coalition with you know with social coalition with you know with social coalition with you know with social democrats in it democrats in it democrats in it >> and some people my colleague David >> and some people my colleague David >> and some people my colleague David Leenhardt among others has argued that Leenhardt among others has argued that Leenhardt among others has argued that that's why their politics have been more that's why their politics have been more that's why their politics have been more stable that they they basically merged stable that they they basically merged stable that they they basically merged liberalism with a more closed border

liberalism with a more closed border liberalism with a more closed border nationalism. nationalism. nationalism. >> Yeah. uh but the thing is that they >> Yeah. uh but the thing is that they >> Yeah. uh but the thing is that they could actually do it competently uh and could actually do it competently uh and could actually do it competently uh and they could actually achieve those goals. they could actually achieve those goals. they could actually achieve those goals. So again, I just don't see any any So again, I just don't see any any So again, I just don't see any any circumstance in which having a competent circumstance in which having a competent circumstance in which having a competent modern public administration isn't going modern public administration isn't going modern public administration isn't going to be an advantage. That's how countries to be an advantage. That's how countries to be an advantage. That's how countries get rich in the first place and that's get rich in the first place and that's get rich in the first place and that's how they manage the different crises how they manage the different crises how they manage the different crises that hit them, you know, at later points that hit them, you know, at later points that hit them, you know, at later points like pandemics and financial crisis. If like pandemics and financial crisis. If like pandemics and financial crisis. If we didn't have a really competent set of we didn't have a really competent set of we didn't have a really competent set of financial managers in 2008, I think we financial managers in 2008, I think we financial managers in 2008, I think we would have been in big trouble. would have been in big trouble. would have been in big trouble. >> I'm not saying that that we don't want >> I'm not saying that that we don't want >> I'm not saying that that we don't want competent administration. We do. And I'm competent administration. We do. And I'm competent administration. We do. And I'm not saying that that isn't very hard to not saying that that isn't very hard to not saying that that isn't very hard to achieve. It is. But but I want to try to achieve. It is. But but I want to try to achieve. It is. But but I want to try to push you towards the question I'm asking push you towards the question I'm asking push you towards the question I'm asking here, which is whether or not again with here, which is whether or not again with here, which is whether or not again with your more thematic hat on. your more thematic hat on. your more thematic hat on. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I think the conversation around Europe >> I think the conversation around Europe >> I think the conversation around Europe has changed a lot in the past decade or has changed a lot in the past decade or has changed a lot in the past decade or two decades. You know, we've gone from I two decades. You know, we've gone from I two decades. You know, we've gone from I remember this spate of books in the remember this spate of books in the remember this spate of books in the early 2000s about whether or not the early 2000s about whether or not the early 2000s about whether or not the European Union was a future and now European Union was a future and now European Union was a future and now Europe seems very left behind and a lot Europe seems very left behind and a lot Europe seems very left behind and a lot less stable uh politically. And you have less stable uh politically. And you have less stable uh politically. And you have this sort of strange competition between this sort of strange competition between this sort of strange competition between an America that is operating in a an America that is operating in a an America that is operating in a reckless, chaotic, high-risk way and a reckless, chaotic, high-risk way and a reckless, chaotic, high-risk way and a China that is China that is China that is showing incredible capacity to build a showing incredible capacity to build a showing incredible capacity to build a you know 21st century manufacturing you know 21st century manufacturing you know 21st century manufacturing and innovation juggernaut that is and innovation juggernaut that is and innovation juggernaut that is operating under a much more operating under a much more operating under a much more authoritarian form of politics. that is

authoritarian form of politics. that is authoritarian form of politics. that is uh takes risks but in a very calculated uh takes risks but in a very calculated uh takes risks but in a very calculated way and somehow the idea that you know way and somehow the idea that you know way and somehow the idea that you know what you're trying to do is is get to what you're trying to do is is get to what you're trying to do is is get to where Europe is. I mean Europe feels a where Europe is. I mean Europe feels a where Europe is. I mean Europe feels a little bit like it's getting little bit like it's getting little bit like it's getting >> no look I I am not trying to get to >> no look I I am not trying to get to >> no look I I am not trying to get to where Europe is. Europe is, you know, if where Europe is. Europe is, you know, if where Europe is. Europe is, you know, if you're talking about over procedural you're talking about over procedural you're talking about over procedural excessive proceduralism, that's Europe. excessive proceduralism, that's Europe. excessive proceduralism, that's Europe. Uh, basically their bureaucrats make so Uh, basically their bureaucrats make so Uh, basically their bureaucrats make so many rules, you have uh member state many rules, you have uh member state many rules, you have uh member state level rules and then you've got the level rules and then you've got the level rules and then you've got the whole Brussels bureaucracy. And, you whole Brussels bureaucracy. And, you whole Brussels bureaucracy. And, you know, anybody operating in Europe will know, anybody operating in Europe will know, anybody operating in Europe will tell you that, you know, complying with tell you that, you know, complying with tell you that, you know, complying with this mountain of rules that they this mountain of rules that they this mountain of rules that they established is why they don't have a big established is why they don't have a big established is why they don't have a big tech industry. You know, uh, for tech industry. You know, uh, for tech industry. You know, uh, for example, one of the things that Mario example, one of the things that Mario example, one of the things that Mario Draghy and countless other reformers Draghy and countless other reformers Draghy and countless other reformers have recommended is actually get a have recommended is actually get a have recommended is actually get a single market. That was the whole point single market. That was the whole point single market. That was the whole point of the European community. Uh, you can't of the European community. Uh, you can't of the European community. Uh, you can't have large-scale companies in Europe have large-scale companies in Europe have large-scale companies in Europe because every one of the 27 member because every one of the 27 member because every one of the 27 member states has all these niggling little states has all these niggling little states has all these niggling little rules. So, they're not there. They're rules. So, they're not there. They're rules. So, they're not there. They're not a model of not a model of not a model of >> it's very hard to sell across the >> it's very hard to sell across the >> it's very hard to sell across the countries.

