Brit Hume on divisions within the Republican Party


Lord Chris Patten on Politics, Education, and Innovation

[MUSIC] So Lord Patton, welcome to Stanford. And.
>>Thanks very much. I’ve been here before. I’ve lectured a couple of
times at the Hoover Institute, where I think they were slightly nervous
about my own brand of conservatism.>>[LAUGH]
>>But I survived in one piece, survived long enough to go and do one of, do two of
the lakeside talks, so it’s Bohemia Grove. So I’ve been through every
sort of anthropological excitement imaginable in North California.>>Well, we appreciate you hopping
across the pond to join us again today, and whilst we’re spoiled with
many a guest throughout the year. Few have been involved in so many
historical moments as your good self nor worked with so many leaders,
ranging from through to the pope. So we’ve got quite a lot to cover but I’ll
try to take a whistle soar through it all. And perhaps given that the audience
is Stanford students we can start with your role as
the chancellor of Oxford, and given that it’s such a historical
old educational institute. How are you ensuring to
keep it relevant and that it continues to
attract top global talent?>>First of all, a word about the role. Oxford is the oldest
university in Britain. They’re not the oldest in Europe or
indeed in Europe and Africa. It’s Europe or Africa is and
the oldest in Europe probably Paris. But we’re pretty getting on for 900 years.>>[LAUGH]
>>And we have a college which the professor was called new college, and it’s called New College because it
was founded in the 15th century. 13th century.
[LAUGH] So it’s very, very new. My old college was founded
in the 12th century, and it celebrates it’s 800 or
850th anniversary about every two years. It’s a way of making money.>>[LAUGH]
>>[LAUGH] There’ve been a lot of
chancellors over the years. I do point out that at Cambridge, three of their chancellors have been
executed and one has been canonized.>>[LAUGH]
>>Whereas at Oxford, three have been canonized and
only one’s been executed.>>[LAUGH]
>>So we’ve done rather better. These days,
The chancellor is elected by all graduates and I’m only the fourth since 1935, Lord Halifax who as ambassador in
the States and foreign secretary. Harold McMillan who was Prime Minister
in 1960, Roy Jenkins who was president of the European commission
and probably the greatest reforming interior home secretary in our
politics since the war in 1983. And I was elected in 2003. The job is elected for life and I used to say like the Pope, but I can’t
say that anymore, so like the Dalai Lama. I probably can’t say that if there
are any Chinese representatives present. And the job is one surrounded by mystery. Roy Jenkins, my predecessor,
used to say it was one in which Impotence was assuaged by magnificence. It’s been assessed Harold McMillan who
was a sort of Edwardian intellectual used to offer a more
metaphysical explanation. He used to say well as you know, the vice
chancellor actually runs the university. But if you didn’t have a Chancellor
you couldn’t have a Vice Chancellor. So I’m like a sort of ceremonial monarch. I’m a constitutional monarch, lot’s of
ceremonial stuff, lots of fundraising. I chair selections of
new Vice Chancellors. And generally, try to make a paint of
myself with governance of they’re not supportive enough of the University. The most important thing for
us to do at Oxford is to ensure that we remain
a terrific teaching institution. George Cannon Who I think is one of the
great prince’s of the American republic. George Kennan said that teaching at
Oxford he thought was incomparable. And even though it’s expensive, we have to try to keep it that
with our tutorial system. And we have to make sure that we are still Pushing the boundaries of knowledge
as far forward as possible. Our medical sciences division,
there I say this in Stanford, has come top of the global lead tables for
five years running now. And our math and
engineering have got better and better. One of our senior mathematicians
won the Abel Prize this year And humanities at Oxford are terrific. I would like for them to be better. And I’m particularly concerned at the
moment that while we can still rise quite easily with a bit of effort funding for. Scholarships for
graduate studies in sciences and medicine. It’s much more difficult to do so
in the humanities. And that is partly because of
the disgraceful way in which universities tend to be judged in almost
an utilitarian fashion these days, rather than for
more general considerations. To find myself as chancellor
occasionally having to make speeches justifying teaching
the humanities is a bit annoying. But as I always, we teach
the humanities because we’re humans. So, my job is to try to ensure that and
people continue to deliver the quality of teaching we
require, and the quality of research. We’ve just appointed a new vice chancellor who is Irish American, College Dublin,
UCLA, no one is perfect.>>[LAUGH]
>>Harvard. She was one of Drew Fousts’ proteges and
when she was the executive dean of the Advanced Studies there, then ran St. Andrews in the UK where she among other
things had to take on the Royal Golf Club. And what I will not say because I think
it’s highly offensive so I want to make the point that she’s the first woman
who’s ever been Vice-Chancellor of Oxford. But she is and she is absolutely terrific, a great