countries. countries. >> You can't sell across way. It's very >> You can't sell across way. It's very >> You can't sell across way. It's very easy to sell in America. easy to sell in America. easy to sell in America. >> Yeah. and and for that reason they have >> Yeah. and and for that reason they have >> Yeah. and and for that reason they have put limits on their own economic uh put limits on their own economic uh put limits on their own economic uh productivity by you know by the fact productivity by you know by the fact productivity by you know by the fact that they don't have competent that they don't have competent that they don't have competent administration that could actually make administration that could actually make administration that could actually make a uniform playing field for European a uniform playing field for European a uniform playing field for European companies. companies. companies. >> Okay. But I want to stop you here >> Okay. But I want to stop you here >> Okay. But I want to stop you here because I want you to try to resolve because I want you to try to resolve because I want you to try to resolve this tension more for me. I think uh I this tension more for me. I think uh I this tension more for me. I think uh I think when we say that I remember Tyler think when we say that I remember Tyler think when we say that I remember Tyler Cowan the economist saying something of Cowan the economist saying something of Cowan the economist saying something of this nature where he said look you meet this nature where he said look you meet this nature where he said look you meet people who like work in the government people who like work in the government people who like work in the government in Europe and almost to a person they in Europe and almost to a person they in Europe and almost to a person they are on average they are competent they are on average they are competent they are on average they are competent they are cultured they can say more to you are cultured they can say more to you are cultured they can say more to you about literature and books and art than about literature and books and art than about literature and books and art than the person in the same uh uh position in the person in the same uh uh position in the person in the same uh uh position in America can. And yet the the outcomes America can. And yet the the outcomes America can. And yet the the outcomes are not that good that that Europe is are not that good that that Europe is are not that good that that Europe is struggling. struggling. struggling. Why? What is it about these competent Why? What is it about these competent Why? What is it about these competent governments that is not leading to more governments that is not leading to more governments that is not leading to more competent governance? competent governance? competent governance? >> Well, I that indicates they're actually >> Well, I that indicates they're actually >> Well, I that indicates they're actually not so competent. I I don't think not so competent. I I don't think not so competent. I I don't think competence is measured by the number of competence is measured by the number of competence is measured by the number of rules that you pile up. At some point I rules that you pile up. At some point I rules that you pile up. At some point I think competent governments have to cut think competent governments have to cut think competent governments have to cut back on those rules and rely on the you back on those rules and rely on the you back on those rules and rely on the you know the common sense and the know the common sense and the know the common sense and the discretionary judgment of you know the discretionary judgment of you know the discretionary judgment of you know the people running those systems. Uh so uh I people running those systems. Uh so uh I people running those systems. Uh so uh I don't think that it's the case that um don't think that it's the case that um don't think that it's the case that um uh they are actually competent. there's uh they are actually competent. there's uh they are actually competent. there's a point at which you know that you're a point at which you know that you're a point at which you know that you're trapped in an institutional system that trapped in an institutional system that trapped in an institutional system that sees legitimacy lying in further

sees legitimacy lying in further sees legitimacy lying in further rulemaking and it you know I think rulemaking and it you know I think rulemaking and it you know I think legitimacy really comes from outcomes legitimacy really comes from outcomes legitimacy really comes from outcomes and they're at a point where they're not and they're at a point where they're not and they're at a point where they're not getting outcomes because they're choked getting outcomes because they're choked getting outcomes because they're choked by uh you know by this compliance this by uh you know by this compliance this by uh you know by this compliance this rule uh compliance mentality that rule uh compliance mentality that rule uh compliance mentality that they've developed they've developed they've developed >> [music] >> One thing that I think is shifting the >> One thing that I think is shifting the politics of America and Europe politics of America and Europe politics of America and Europe simultaneously, China is a little bit of simultaneously, China is a little bit of simultaneously, China is a little bit of a different case here, is that the a different case here, is that the a different case here, is that the platforms on which we politically platforms on which we politically platforms on which we politically communicate and the platforms on which communicate and the platforms on which communicate and the platforms on which we shape what we see politically have we shape what we see politically have we shape what we see politically have changed. We've moved from, you know, changed. We've moved from, you know, changed. We've moved from, you know, people maybe read the newspaper in the people maybe read the newspaper in the people maybe read the newspaper in the morning or they watch some nightly news morning or they watch some nightly news morning or they watch some nightly news show to this show to this show to this much more anarchctic algorithmic much more anarchctic algorithmic much more anarchctic algorithmic social social social and beyond social media environment. I and beyond social media environment. I and beyond social media environment. I never think it's an accident that the never think it's an accident that the never think it's an accident that the populist right began to surge across the populist right began to surge across the populist right began to surge across the world at the time that um political world at the time that um political world at the time that um political communication went algorithmic. Um, I'm communication went algorithmic. Um, I'm communication went algorithmic. Um, I'm curious how you see this in in terms of curious how you see this in in terms of curious how you see this in in terms of some of these theories and part of the some of these theories and part of the some of these theories and part of the way that social media is a constant way that social media is a constant way that social media is a constant measuring of recognition. Are you seeing measuring of recognition. Are you seeing measuring of recognition. Are you seeing me? Are you liking me? Are you you know, me? Are you liking me? Are you you know, me? Are you liking me? Are you you know, and the politicians get this constant and the politicians get this constant and the politicians get this constant feedback. It it shifts how they act, how feedback. It it shifts how they act, how feedback. It it shifts how they act, how they think, how they generate a sense of they think, how they generate a sense of they think, how they generate a sense of how they're doing.

how they're doing. how they're doing. >> Where does this fit in in some of your >> Where does this fit in in some of your >> Where does this fit in in some of your theories of of political orders in the theories of of political orders in the theories of of political orders in the human soul? Well, you know, ever since human soul? Well, you know, ever since human soul? Well, you know, ever since 2016, we've been having this prolonged 2016, we've been having this prolonged 2016, we've been having this prolonged debate about where all this populism is debate about where all this populism is debate about where all this populism is coming from. And everybody gives this coming from. And everybody gives this coming from. And everybody gives this list of seven or eight things. Economic list of seven or eight things. Economic list of seven or eight things. Economic inequality, globalization, incompetent inequality, globalization, incompetent inequality, globalization, incompetent leadership, and then they say at the leadership, and then they say at the leadership, and then they say at the end, and also social media. I actually end, and also social media. I actually end, and also social media. I actually think that technology uh exemplified by think that technology uh exemplified by think that technology uh exemplified by social media is really much more social media is really much more social media is really much more important than most of the other important than most of the other important than most of the other explanations that you can't explain the explanations that you can't explain the explanations that you can't explain the timing for the rise of populism and in timing for the rise of populism and in timing for the rise of populism and in particularly you can't explain the particularly you can't explain the particularly you can't explain the particular nature that it has taken particular nature that it has taken particular nature that it has taken without social media. For example, a lot without social media. For example, a lot without social media. For example, a lot of the what it means to be a of the what it means to be a of the what it means to be a conservative these days, a populist conservative these days, a populist conservative these days, a populist conservative is to believe in conspiracy conservative is to believe in conspiracy conservative is to believe in conspiracy theories. And it is much easier to theories. And it is much easier to theories. And it is much easier to promulgate. In fact, there are promulgate. In fact, there are promulgate. In fact, there are incentives for promulgating conspiracy incentives for promulgating conspiracy incentives for promulgating conspiracy theories on a completely unregulated theories on a completely unregulated theories on a completely unregulated internet. Uh you know that the way you internet. Uh you know that the way you internet. Uh you know that the way you get followers uh if you're an internet get followers uh if you're an internet get followers uh if you're an internet influencer is to say more and more influencer is to say more and more influencer is to say more and more outrageous things. You're uh uh your outrageous things. You're uh uh your outrageous things. You're uh uh your credibility is not measured by whether credibility is not measured by whether credibility is not measured by whether you actually uh have done the you actually uh have done the you actually uh have done the factchecking and have these factchecking and have these factchecking and have these institutional safeguards for re the institutional safeguards for re the institutional safeguards for re the reliability of your information. it's reliability of your information. it's reliability of your information. it's how many likes you get and I think it's how many likes you get and I think it's how many likes you get and I think it's absolutely been at the core of a lot of absolutely been at the core of a lot of absolutely been at the core of a lot of the radicalization of uh the politics of the radicalization of uh the politics of the radicalization of uh the politics of you know countries that have gone online you know countries that have gone online you know countries that have gone online in that period. So something that has in that period. So something that has in that period. So something that has been kind of lurking in our conversation