expert on international security and has written, I’ve spent quite a lot of my
life in politics dealing with terrorism. But I think she’s written
the best academic studies of how to deal with terrorism
than I’ve read by anyone.>>So,
on the topic of progressing ideas, and as we move to what many are calling
the new innovation economy and knowledge based economy,
>>Silicon Valley is especially well placed to do so, but I don’t think
London’s too far behind considering we’ve now got our own little
bubble of San Francisco. It’s essentially Silicon Valley,
New York, and Washington in one. But as we strive to adopt new
technology and innovation. What hurdles do you think remain for
London and the UK to progress and become a little bit more
like Silicon Valley?>>Well, I think there are two basic ones. First of all If British
politicians aren’t worried about the standard of math in our
secondary schools, they should be. Secondly, I think that we don’t have as natural an innovative culture
as exists in the United States. I was interested yesterday. One of the young undergraduate who
helped to organize my campaign for governor of, it wasn’t even that,
the of the university. It was at the reception we had last night
in I said what are you doing here and he said I’m now the economic. I’m now the head the economics
department at Google. And, I, [LAUGH]
terrific that he’s here, but, I wish that he was,
doing something, to promote, innovative culture in the, in the UK. So, I think we lack the same innovative
culture and we haven’t made some of the investments which would have helped
to make us even more competitive. For example,
there is an obvious requirement for a technology and transport corridor
between Oxford and Cambridge, which together are formidable
with a growing and successful record of spinoff,
with a lot of shared Interests. And I think that governments in
the United Kingdom have been pathetic over the years in investment. I don’t think infrastructure
investment has been a great story in the United States since
probably President Eisenhower but that’s perhaps another matter. But I think infrastructure investment Improving the level of
basic math in schools. And trying to do more
to promote innovation. I don’t think, myself,
that that has as much to do with the tax system as some
right wing politicians think. But there are other things you can do to
promote To promote that culture I suspect.>>I’ll skip over the topic of taxes,
and it’s interesting around how this innovation
has been progressive in many ways. And yet, the gap between the rich and
the poor seem to be increasing over time. How do you think we can reconcile this
progression in a more sustainable manner, and bring everyone else along?>>I think that’s very interesting,
and I guess profoundly relevant to what’s happening in your own
>>Domestic politics on which I’ll be blessedly almost silent.>>[LAUGH]
>>But also, on ours as well. [COUGH] There’s a very good
book which I read recently. I think it’s called Concrete Economics or
Concrete Reality. Which makes the point that it’s
a complete fiction that wealth and prosperity have always been created in
the United States by the private sector, that the government has
always been a drag. Not true. You start with Alexander Hamilton,
Teddy Roosevelt, FDR. You even look at the period
of the long Ike boom and see a combination of public investment and
private endeavor. So the city on a hill
was built by government, as well as by the private sector. And
>>The boom which probably lasted into the 60s saw the genie coefficient, and you all know what that is, falling to the
lowest level in American economic history. So from 1940,
I think about 1946, 47 the Gini coefficient was moving
in the right direction. And since 1968,
it’s been going in the other direction. And I sometimes wonder How American
politicians get away with the fact that there is such an astonishing multiple
of CEOs pay to mean or average earnings. There is I think a lot of evidence that
this is because people don’t actually know or the figures are, they can’t
believe the figures if they’re told. When asked,
they think there’s a multiple of 30. They don’t the multiple ten times or
more that ten times that size. So I think the levels of social
inequity in the United States. And we’ve been moving in that
direction in the United Kingdom, are becoming politically hazardous. And if I had to try to explain
one of the reason why for the rage which helps to sustain, Mr. Trump’s ambitions, I would guess that
social equity is a very big reason. I also think that there is a relationship
between social equity and the sense people have that
globalization is wrecking their prospects and delivering prosperity
everywhere else except America. It’s not, of course, true. But never the less there
is that perception. And we have that in
the United Kingdom as well. The sense people have that they want to
get the world in, or stop the world and get off. That they want control
over their own lives in a mythical way,
which has never really existed. And certainly hasn’t existed during first periods of globalization in the 19th
century or in the last few years. In the United Kingdom in
the last few weeks we’ve seen the near demise of
our steel industry, why? First of all because of the dumping
of cheap steel by China, which is producing about half the total