been kind of lurking in our conversation been kind of lurking in our conversation is China. And you had said at the is China. And you had said at the is China. And you had said at the beginning that the end of history was beginning that the end of history was beginning that the end of history was about this question of would we come up about this question of would we come up about this question of would we come up with ways of organizing a complex with ways of organizing a complex with ways of organizing a complex society that were more successful, more society that were more successful, more society that were more successful, more desirable than than America. I've seen desirable than than America. I've seen desirable than than America. I've seen you in more recent comments and you in more recent comments and you in more recent comments and interviews interviews interviews begin to grapple with the possibility begin to grapple with the possibility begin to grapple with the possibility that China represents a model that that China represents a model that that China represents a model that actually is working and could appeal on actually is working and could appeal on actually is working and could appeal on wider scale. I think you said something wider scale. I think you said something wider scale. I think you said something like we're a third of the way to that like we're a third of the way to that like we're a third of the way to that actually being the more successful actually being the more successful actually being the more successful model. So, so tell me what you think model. So, so tell me what you think model. So, so tell me what you think China both represents as a form of China both represents as a form of China both represents as a form of political organization, you know, where political organization, you know, where political organization, you know, where it differs um from liberal democracy and it differs um from liberal democracy and it differs um from liberal democracy and what you then think that means for it as what you then think that means for it as what you then think that means for it as a possible model of you know what other a possible model of you know what other a possible model of you know what other countries and cities are going to try to countries and cities are going to try to countries and cities are going to try to >> Sure. Well, I think a liberal democracy >> Sure. Well, I think a liberal democracy >> Sure. Well, I think a liberal democracy is based on having a competent state is based on having a competent state is based on having a competent state that is limited both by a rule of law that is limited both by a rule of law that is limited both by a rule of law and by elections. And China has the and by elections. And China has the and by elections. And China has the competent state uh very competent but it competent state uh very competent but it competent state uh very competent but it doesn't have either rule of law or doesn't have either rule of law or doesn't have either rule of law or elections and therefore the quality of elections and therefore the quality of elections and therefore the quality of governance there depends entirely on the governance there depends entirely on the governance there depends entirely on the quality of rulers. One of the things quality of rulers. One of the things quality of rulers. One of the things about Chinese civilization is that you about Chinese civilization is that you about Chinese civilization is that you know Confucianism embodies bureaucracy know Confucianism embodies bureaucracy know Confucianism embodies bureaucracy as one of its foundational cultural as one of its foundational cultural as one of its foundational cultural characteristics. educated people should characteristics. educated people should characteristics. educated people should be the ones that rule and to this be the ones that rule and to this be the ones that rule and to this present day that's where Chinese party present day that's where Chinese party present day that's where Chinese party cadres are recruited from you know the

cadres are recruited from you know the cadres are recruited from you know the best and brightest uh in society so best and brightest uh in society so best and brightest uh in society so they've got this tremendously competent they've got this tremendously competent they've got this tremendously competent state um the problem uh I think in the state um the problem uh I think in the state um the problem uh I think in the so I I've it's not just recently I've so I I've it's not just recently I've so I I've it's not just recently I've thought all along that this is the only thought all along that this is the only thought all along that this is the only alternative political and social system alternative political and social system alternative political and social system that has a chance of being um that has a chance of being um that has a chance of being um competitive with liberal democracy competitive with liberal democracy competitive with liberal democracy precisely because they can deal with precisely because they can deal with precisely because they can deal with modern technology. They can be at the modern technology. They can be at the modern technology. They can be at the forefront of uh technology and as a forefront of uh technology and as a forefront of uh technology and as a result of of economic growth. Uh the result of of economic growth. Uh the result of of economic growth. Uh the question is is this a sustainable model question is is this a sustainable model question is is this a sustainable model and I think that there are reasons to and I think that there are reasons to and I think that there are reasons to still regard that as an open question still regard that as an open question still regard that as an open question because you know their economy is based because you know their economy is based because you know their economy is based on doubling down on this export-driven on doubling down on this export-driven on doubling down on this export-driven you know model that made them rich in you know model that made them rich in you know model that made them rich in the first place. That's not a the first place. That's not a the first place. That's not a sustainable model. They've got big sustainable model. They've got big sustainable model. They've got big problems in their property market. uh problems in their property market. uh problems in their property market. uh they're going to have huge problems with they're going to have huge problems with they're going to have huge problems with unemployment, youth unemployment there unemployment, youth unemployment there unemployment, youth unemployment there is already uh at extraordinarily high is already uh at extraordinarily high is already uh at extraordinarily high levels. And so I don't think you can levels. And so I don't think you can levels. And so I don't think you can take uh the sustainability of either take uh the sustainability of either take uh the sustainability of either their economic or political systems uh their economic or political systems uh their economic or political systems uh for granted. The reason the reason I for granted. The reason the reason I for granted. The reason the reason I started saying these things about China started saying these things about China started saying these things about China versus the United States is because the versus the United States is because the versus the United States is because the American model has deteriorated.

American model has deteriorated. American model has deteriorated. >> Right. Yeah. I'm not sure you could take >> Right. Yeah. I'm not sure you could take >> Right. Yeah. I'm not sure you could take the sustainability of our model for the sustainability of our model for the sustainability of our model for granted. granted. granted. >> No, that's right. No, absolutely right. >> No, that's right. No, absolutely right. >> No, that's right. No, absolutely right. It seems to me we've got an It seems to me we've got an It seems to me we've got an administration that is doing everything administration that is doing everything administration that is doing everything it can think of to weaken the United it can think of to weaken the United it can think of to weaken the United States visav China. Attacking the States visav China. Attacking the States visav China. Attacking the scientific establishment, attacking scientific establishment, attacking scientific establishment, attacking allies, uh being, you know, completely allies, uh being, you know, completely allies, uh being, you know, completely capricious and arbitrary in economic capricious and arbitrary in economic capricious and arbitrary in economic policy. I mean, this is not something policy. I mean, this is not something policy. I mean, this is not something that a competent state does. But maybe that a competent state does. But maybe that a competent state does. But maybe to to unite two things we were just to to unite two things we were just to to unite two things we were just talking about in the last couple of talking about in the last couple of talking about in the last couple of minutes. When people talk about our minutes. When people talk about our minutes. When people talk about our model, model, model, they tend to mean in their head, whether they tend to mean in their head, whether they tend to mean in their head, whether it's America or Europe, a particular it's America or Europe, a particular it's America or Europe, a particular form of governance. But something that form of governance. But something that form of governance. But something that that you gestured out a few times there that you gestured out a few times there that you gestured out a few times there is that that form of governance is that that form of governance is that that form of governance took hold and flourished in a particular took hold and flourished in a particular took hold and flourished in a particular historical context, the post-war context historical context, the post-war context historical context, the post-war context and a particular technological context, and a particular technological context, and a particular technological context, a particular way we communicated. It was a particular way we communicated. It was a particular way we communicated. It was uh you know a period of newspapers and uh you know a period of newspapers and uh you know a period of newspapers and radio and TV and radio and TV and radio and TV and >> and I think one of the open questions >> and I think one of the open questions >> and I think one of the open questions about us is whether or not these about us is whether or not these about us is whether or not these contingencies were fundamental. Mhm.