amount of student in the world, and which saw an increase in steel
production of 300% between 2008 and last year. The British steel industry,
in terms of its competitiveness, has been Has been completely
screwed because of that. So, who’s suffering? Not just the workers, but an Indian company which owns
the British steel industry. So, when people talk about
controlling their lives, so they can protect their jobs and
family’s living standards. That’s not the world we live in anymore
even if it has been for the last few years, and I would wish people
were making the case for free trade. Fair trade, but free trade were
making the positive case for globalization more effectively and
more Toughly then they are. It seems to me that the real One
of the most important things, really the most important thing
we should be doing in response to the competitiveness of globalization, is
investing more in our public education and in the improvement of our
public education system. In my own country in particular,
investing in further education, we’ve always been really bad
at any vocational education, particularly in comparison with Germany. So, I think social equity is
an important part of this but only part of a broader nexus of issues, which touched globalization as well.>>It’s-
>>Good old Eisenhower.>>Well, it’s interesting in Europe
they often refer to nowadays is the younger curse around
politicians know what to do, they just don’t know how to do it and
get reelected. So now that you’re a cross venture and
I believe you’ve referred to yourself as a liberal internationalist these days
as opposed to just a conservative NP, how do you think about commentary that
politics is increasingly orchestrated, politicians are caught
up in opinion polls and going to focus groups to guide
them as to what to do next and balancing the need to be responsive to the
electorate but not just reactionary and be able to deliver a manifesto to address
some of the issues that you just raised?>>I don’t see any point
in going into politics unless you’ve got strong
views about things. And one of the things I find
infinitely depressing is politicians who have to ask a focus group
what they should be concerned about and then ask another focus group how they
should explain their concerns about whatever the first focus group has
told them should be bothering them. And one of the reasons why I found,
I’m not making a political pitch, I suppose I am really, one of
the reasons why I found President Obama such an attractive human being is he
does seem to me when he’s talking about events which really mattered to him like
his own identity, and the relationship between his identity and the political
culture in which he has to operate, you get the sense that this is not something
he’s had to ask somebody how to express. I mean I thought the two speeches he gave,
the one speech he gave in his pastor’s church before the 2008 election
about race in politics, and the speech he gave a few
months ago after the slaughter of some African American worshipers
in a church in the south. Those speeches were astonishingly
powerful because that was him, because that wasn’t some other
guy with the yellow legal pad, and writing the words down,
it was authentically him. So, if you don’t have strong views about
what society should be like, I mean, become a chartered accountant and
make some money.>>[LAUGH] Or a venture capitalist.>>[LAUGH]
>>Readjust your views->>You can still have very strong views, but I don’t see the point in going into politics unless you really feel
passionately about one or two issues. What most worries me, well what would most
worry me if I was an American citizen I think, is the extraordinary
power of big money in politics. I mean, I shouldn’t mention names, but you
know the sort of people I’m talking about.>>[LAUGH].>>And
quite how the Supreme Court can define spending huge amounts of
untaxed loot on supporting partisan opinions partly because they
suit your own business interests. How they can define that as covered by the freedom of speech amendment
I simply don’t comprehend. I was very impressed by Justice Scalia’s
intellect but that seems to me, to use one of his phrases,
what he would have called pure applesauce. And the sooner there is a Supreme Court
which reverses that decision, I think the better for American democracy. Those of you who are historians
of America, which I’m not, may regard what I’m about to say as too
simplistic but it always seemed to me that the majesty of the American
political system was balancing a Constitution which established
a republic not necessarily a democracy, with a political system
which is democratic. And in order to balance the two,
in order to make the checks and balances of the first something other than
vetoes on action, you do need to have the ability to compromise,
to make consensuses and so on, which seems to me to be something
with a Smithsonian these days. When I first got involved in politics,
it was in an Merrill campaign in New York in the 1960’s, when the Republican party
in New York was led by Senator Javits, Senator Keating,
Nelson Rockefeller and John Lindsey. Can you imagine what the Tea Party
would make of that these days?>>[LAUGH]
>>So if we think about the political actions which you’re best
known for it’s the last colonial Governor closing the final chapter on
the good ‘ol British empire, so, [LAUGH] so when we look back in terms of the silo British joint
declaration it seems though you had remarkable clarity as to how you’d
make progress towards a ’97 deadline. And you stuck with it and had courage of your convictions despite
great outrage from Beijing at the time. I think they cursed you to
1000 years of hardship.>>The sentence was remitted subsequently.>>[LAUGH]
>>But it’s been reinstated given what I’ve been saying about students in
Hong Kong but that’s another matter.>>And even some of the former Brits
who are out there weren’t supportive, and then the stock exchange collapsed. What gave you that courage to
go on despite the naysayers and the follow through on the actions?>>I’ve always felt most
comfortable in politics when, and forgive this, maybe,
if this sounds a bit sanctimonious, when I’ve thought that what I was doing
was not only the right thing to do but the right, and
it seemed to me that we had made promises to people in Hong Kong which
we were creeping away from. About a month or
six weeks before I left Hong Kong, I was visiting as Governor, a hospital for the mentally ill, and
it was in a series of low bungalows, each of them fenced in with a sauntiere, with a passage through the middle,
and I’m walking along and a very, very well dressed Chinese
chap in a three piece suit, gray suit, and
wearing I think I remember a Homburg, Governor Patten,
Governor Patten, he says, and to the horror of my staff I
walked across and talked to him. And he was incredibly polite,
it’s always lethal when people are polite. And he said Governor Patten,
can you explain this to me, you very often [INAUDIBLE]
British colleagues about Britain being the oldest
democracy in the world. I nervously agreed. So he said, can you explain this to me? Why is it that you’re handing
over the last British colony to the last great communist
tyranny in the world? Without ever consulting
the people about it. So, here was the sanest man in Hong Kong. Who was in the hospital for
the mentally ill. [LAUGH]
There was actually no alternative but
the transfer of sovereignty in Hong Kong. And Hong Kong, or most of Hong Kong Had
been only taken on a lease. And the terms in which both
the lease had been negotiated and the grant of the rest of
the home call had been made were clearly matters of
19th century history, which nobody would seek to justify
in the 20th or 21st century. There’s a period when Weston powers not least the United Kingdom
were trying to globalize China and
buy opening into the opium trade. I mean this is not something And even Queen Victoria found
particularly attractive. And so we have now alternative but to hand Hong Kong back to China but we’d undertaken will
the chinese agreement that Hong Kong would be
guaranteed that it’s way of life, due process, freedom of speech,
freedom of worship, rule of. And so on would carry on for
50 years after 1997. And to be kind to China
it may be that they were conceptual difficulties. Let me give you an example. I got excessively praised for
rather limited things I did on democracy because I was
operating within Very strict, agreed guidelines. But I was trying to ensure that
elections were at least free and fair. And one of my critics,
who is a spokesman for For Beijing. Perfectly nice chap said to me you
don’t seem to understand our position. We’re not at all against free and
fair elections. We just want to know
the result in advance.>>[LAUGH]
>>[LAUGH] And I realized at that point that we were
not going to have an easy way of connecting, of reaching agreement. And I sometimes actually think that
it’s that it is quite difficult for people with my sort of background
small pluralist and so on, to really understand that
Chinese communist mindset. I don’t necessarily say Chinese mindset
because you can think of lots of Chinese communities which are profoundly
The liberal imperialist. What’s only been worry about what’s
happened subsequently, is that those in Hong Kong who
feel primarily Chinese. Also want Beijing to understand that they feel that they’re Hong Kong Chinese,
that they have a sense of citizenship which may not be as
powerful as their sense of Chineseness, but in terms of the complexity of
their identity It’s really important. And to some extent, trampling that under foot is the crudest
Beijing has done, recently. I think presents President Xi’s arrival. I think that’s been
really counterproductive. I went with my wife to
an Oxford alumni gathering in Hong Kong this time last year,
no this time two years ago. And I was coming out of receptions and
meetings and there would be 100 or 200 students,
a lot of them who had hardly been born when I left Hong Kong Singing Rule
Britannia and God Save the Queen. And I mean it was terrific for
my reputation in Oxford I can tell you.>>[LAUGH]
>>But you could understand how
provocative it would have been to the governing authorities in China. And that’s their fault,
it’s really unnecessary and silly that they provoke
that sort of We have some. But I have huge respect for the students who were demonstrating
18 months ago for democracy. With the most extraordinary politeness and
good manners imaginable. It’s something that you’ve been involved
in conflict resolution across conflicts, also in the bulkins as well
as northern Ireland and as developing officer
with the Ethiopian sedan. It seems that you’re very good at