contingencies were fundamental. Mhm. contingencies were fundamental. Mhm. >> Whether or not there was something in >> Whether or not there was something in >> Whether or not there was something in the way a particular form of government the way a particular form of government the way a particular form of government connected to a particular moment in connected to a particular moment in connected to a particular moment in communications, technology, you know, a communications, technology, you know, a communications, technology, you know, a certain level of globalization. certain level of globalization. certain level of globalization. >> And the question that's coming or maybe >> And the question that's coming or maybe >> And the question that's coming or maybe is already here is how all of these is already here is how all of these is already here is how all of these models operate in a different models operate in a different models operate in a different particularly technological era, right? particularly technological era, right? particularly technological era, right? how they adapt or don't adapt to social how they adapt or don't adapt to social how they adapt or don't adapt to social and algorithmic media, how they adapt or and algorithmic media, how they adapt or and algorithmic media, how they adapt or don't adapt to AI, how they adapt or don't adapt to AI, how they adapt or don't adapt to AI, how they adapt or don't adapt to globalization. don't adapt to globalization. don't adapt to globalization. But I'm curious how you bring those But I'm curious how you bring those But I'm curious how you bring those things into your framework. things into your framework. things into your framework. >> Oh, no. Look, I've never said that >> Oh, no. Look, I've never said that >> Oh, no. Look, I've never said that liberal democracy was the best system liberal democracy was the best system liberal democracy was the best system under all possible technological under all possible technological under all possible technological conditions. I think in fact uh the conditions. I think in fact uh the conditions. I think in fact uh the nature of the technological horizon nature of the technological horizon nature of the technological horizon determines the kind of politics you can determines the kind of politics you can determines the kind of politics you can have. And I think for that reason um you have. And I think for that reason um you have. And I think for that reason um you know AI is going to be very threatening know AI is going to be very threatening know AI is going to be very threatening to our democratic system. I wrote a book to our democratic system. I wrote a book to our democratic system. I wrote a book in the early 2000s actually about in the early 2000s actually about in the early 2000s actually about biotechnology where uh I was arguing biotechnology where uh I was arguing biotechnology where uh I was arguing that if you could actually you know that if you could actually you know that if you could actually you know through something like crisper casine if through something like crisper casine if through something like crisper casine if you could modify the human gene line to you could modify the human gene line to you could modify the human gene line to modify human nature you would attack modify human nature you would attack modify human nature you would attack some of the basic premises of modern some of the basic premises of modern some of the basic premises of modern liberalism because uh you could create liberalism because uh you could create liberalism because uh you could create different classes of human beings you different classes of human beings you different classes of human beings you know in a way that uh didn't exist know in a way that uh didn't exist know in a way that uh didn't exist before uh and now you can combine the before uh and now you can combine the before uh and now you can combine the biotech with the AI uh and produce these biotech with the AI uh and produce these biotech with the AI uh and produce these really very science fictiony but you really very science fictiony but you really very science fictiony but you know entirely conceivable outcomes that

know entirely conceivable outcomes that know entirely conceivable outcomes that are going to be completely toxic to the are going to be completely toxic to the are going to be completely toxic to the maintenance of the kind of egalitarian maintenance of the kind of egalitarian maintenance of the kind of egalitarian society that we've uh seen. We've society that we've uh seen. We've society that we've uh seen. We've already seen this concentration this already seen this concentration this already seen this concentration this extraordinary concentration of wealth extraordinary concentration of wealth extraordinary concentration of wealth you know in the technology sector and you know in the technology sector and you know in the technology sector and that by itself is also something that is that by itself is also something that is that by itself is also something that is very difficult for a democracy to deal very difficult for a democracy to deal very difficult for a democracy to deal with. So yeah, I I think that um it's with. So yeah, I I think that um it's with. So yeah, I I think that um it's all contingent on uh you know the nature all contingent on uh you know the nature all contingent on uh you know the nature of technology at any given point in of technology at any given point in of technology at any given point in time. time. time. >> One way to look at a political system is >> One way to look at a political system is >> One way to look at a political system is that it is a collective technology for that it is a collective technology for that it is a collective technology for absorbing and responding to information. absorbing and responding to information. absorbing and responding to information. And it works better or worse depending And it works better or worse depending And it works better or worse depending on how well it's able to do that. And I on how well it's able to do that. And I on how well it's able to do that. And I think increasingly we're seeing the way think increasingly we're seeing the way think increasingly we're seeing the way our system is absorbing and responding our system is absorbing and responding our system is absorbing and responding to information is degrading. to information is degrading. to information is degrading. AI is very much a system for absorbing, AI is very much a system for absorbing, AI is very much a system for absorbing, collecting, aggregating, and then collecting, aggregating, and then collecting, aggregating, and then responding or reacting to information. responding or reacting to information. responding or reacting to information. And I've not seen any particularly And I've not seen any particularly And I've not seen any particularly convincing convincing convincing descriptions of how you might integrate descriptions of how you might integrate descriptions of how you might integrate that capacity more fundamentally into a that capacity more fundamentally into a that capacity more fundamentally into a political system. But it's a little bit political system. But it's a little bit political system. But it's a little bit hard for me to imagine there won't be hard for me to imagine there won't be hard for me to imagine there won't be more profound experimentations around more profound experimentations around more profound experimentations around that. that that maybe the set of systems that. that that maybe the set of systems that. that that maybe the set of systems we can imagine operating which were more we can imagine operating which were more we can imagine operating which were more bounded by the way human intelligence bounded by the way human intelligence bounded by the way human intelligence worked and the speed of human beings worked and the speed of human beings worked and the speed of human beings working with each other working with each other working with each other >> is not the boundary and the you know the >> is not the boundary and the you know the >> is not the boundary and the you know the world is going to be opening to stranger