bringing all parties to the table, and giving incentive. Most notably with the book,a dn encouraging raising change by
suggesting membership of the EU. How do you think through this kind of
carotene stick approach to resolution, and are there any common take
away you’d share with us as to progressing discussions in
the heat of the moment. And moving things forward.>>I’ve become obsessed,
over the years, with identity politics. And how lethal identity politics can be. I’ve worked in Northern Ireland. I’ve worked in the Balkans. I’ve worked in the Middle East. I’ve worked in Asia. And the extent to which when people identify themselves with a
very simple pure blooded set of loyalties. When that turns into a facility to imagine that they’re being victimized
when the rather crude and simple sentiments of whip top by Demi
Gods, it nearly always leads to disaster. The most difficult job I did was actually
after the Good Friday agreement, which to Tony Blast’s credits and my [INAUDIBLE]
credit, they manage to negotiate. The one thing that nobody could
agree about was policing. The police force in
Northern Ireland at the time, was regarded as an arm
of a Protestant state. Northern Ireland was probably 53%, 52%, Protestant, and 47, 48% Catholics. The police force,
was 93% Protestant, and 7% Catholic. And that was plainly, not something that could survive in a new Northern Ireland. Resolving that issue
involved a lot of things that were politically very difficult, but it seemed to me that these
were corners you couldn’t cut. You actually have to, you actually had to, face up to the, difficulties of
changing names, of changing symbols. And, we did that. And at the time, there were roars of,
disapproval from the units, but it’s lasted. And one result, is that today, the police
service in Northern Ireland is pretty well 30-35% Catholic and the rest Protestant. I mean, it’s been a real
transformation and providing. So first of all, I think you have to stand up to
the rougher side of identity politics. Secondly, you have to provide
a political context in which people can extract themselves from the corners of
rooms they’ve painted themselves into, or get off hooks. Something I used to get annoyed about when
negotiating with Chinese interlocutors. They were always saying to me, but
you’ve got to understand we’ve got face. You got to learn to save,
where we need to have our safe face. I used to say to them
I’ve got bloody face too. [LAUGH] You’ve got to
understand other people have face which needs to be taken account
of when I was European Commissioner. Mr. Aznar, the then Prime Minister of Spain, a pretty tough fellow, asked to see me because he’d heard
that I had worked in Northern Island. And he was reading across to
the situation into the bass country. And the terrorism of Etta and he wanted to know what I thought should be
done about policing in Spain in order to help undermine Etta. And I started. I went into my spill about the political
background in northern Ireland and what we’ve done on issues like housing and
local government and job creation. I could see him glazing over,
because I didn’t have a simple, hard, sock it to him Response. So there’s always a context
between what you try to create but ultimately you actually have to stand up
to the worst sort of identity politics. There’s a fantastic book, it was a regular
book on identity politics by Matthew San. There’s another very good one by
a French novelist called Amin Maalouf, who has won the Goncourt and
several other prizes. I think his main novel was called,
The Rock of Tanios. And was actually born in Lebanon, Arab Christian, writes in French,
now lives in France. And he’s written a brilliant book
about the complexities of identity. You think about your identities,
I’ve thought about mine, Irish, lower to middle class, Catholic, Tory, what my Irish forebears would have thought
about me being a colonial governor. [LAUGH]
But my great grandfather was born in Ireland
in 1829, left Ireland during the famine. So we all have these complicated
identities ourselves. And Maloof says at the end
of his extraordinarily tough on tackling identity politics says
that normally when you’re a writer. You hope that in the future,
your grandsons, granddaughters will take books off the
shelf and think this is a wonderful book. Gosh, did our grandfather
really write this? He said his hope was that when his
grandson took, I think it’s called the Pursuit of Identity or the Question
of Identity and takes it off the shelf. He’ll look at it and think, my goodness did people have to
write books about this in those days. So, it’s a tall order but I hope that identity politics is
something that we can start to. Illuminate even while
comprehending the complexities of other people’s identity and
the importance to other people should have an identity which is respected and
is given the dignity it deserves.>>So on the topic of shaping identity, you later went on to be the chairman
of a media review for the Pope. Now considering that they announce their
election results through smoke signals. I’m not quite so sure how one goes about
reviewing the digital media policy and coming up with Twitter and so forth. But can you talk a little bit
about How that came about and the effect you think its had, and
the drive and reaches achieved.>>Well the message, the invitation
was of course brought by Dove. [LAUGH] Carry on Dove, yes. I was quite surprised to be
asked to do it but jumped at it. I’m a cradle Catholic, and
I’m a huge admirer of this pope. And I’m what would be regarded
as a fairly liberal character. I didn’t think the Arch Bishop
of San Francisco would have much truck with some of my opinions. So a great admirer thought that it was a pity that a man who was
probably the best communicator in the world had a pretty,
to put it mildly, archaic way of Communicating. I mean the budgets in the Vatican
when we started work was pretty well, 92% spent on a newspaper,
the Observatory Romano. And on radio and we all know that most people getting their information
on television and social media. So actually even from that sort of
fundamental point of view there was a lot to be done. I had a very good team
including a brilliant social media expert who just
happens to be An ex-banker, but now a member of the Dominicans. A great French priest,
called Eric Celobere, and a very, very good group of others from outside. Two excellent women, a German and a Spanish, and
we’ve put together a series of proposals, which the Pope,
which His Holiness, accepted. And established a team of
Italians to implement. So, I hope it’s. [LAUGH]. There was no footnote to that observation, but I hope it goes well. It’s very important that it should, to be fair to the person
who’s leading this team. He’s been head of Vatican television for
a long time, and the technical competence of Vatican
television is extraordinarily high. But it does matter,
it particularly matters that people are getting the sort of social
media messages which they require. When I want to know what the time of Mass, or I look it up as I would
look up Trailer for films. And I think most people are like that and they’re slightly surprised when they
can’t get the information that they want. He is a remarkable man and we must all hope he survives. I used to have my meetings in
the Santa Marcia which is the. Hostel that he lives in. And one day we’d had a meeting and
we were having lunch and it was his birthday, so it would
have been December 2014, I suppose. And he’s sitting with cleaning ladies and
the lavatory attendants and the cooks having his birthday lunch. And I said to the very nice Irish
priest who was looking after me, that it was a terrific, terrific size. And he said, yes,
you haven’t heard the best of it though. He said as his popemobile was crossing St. Peter’s Square,
he was stopped by a group of Argentinean pilgrims with a bowl
of that herbal drink Mate. Which some of you may love, I might
say I prefer a dry martini, anyway. [LAUGH]. He’s handed the Mate and
takes a great swig out of it and his detectives, his bodyguard says, heavenly father, you must never do that. You never take a drink from people
in the streets, it could be poison. So the Pope had replied apparently,
what’s the matter he said, they were pilgrims, not Cardinals. [LAUGH]. So, we must hope he survives. So, I think with that I’ll turn
to the audience for questions. And I believe we have a couple
of microphones roaming around. Selena, don’t know if you have
a question from Twitter to start? Let’s start with a question from Twitter. So a lot of us have worked
with very different managers, but what was it like working
with the Pope and the queen? [COUGH] Different sexes.>>[LAUGH]
>>I must say, just one point on that
which is not irrelevant. When I first went to one of
the Pope’s private Masses, I said to my secretary,
I’m a priest, how does this differ from what it would have been
like under previous popes? And he said, easy, he said,
there are women on the altar. The Pope. I’ll tell you one similarity. And I don’t want to be
accused of leze-majeste, either in its ecclesiastical form or
its less spiritual form. They’re best, quite simple and
straightforward, neither of them remotely grand. When I had conversations
with Pope Francis and when it was business it
would be a one-on-one. Or one with an interpreter because my
Italian isn’t as good as it should be. No other people around in a simple, rather a dreary,
little waiting room in the Santa Marta. Not sort of lots of purple and scarlet and sashes and berettas and so on. Similarly, when you see the queen, she’s perfectly normal and
straightforward. She starts the day,
as most of us do in Britain, listening to the BBC radio
[LAUGH] Today program. And she is what you would have expected of somebody born in the 1930s, yeah, just, or 20s, English, well British, upper class. She starts with those opinions,
which have been modified over the years by the number of
Prime Ministers she had seen come and go, and the number of members
of the public she’s met. The extraordinary thing is that for
somebody of her age, and how enthusiastically she cares
about her public duties. Having had to do a bit of that as a
colonial governor, it can be pretty boring and she never gives that
impression that also. What they both exemplify is
a very old fashioned virtue which I hope exists,
I mean I’ve done some jumps in business. But I hope exists in business, or
should exist in everybody’s life and makes things easier, they both have
a sense of duty and obligation. And maybe if only as citizens that’s
something which we should feel. So they’re perfectly normal to deal with. And quite funny. That’s great. The queen has a very good sense of humor. So your next question. Hi, Lord Patten, thank you so