world is going to be opening to stranger world is going to be opening to stranger things in the next things in the next things in the next >> 10 or 20 years than were imagined in our >> 10 or 20 years than were imagined in our >> 10 or 20 years than were imagined in our 20th century uh political science if not 20th century uh political science if not 20th century uh political science if not always in our 20th century science always in our 20th century science always in our 20th century science fiction. fiction. fiction. >> Yeah. Well, I think that um modern >> Yeah. Well, I think that um modern >> Yeah. Well, I think that um modern government is going to have to rely on government is going to have to rely on government is going to have to rely on AI simply to process information because AI simply to process information because AI simply to process information because there's too much of it out there and there's too much of it out there and there's too much of it out there and it's too hard for human beings to, you it's too hard for human beings to, you it's too hard for human beings to, you know, absorb all of the inputs that that know, absorb all of the inputs that that know, absorb all of the inputs that that they need to. Uh I think the real danger they need to. Uh I think the real danger they need to. Uh I think the real danger is in agentic AI where human beings is in agentic AI where human beings is in agentic AI where human beings delegate certain powers to machines that delegate certain powers to machines that delegate certain powers to machines that can then operate autonomously. You know, can then operate autonomously. You know, can then operate autonomously. You know, it's very interesting. At the frontier it's very interesting. At the frontier it's very interesting. At the frontier of computer science these days, they're of computer science these days, they're of computer science these days, they're more like zoologologists that have just more like zoologologists that have just more like zoologologists that have just discovered a new species and they're discovered a new species and they're discovered a new species and they're trying to observe how it behaves under trying to observe how it behaves under trying to observe how it behaves under different conditions, but they don't different conditions, but they don't different conditions, but they don't really know what's happening on the really know what's happening on the really know what's happening on the inside of the machine, even though inside of the machine, even though inside of the machine, even though they're the ones that, you know, built they're the ones that, you know, built they're the ones that, you know, built it it it >> and they're trying to make that new >> and they're trying to make that new >> and they're trying to make that new creature more powerful as fast as they creature more powerful as fast as they creature more powerful as fast as they possibly can. They don't know what that possibly can. They don't know what that possibly can. They don't know what that will do. will do. will do. >> Yeah. I mean, it's kind of a crazy race >> Yeah. I mean, it's kind of a crazy race >> Yeah. I mean, it's kind of a crazy race that's going on right now. I think that's going on right now. I think that's going on right now. I think that's really the danger is this uh that's really the danger is this uh that's really the danger is this uh likelihood that we will overdelegate uh likelihood that we will overdelegate uh likelihood that we will overdelegate uh and then you know the machine will and then you know the machine will and then you know the machine will develop values that may not really align develop values that may not really align develop values that may not really align with you know the ones that the creators with you know the ones that the creators with you know the ones that the creators uh hoped it would. I mean we already had uh hoped it would. I mean we already had uh hoped it would. I mean we already had this hugging face incident uh you know a this hugging face incident uh you know a this hugging face incident uh you know a couple of weeks ago where um machine did couple of weeks ago where um machine did couple of weeks ago where um machine did something was completely supposed to be something was completely supposed to be something was completely supposed to be off limits and that's just the beginning off limits and that's just the beginning off limits and that's just the beginning I think of you know more stuff like that I think of you know more stuff like that I think of you know more stuff like that to come. This is a point others have to come. This is a point others have to come. This is a point others have made, but the fear was always that the

made, but the fear was always that the made, but the fear was always that the AIs would take agency from us. What's AIs would take agency from us. What's AIs would take agency from us. What's obviously happening is we are handing obviously happening is we are handing obviously happening is we are handing that agency over as fast as we possibly that agency over as fast as we possibly that agency over as fast as we possibly can. And I talked to the people at these can. And I talked to the people at these can. And I talked to the people at these labs working on self-improvement, labs working on self-improvement, labs working on self-improvement, >> they don't even necessarily think >> they don't even necessarily think >> they don't even necessarily think self-improvement is a good idea, self-improvement is a good idea, self-improvement is a good idea, >> they just even if it's not a good idea, >> they just even if it's not a good idea, >> they just even if it's not a good idea, if the other labs or the other countries if the other labs or the other countries if the other labs or the other countries are going to do it, they want to get are going to do it, they want to get are going to do it, they want to get there first. And and I guess this would there first. And and I guess this would there first. And and I guess this would be this is a place where I wonder about be this is a place where I wonder about be this is a place where I wonder about your perspective that so much of what we your perspective that so much of what we your perspective that so much of what we can or can't do in terms of regulating can or can't do in terms of regulating can or can't do in terms of regulating AI is dependent on these at least AI is dependent on these at least AI is dependent on these at least perceived race dynamics between the US perceived race dynamics between the US perceived race dynamics between the US and China between firms and other firms. and China between firms and other firms. and China between firms and other firms. This doesn't feel to me like a problem This doesn't feel to me like a problem This doesn't feel to me like a problem without human precedent. But it is a without human precedent. But it is a without human precedent. But it is a problem coming at a time when um the problem coming at a time when um the problem coming at a time when um the government of the US is pretty erratic government of the US is pretty erratic government of the US is pretty erratic and our confidence in our governing and our confidence in our governing and our confidence in our governing capacities is pretty low where China is capacities is pretty low where China is capacities is pretty low where China is trying to catch up with us where there's trying to catch up with us where there's trying to catch up with us where there's a lot of eminity between the two a lot of eminity between the two a lot of eminity between the two countries. I'm curious how you look at countries. I'm curious how you look at countries. I'm curious how you look at this more international relationsbased this more international relationsbased this more international relationsbased aspect of it. aspect of it. aspect of it. >> Well, just on a domestic level, the >> Well, just on a domestic level, the >> Well, just on a domestic level, the state capacity problem comes back uh state capacity problem comes back uh state capacity problem comes back uh because you can't regulate this because you can't regulate this because you can't regulate this technology if you don't have people in technology if you don't have people in technology if you don't have people in the government that understand it. uh at the government that understand it. uh at the government that understand it. uh at least at a level that they can really least at a level that they can really least at a level that they can really get a hold of what's going on and and get a hold of what's going on and and get a hold of what's going on and and you know make uh uh put some controls in you know make uh uh put some controls in you know make uh uh put some controls in place on the international question. Uh place on the international question. Uh place on the international question. Uh obviously there's a geopolitics of AI obviously there's a geopolitics of AI obviously there's a geopolitics of AI that's driving everybody forward. You that's driving everybody forward. You that's driving everybody forward. You know that they're too worried about what know that they're too worried about what know that they're too worried about what China is going to do. I think some of China is going to do. I think some of China is going to do. I think some of that um worry is a little bit misplaced

that um worry is a little bit misplaced that um worry is a little bit misplaced because as far as I see it, the because as far as I see it, the because as far as I see it, the Communist Chinese Party is not a bunch Communist Chinese Party is not a bunch Communist Chinese Party is not a bunch of libertarians that say, "Oh, great of libertarians that say, "Oh, great of libertarians that say, "Oh, great technology. Let's just let it rip." You technology. Let's just let it rip." You technology. Let's just let it rip." You know, we're not going to try to control. know, we're not going to try to control. know, we're not going to try to control. They're going to try to control it. If They're going to try to control it. If They're going to try to control it. If uh you create a model that is really uh you create a model that is really uh you create a model that is really good at breaking into the most good at breaking into the most good at breaking into the most classified computers your government classified computers your government classified computers your government runs, they're not going to want to see runs, they're not going to want to see runs, they're not going to want to see that get out. You know, they're not that get out. You know, they're not that get out. You know, they're not going to want to have Chinese citizens going to want to have Chinese citizens going to want to have Chinese citizens have that capability. So I'm not sure have that capability. So I'm not sure have that capability. So I'm not sure that there's no basis on which you that there's no basis on which you that there's no basis on which you couldn't get some ground rules laid down couldn't get some ground rules laid down couldn't get some ground rules laid down despite the competition between the despite the competition between the despite the competition between the United States and China uh that put some United States and China uh that put some United States and China uh that put some limits on this and I think it's going to limits on this and I think it's going to limits on this and I think it's going to be absolutely necessary uh because even be absolutely necessary uh because even be absolutely necessary uh because even a big powerful country like the United a big powerful country like the United a big powerful country like the United States can't do this simply on its own. States can't do this simply on its own. States can't do this simply on its own. >> One thing I've heard people worry about >> One thing I've heard people worry about >> One thing I've heard people worry about is whether or not even if you could is whether or not even if you could is whether or not even if you could imagine a deal whether or not that kind imagine a deal whether or not that kind imagine a deal whether or not that kind of deal would be verifiable, of deal would be verifiable, of deal would be verifiable, trustworthy. trustworthy. trustworthy. >> Yeah. People will say, "I agree that >> Yeah. People will say, "I agree that >> Yeah. People will say, "I agree that China's not going to want a China's not going to want a China's not going to want a self-improving model able to break into self-improving model able to break into self-improving model able to break into classified computers running wild."

classified computers running wild." classified computers running wild." But at the same time, they'll say, "But But at the same time, they'll say, "But But at the same time, they'll say, "But China's probably more likely than we are China's probably more likely than we are China's probably more likely than we are given the way they can wall things off given the way they can wall things off given the way they can wall things off from their media, etc. to say that seems from their media, etc. to say that seems from their media, etc. to say that seems like a quite powerful weapon to have. like a quite powerful weapon to have. like a quite powerful weapon to have. Let's actually bring the very best Let's actually bring the very best Let's actually bring the very best scientists into the government. let's scientists into the government. let's scientists into the government. let's give them the resources they really need give them the resources they really need give them the resources they really need >> and let's have them create something on >> and let's have them create something on >> and let's have them create something on our behalf that we can use the way our behalf that we can use the way our behalf that we can use the way >> we want to use it. >> we want to use it. >> we want to use it. >> So to the extent this is a powerful >> So to the extent this is a powerful >> So to the extent this is a powerful weapon weapon weapon >> um a state that is good at creating >> um a state that is good at creating >> um a state that is good at creating things is going to try to create that things is going to try to create that things is going to try to create that weapon internally and so you can't trust weapon internally and so you can't trust weapon internally and so you can't trust the deal. You have to simply act as if the deal. You have to simply act as if the deal. You have to simply act as if the other partner is untrustworthy. Do the other partner is untrustworthy. Do the other partner is untrustworthy. Do you buy that? you buy that? you buy that? >> I'm afraid that a lot of that logic is >> I'm afraid that a lot of that logic is >> I'm afraid that a lot of that logic is inevitable. uh yeah I do not know inevitable. uh yeah I do not know inevitable. uh yeah I do not know whether it's possible to control this whether it's possible to control this whether it's possible to control this technology. Uh even a powerful state technology. Uh even a powerful state technology. Uh even a powerful state like China is going to have trouble like China is going to have trouble like China is going to have trouble doing that and when you have a globally doing that and when you have a globally doing that and when you have a globally competitive world um you know there may competitive world um you know there may competitive world um you know there may be certain things that you can't really be certain things that you can't really be certain things that you can't really uh uh get the capacity to to deal with.

uh uh get the capacity to to deal with. uh uh get the capacity to to deal with. So yeah maybe maybe it's going to be the So yeah maybe maybe it's going to be the So yeah maybe maybe it's going to be the end of us all. end of us all. end of us all. >> I want to avoid ending there on whether >> I want to avoid ending there on whether >> I want to avoid ending there on whether or not the AI will kill us all. So I I'm or not the AI will kill us all. So I I'm or not the AI will kill us all. So I I'm curious given you know what you've seen curious given you know what you've seen curious given you know what you've seen in the politics of this era. It does not in the politics of this era. It does not in the politics of this era. It does not look like Trumpism is a dominant look like Trumpism is a dominant look like Trumpism is a dominant competitor ideology. I don't think that competitor ideology. I don't think that competitor ideology. I don't think that repatrimonializing the government is repatrimonializing the government is repatrimonializing the government is proving to be popular even if it is not proving to be popular even if it is not proving to be popular even if it is not maybe as unpopular as one might have maybe as unpopular as one might have maybe as unpopular as one might have imagined. So what do you see as a as a imagined. So what do you see as a as a imagined. So what do you see as a as a kind of answer to some of these trends? kind of answer to some of these trends? kind of answer to some of these trends? >> Well, I think that's pretty simple. in >> Well, I think that's pretty simple. in >> Well, I think that's pretty simple. in countries where you can still have free countries where you can still have free countries where you can still have free and fair elections, you win elections and fair elections, you win elections and fair elections, you win elections because that's the route to political because that's the route to political because that's the route to political power. Uh the model for this was really power. Uh the model for this was really power. Uh the model for this was really the Hungarian election last April where the Hungarian election last April where the Hungarian election last April where uh Orban had been in power for 16 years. uh Orban had been in power for 16 years. uh Orban had been in power for 16 years. It really turned Hungary into an It really turned Hungary into an It really turned Hungary into an authoritarian country in the midst of authoritarian country in the midst of authoritarian country in the midst of the European Union. Uh but Peter Maguar the European Union. Uh but Peter Maguar the European Union. Uh but Peter Maguar had the political skill to organize a had the political skill to organize a had the political skill to organize a very broad coalition and not just squeak very broad coalition and not just squeak very broad coalition and not just squeak out a narrow victory, a massive victory out a narrow victory, a massive victory out a narrow victory, a massive victory that was a very great repudiation of that was a very great repudiation of that was a very great repudiation of urbanism. I think America has a chance urbanism. I think America has a chance urbanism. I think America has a chance of doing something similar, probably not of doing something similar, probably not of doing something similar, probably not as uh decisive, but certainly it could as uh decisive, but certainly it could as uh decisive, but certainly it could send a very powerful message in the send a very powerful message in the send a very powerful message in the midterm elections that are coming up in midterm elections that are coming up in midterm elections that are coming up in November. And if the polls are to be November. And if the polls are to be November. And if the polls are to be believed, uh, you know, it it it could believed, uh, you know, it it it could believed, uh, you know, it it it could really, uh, take place.

really, uh, take place. really, uh, take place. >> What what is the goal of liberalism in >> What what is the goal of liberalism in >> What what is the goal of liberalism in here? I don't mean classical liberalism here? I don't mean classical liberalism here? I don't mean classical liberalism in its long history. I mean American in its long history. I mean American in its long history. I mean American liberals, you know, the left of center, liberals, you know, the left of center, liberals, you know, the left of center, not quite socialist part of the not quite socialist part of the not quite socialist part of the Democratic party. Democratic party. Democratic party. What what is its moral goal at this What what is its moral goal at this What what is its moral goal at this point? In what way does it actually want point? In what way does it actually want point? In what way does it actually want to change society? I think people look to change society? I think people look to change society? I think people look at Trump and they know what he wants to at Trump and they know what he wants to at Trump and they know what he wants to do. I think they look at Bernie Sanders do. I think they look at Bernie Sanders do. I think they look at Bernie Sanders or Zoran Mamdani or AOC and they get a or Zoran Mamdani or AOC and they get a or Zoran Mamdani or AOC and they get a sense of of where they feel the problem sense of of where they feel the problem sense of of where they feel the problem really is. really is. really is. >> I'm not sure they exactly could answer >> I'm not sure they exactly could answer >> I'm not sure they exactly could answer that so well for you know your generic that so well for you know your generic that so well for you know your generic mainstream liberal Democrat. mainstream liberal Democrat. mainstream liberal Democrat. [sighs and gasps] [sighs and gasps] [sighs and gasps] >> Well, I don't pretend to speak on behalf >> Well, I don't pretend to speak on behalf >> Well, I don't pretend to speak on behalf of that category of people. I can tell of that category of people. I can tell of that category of people. I can tell you what my uh vision of it would be. Uh you what my uh vision of it would be. Uh you what my uh vision of it would be. Uh which really has to do with this whole which really has to do with this whole which really has to do with this whole question that I've been quite question that I've been quite question that I've been quite preoccupied with, which is state preoccupied with, which is state preoccupied with, which is state capacity. Uh I would like to see a capacity. Uh I would like to see a capacity. Uh I would like to see a government that can actually uh set, you government that can actually uh set, you government that can actually uh set, you know, generally accepted not radical know, generally accepted not radical know, generally accepted not radical goals, universal healthcare, building goals, universal healthcare, building goals, universal healthcare, building highspeed rail, doing all of these highspeed rail, doing all of these highspeed rail, doing all of these things, but actually being able to things, but actually being able to things, but actually being able to accomplish it in a reasonable amount of accomplish it in a reasonable amount of accomplish it in a reasonable amount of time. Uh I got preoccupied with NASA time. Uh I got preoccupied with NASA time. Uh I got preoccupied with NASA recently because uh between John F.