much for your speech today, my name is I’m a second year MBA student. I have a question regarding,
since you’re Tory, I was wondering if you comment a little
bit about how the recent release of the Panama Papers would have
on the Cameron government. And also, given that you spoke very
eloquently about social inequity, looking back at the previous
few governments. The Prime Ministers,
the Deputy Prime Ministers, Nick Clegg, David Cameron, Tony Blair,
they all belong to the Oxbridge elite. And do you think that kind
of social stratification is going to continue going forward? Second question is, if you were able
to talk to the presidency right now. I think we will start with those,
that was all ready two just there. So if we start with those
two pretty meaty questions. Let me deal with the second one first. It’s true that there are a huge
number of British Prime Ministers and Ministers, and Members of Parliament And judges, and senior executives, and editors of newspapers of left,
right, and center. Huge number of people who run things in United Kingdom who
went to Oxford and Cambridge. And why is that? The reason is that Oxford and
Cambridge along with Imperial and UCL and Kings College London are the best universities and
the toughest ones to get into. It shouldn’t be a surprise
that the people who go look it’s too very large in the United States. It shouldn’t be a surprise that the people
who are smart enough to go to the toughest universities go on to get to
the top end of their careers. I think we have an establishment,
which is overwhelmingly meritocratic. It’s overwhelmingly based
on competence rather than connections they’re
connections can come into it. But I’m nowadays described by the,
by the popular press as a Tory Grandee. My mother who was not unknown to be a bit
of a It’s unfair to say social climate, but you like to think that she was
cut off the slightly classier block. My mother would have been delighted
to hear me called Tory grandee. Here I am, my dad was a professional
drummer in a jazz band. We lived in a semi detached house in a part of London suburbs which was on the
margins between lower and middle class. And, I went on the scholarship
to secondary schools, I went on the scholarship when I was
16 from my secondary school to Oxford. I’m a scholarship boy and I found myself in my life doing jobs surrounded
by the scholarship boys. That is true,
that’s David Cameron is an old attorney on But his predecessor was
a Scottish grammar school boy. His predecessor was at a rather
grim school in Scotland. His predecessor John Major
left school at 16. And his father sold garden gnomes. His first job interview was to become
a bus conductor and he was turned down. He predecessor was Margaret Thatcher, whose father ran a grocery,
and was a scholarship girl. Her predecessor I could go on,
as of the conservative party but as the son of a small building merchant. My wife used to stay with some
friends in the town where we worked and whenever the lavatories were blocked
they’d send for Ted Heath’s father. So, I think we’re a much
more socially mobile society and it’s not surprising
that people from one of the most difficult universities to get into finish
up doing some of the toughest jobs. But, what is incredibly important for any meritocracy is to
ensure that it recognizes that there are even broader ladders behind
it in order to let people climb up them. What’s incredibly important for
people like me. And others is to recognize the role of
the state in helping us up the ladders. And to recognize that the state is still
required to help people from poorer and more disadvantaged backgrounds and
to get onto the matter. And to rise up it. So, I think meritocracies have to be
benign and sensitive to the interests of those who are coming after them if
they’re going to justify themselves. On the Panama Papers,
the Prime Minister I mean, this has all happened since I’ve
been away, but as I understand it. His father had established
a trust from which his family benefited when he died, as well as benefited. I don’t think anybody has suggested
it was a way of evading tax. Or covering up the billions that you’d
earned as was the case with Mr Putin for example. And I think I’m right in
saying it’s the sort of trust, which if you’re an American citizen,
you don’t have to go to Panama to set up because there are at least two American
states where you can do it anyway. I read Fareed Zakaria this week
on why there were no American names in the Panama Papers,
and his argument was, well, you don’t have to do that
if you’re an American. I think undoubtedly Cameron
will suffer from a bit for people being reminded
that he was a rich toff. And I’m not quite sure how
long that lasts, and I regard wealth envy as one of the less pleasant
aspects of living in a democracy.>>[INAUDIBLE] I have the privilege
of asking the last question. And you wrote a book,
What Next for the 21st Century? And then that’s kind of
a question that many of us, especially second year student here,
asking ourselves. So what are the big problems that you see
that some of us should put our minds to, to start solving for or what pearls of wisdom would you
like to share with us to close?>>I sent a copy of my book, What Next, to the then chancellor
of Cambridge University, who was the Duke of Edinburgh the Queen’s husband
>>And he was well into his 80s now well