recently because uh between John F. recently because uh between John F. Kennedy's announcement that they were Kennedy's announcement that they were Kennedy's announcement that they were going to go to the moon in 1961 and going to go to the moon in 1961 and going to go to the moon in 1961 and actually landing on the moon in 1969, it actually landing on the moon in 1969, it actually landing on the moon in 1969, it was only 8 years. In the 2000s, George was only 8 years. In the 2000s, George was only 8 years. In the 2000s, George W. Bush announced that they were going W. Bush announced that they were going W. Bush announced that they were going to go back to the moon. Uh that's when to go back to the moon. Uh that's when to go back to the moon. Uh that's when the whole Aremis program got started. Uh the whole Aremis program got started. Uh the whole Aremis program got started. Uh they finally he said they were going to they finally he said they were going to they finally he said they were going to do it by 2015. Here it is 2026. They do it by 2015. Here it is 2026. They do it by 2015. Here it is 2026. They finally got a rocket to go around the finally got a rocket to go around the finally got a rocket to go around the moon, but it didn't actually land on the moon, but it didn't actually land on the moon, but it didn't actually land on the moon. And we'll be lucky to land another moon. And we'll be lucky to land another moon. And we'll be lucky to land another human being by 2030. And so something human being by 2030. And so something human being by 2030. And so something has gone wrong in the ability of the has gone wrong in the ability of the has gone wrong in the ability of the American state to execute the very good, American state to execute the very good, American state to execute the very good, you know, intentions that it announces. you know, intentions that it announces. you know, intentions that it announces. And I guess maybe this isn't a moral And I guess maybe this isn't a moral And I guess maybe this isn't a moral vision, but it's certainly a vision for vision, but it's certainly a vision for vision, but it's certainly a vision for a different kind of politics. I would a different kind of politics. I would a different kind of politics. I would like to see an America that can actually like to see an America that can actually like to see an America that can actually announce a goal and actually get it done announce a goal and actually get it done announce a goal and actually get it done in a reasonable amount of time uh at a in a reasonable amount of time uh at a in a reasonable amount of time uh at a reasonable cost. reasonable cost. reasonable cost. >> Well, this is a very core argument of >> Well, this is a very core argument of >> Well, this is a very core argument of abundance. Um so I'm thrilled to hear abundance. Um so I'm thrilled to hear abundance. Um so I'm thrilled to hear [laughter] [laughter] [laughter] uh you say some of this. I think one uh you say some of this. I think one uh you say some of this. I think one thing that struck me about the reaction thing that struck me about the reaction thing that struck me about the reaction to abundance and its argument for a much to abundance and its argument for a much to abundance and its argument for a much stronger state was that many people came stronger state was that many people came stronger state was that many people came back to me and said, "Well, what is the back to me and said, "Well, what is the back to me and said, "Well, what is the vision of the good life here? Is it just vision of the good life here? Is it just vision of the good life here? Is it just more stuff?" And I would say, "No, no, more stuff?" And I would say, "No, no, more stuff?" And I would say, "No, no, we want more homes. We want more clean we want more homes. We want more clean we want more homes. We want more clean energy. We want um more public energy. We want um more public energy. We want um more public infrastructure. We want more medical infrastructure. We want more medical infrastructure. We want more medical breakthroughs so we can have cures."

breakthroughs so we can have cures." breakthroughs so we can have cures." Right? These are all things that have Right? These are all things that have Right? These are all things that have already been identified as goals. This already been identified as goals. This already been identified as goals. This is what liberalism is already trying to is what liberalism is already trying to is what liberalism is already trying to achieve. And I'm saying it should be achieve. And I'm saying it should be achieve. And I'm saying it should be able to achieve it. able to achieve it. able to achieve it. But after hearing again and again like But after hearing again and again like But after hearing again and again like the need for a vision of the good, um the need for a vision of the good, um the need for a vision of the good, um the point which is philosophical the point which is philosophical the point which is philosophical magazine, you know, devoted whole issue magazine, you know, devoted whole issue magazine, you know, devoted whole issue liberalism and its you know vision of liberalism and its you know vision of liberalism and its you know vision of the good. the good. the good. I began to take more seriously that I began to take more seriously that I began to take more seriously that people felt something was absent and people felt something was absent and people felt something was absent and lacking. lacking. lacking. You know, the the way I take some of the You know, the the way I take some of the You know, the the way I take some of the thematic arguments you're making in end thematic arguments you're making in end thematic arguments you're making in end of history and the last man and and of history and the last man and and of history and the last man and and apply them to modernity is not just that apply them to modernity is not just that apply them to modernity is not just that people want to fight in wars. I don't people want to fight in wars. I don't people want to fight in wars. I don't think most people do want to fight in think most people do want to fight in think most people do want to fight in wars. I don't think most right-wingers wars. I don't think most right-wingers wars. I don't think most right-wingers want to fight in wars. I think this is want to fight in wars. I think this is want to fight in wars. I think this is cosplay. cosplay. cosplay. We do have wars and they're horrible and We do have wars and they're horrible and We do have wars and they're horrible and they are not things that society is they are not things that society is they are not things that society is excited about having a new draft in excited about having a new draft in excited about having a new draft in order to send its young men and women to order to send its young men and women to order to send its young men and women to fight in for instance. What I do think fight in for instance. What I do think fight in for instance. What I do think though is that people want to believe though is that people want to believe though is that people want to believe they are engaged in some morally they are engaged in some morally they are engaged in some morally ambitious project to change the world in ambitious project to change the world in ambitious project to change the world in which they live. That is not all people which they live. That is not all people which they live. That is not all people want from politics. Many people just want from politics. Many people just want from politics. Many people just want low prices. But there is a level of want low prices. But there is a level of want low prices. But there is a level of politics that has a intense energy politics that has a intense energy politics that has a intense energy within it. And that any movement that within it. And that any movement that within it. And that any movement that cannot operate on both, right? You can cannot operate on both, right? You can cannot operate on both, right? You can have a a politics that is all energy but have a a politics that is all energy but have a a politics that is all energy but can't lower prices or achieve anything.

can't lower prices or achieve anything. can't lower prices or achieve anything. Maybe you'd say that's Donald Trump Maybe you'd say that's Donald Trump Maybe you'd say that's Donald Trump right now. And that doesn't work when right now. And that doesn't work when right now. And that doesn't work when you try it. you try it. you try it. >> But you know, politics is driven by the >> But you know, politics is driven by the >> But you know, politics is driven by the people in it with a kind of energy to people in it with a kind of energy to people in it with a kind of energy to change things fundamentally. And so if change things fundamentally. And so if change things fundamentally. And so if you don't have some answer for them, you don't have some answer for them, you don't have some answer for them, some answer of the moral crusade that some answer of the moral crusade that some answer of the moral crusade that they are involved in and that like kind they are involved in and that like kind they are involved in and that like kind of beats in your own heart too, I think of beats in your own heart too, I think of beats in your own heart too, I think your politics is not going to be your politics is not going to be your politics is not going to be successful, particularly in like the successful, particularly in like the successful, particularly in like the modern attentional environment where modern attentional environment where modern attentional environment where energy and enthusiasm and outrage and energy and enthusiasm and outrage and energy and enthusiasm and outrage and inspiration are the coin of the realm. inspiration are the coin of the realm. inspiration are the coin of the realm. >> I'm not so sure that you can't do that >> I'm not so sure that you can't do that >> I'm not so sure that you can't do that in a liberal society. I mean, if you in a liberal society. I mean, if you in a liberal society. I mean, if you think about John F. Kennedy himself think about John F. Kennedy himself think about John F. Kennedy himself >> Oh, I think you can. I just think you >> Oh, I think you can. I just think you >> Oh, I think you can. I just think you need a liberalism that wants it. need a liberalism that wants it. need a liberalism that wants it. >> Yeah. Well, yeah. I mean, uh, it seems >> Yeah. Well, yeah. I mean, uh, it seems >> Yeah. Well, yeah. I mean, uh, it seems to me there's a lot of challenges out to me there's a lot of challenges out to me there's a lot of challenges out there that are achievable within the there that are achievable within the there that are achievable within the context of a real liberalism. I mean, context of a real liberalism. I mean, context of a real liberalism. I mean, for example, current distribution of for example, current distribution of for example, current distribution of wealth and power in the United States is wealth and power in the United States is wealth and power in the United States is something that could be changed. You something that could be changed. You something that could be changed. You know, you don't have to have these tech know, you don't have to have these tech know, you don't have to have these tech oligarchs running around, you know, oligarchs running around, you know, oligarchs running around, you know, donating hundreds of millions of dollars donating hundreds of millions of dollars donating hundreds of millions of dollars to election campaigns so that they can to election campaigns so that they can to election campaigns so that they can get outcomes favorable to themselves.

get outcomes favorable to themselves. get outcomes favorable to themselves. [sighs] Having a state that can actually [sighs] Having a state that can actually [sighs] Having a state that can actually operate in this very difficult and very operate in this very difficult and very operate in this very difficult and very threatening technological environment is threatening technological environment is threatening technological environment is a plenty ambitious goal. Uh I think it's a plenty ambitious goal. Uh I think it's a plenty ambitious goal. Uh I think it's just a matter of articulating to people just a matter of articulating to people just a matter of articulating to people why it's necessary uh and how it's why it's necessary uh and how it's why it's necessary uh and how it's achievable just in the government being achievable just in the government being achievable just in the government being able to master and control AI rather able to master and control AI rather able to master and control AI rather than the technology controlling and than the technology controlling and than the technology controlling and mastering the government. I mean that's mastering the government. I mean that's mastering the government. I mean that's a huge challenge that a huge challenge that a huge challenge that >> and for that matter human beings. >> and for that matter human beings. >> and for that matter human beings. >> Yeah. All right. Right. >> Yeah. All right. Right. >> Yeah. All right. Right. >> So then always our final question. What >> So then always our final question. What >> So then always our final question. What are three books you'd recommend to the are three books you'd recommend to the are three books you'd recommend to the audience? audience? audience? >> Uh the first two are ones you're uh >> Uh the first two are ones you're uh >> Uh the first two are ones you're uh doubtless familiar with. One is Jennifer doubtless familiar with. One is Jennifer doubtless familiar with. One is Jennifer Pala's uh recoding America. I think she Pala's uh recoding America. I think she Pala's uh recoding America. I think she is the most insightful in a way critic is the most insightful in a way critic is the most insightful in a way critic of what's wrong with the American of what's wrong with the American of what's wrong with the American bureaucracy but she does it from a bureaucracy but she does it from a bureaucracy but she does it from a sympathetic standpoint. she understands sympathetic standpoint. she understands sympathetic standpoint. she understands why bureaucracy and government are why bureaucracy and government are why bureaucracy and government are necessary and how you know it could necessary and how you know it could necessary and how you know it could actually be reformed to do things actually be reformed to do things actually be reformed to do things better. Uh the second one is Mark better. Uh the second one is Mark better. Uh the second one is Mark Dunkelman's why nothing works where he Dunkelman's why nothing works where he Dunkelman's why nothing works where he puts everything [snorts] in a bigger puts everything [snorts] in a bigger puts everything [snorts] in a bigger historical context a swing between uh historical context a swing between uh historical context a swing between uh Jeffersonianism where power is pushed Jeffersonianism where power is pushed Jeffersonianism where power is pushed down as far as possible to the people down as far as possible to the people down as far as possible to the people and a Hamiltonian vision where the and a Hamiltonian vision where the and a Hamiltonian vision where the government itself is the uh is the government itself is the uh is the government itself is the uh is the engine of change. and he argues that engine of change. and he argues that engine of change. and he argues that we've been in a Jeffersonian period ever we've been in a Jeffersonian period ever we've been in a Jeffersonian period ever since the 1960s and we need to switch to since the 1960s and we need to switch to since the 1960s and we need to switch to a more Hamiltonian uh perspective. Uh a more Hamiltonian uh perspective. Uh a more Hamiltonian uh perspective. Uh the final one was written by an old the final one was written by an old the final one was written by an old friend of mine, Bob Wright. Uh the God

friend of mine, Bob Wright. Uh the God friend of mine, Bob Wright. Uh the God Test. Um I think it actually, you know, Test. Um I think it actually, you know, Test. Um I think it actually, you know, he's been covering artificial he's been covering artificial he's been covering artificial intelligence really since the 1980s. He intelligence really since the 1980s. He intelligence really since the 1980s. He interviewed uh Jeffrey Hinton way back interviewed uh Jeffrey Hinton way back interviewed uh Jeffrey Hinton way back then. uh he's got the best explanation then. uh he's got the best explanation then. uh he's got the best explanation of how LLMs work for a lay person that I of how LLMs work for a lay person that I of how LLMs work for a lay person that I know of. It's encased in a ultimately know of. It's encased in a ultimately know of. It's encased in a ultimately extremely optimistic uh sort of almost extremely optimistic uh sort of almost extremely optimistic uh sort of almost metaphysical theory about uh the metaphysical theory about uh the metaphysical theory about uh the progress not just that humans have made progress not just that humans have made progress not just that humans have made but all the way from single cell to but all the way from single cell to but all the way from single cell to multis-ell to you know different forms multis-ell to you know different forms multis-ell to you know different forms of animal life. But it's an argument, of animal life. But it's an argument, of animal life. But it's an argument, you know, for seeing a broader pattern you know, for seeing a broader pattern you know, for seeing a broader pattern uh in the human story that uh artificial uh in the human story that uh artificial uh in the human story that uh artificial intelligence actually plays a positive intelligence actually plays a positive intelligence actually plays a positive role in. role in. role in. >> Francis Fukyama, thank you very much. >> Francis Fukyama, thank you very much. >> Francis Fukyama, thank you very much. >> Thank you, Ezra. [music]