into the 90s and he sent me back a handwritten reply saying
what next question mark. When you my age is there ever one answer. [LAUGH]
[LAUGH]>>It’s probably.>>What next I tell you
what I find surprising and I think it’s going to be the sort key, the
sort of nodal issue in the next few years. Most of us understand. Most of us recognize
intellectually that very few of the problems that
weigh on our society, very few of the problems
that confront our societies could be dealt with by
individual countries. And yet at the same time,
the enthusiasm for international corporations to tackle those problems has waned significantly. So whether you’re talking
about epidemic disease or international economic issues,
trade or environmental issues, or trafficking human beings,
or trafficking guns. None of those issues can be tackled
unless there is cooperation and while that is true, the support for shared sovereignty, for shared policy
making has declined significantly. I think it’s a real problem. I think here in the United States,
you have a difficulty that the republicans
believe in free trade, but not in the institutions which
are necessary in order to sustain it. And the democrats believe in
the institutions but not in the free trade I think there are similar
problems in other countries. So I think reigniting a belief in international cooperation,
in international institutions, to give credibility and
legitimacy to that cooperation. I think that is hugely important and should be invested with a degree of hope, which doesn’t exist. I think one of the things great
universities like this one should do, exist to do is to provide hope. At the end of one of
the most remarkable books about international relations I’ve read, Henry Kissinger’s book on diplomacy
which was written in the 1990s, whenever people think about Henry
Kissinger’s record in government he’s an extraordinary fine historian. And he’s written,
Diplomacy is a book about the post-war settlement,
the great contribution of United States to the world after 1945,
with some help from Europe. The way that had brought peace,
certainly in Europe, for a longer period then anything
since the congress of Vienna. And he writes at the end about
how that’s shaking to pieces, the point I’ve just made and he quotes an old Spanish proverb,
traveler where is the road, don’t ask where the road is,
roads are made by walking. And I think it’s the role of universities
to do some of the walking and to show us where the roads are. And I can think of know better or
more important a task for universities or for university teachers or
for university students. The last thing you should
do it at a university is, I think that it’s somewhere where you can
go to be safe or protected from the world. And I can make one last
controversial point. I think it’s an oxymoron to talk about universities and
safes basis in the same breath. And I think universities are all about
challenge and finding those roads, and which will get us from
one predicament to another, because that’s what
being alive’s all about.>>That a delightful note in which to end,
we’ll all get out and walk and chatter and path. So please join me in welcoming, thanking.>>[APPLAUSE]

Bernie Sanders Says The Model Of The Democratic Party Is Failing – The Ring Of Fire

On CBS’ Face the Nation this past weekend,
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said that the model of the Democratic Party is failing. I know there are a lot of Democrats that immediately
took to Twitter to say, “Why are you constantly bashing the Democratic Party? Why are you doing this? This isn’t helpful. Didn’t you just come off a unity tour?” Well, here’s the thing about what Bernie Sanders
said. Yeah, it’s harsh and it’s unpleasant, but
it’s 100% true. Think about this. When Barack Obama came into office in 2008,
he came into office with a Democratic-controlled House and a Democratic-controlled Senate. The Democrats had everything except the Supreme
Court. In 2010, we lost the House and we haven’t
had it back since. A couple years after that, we lost the Senate
and we haven’t had it back since. For the last four, five, seven, eight years,
the Democratic Party as a whole, not just talking about the presidency because yeah,
Obama was reelected in 2012, but as a whole, we’re losing. We lost state governorships. We are losing state houses. The Democratic Party has less power today
than they have since the year 2000, less power today. So if you want to go out there and attack
Bernie Sanders for saying the Democratic Party model isn’t working, go right ahead, but just
understand that you’re lying. The Democrats have no power, and they keep
losing power, so yeah, your model is failing. Your campaign tactics are failing, because
your party is failing to win. You can’t look at a string of losses and say,
“Well, hey, Bernie, you can’t talk bad about us.” I mean, look at the Cleveland Browns. They won one game in the 2016 season. You don’t think that they’re saying, “Hey,
our model is failing. We got to fix this,” you know? The Democratic Party would look at it and
say, “That one game they won was worth all of the other losses.” No, not how it works. Not how it works at all. The Democratic Party needs to understand why
they keep losing, and that’s what Bernie Sanders is trying to point out here. He’s not doing it to just bash Democrats and
say, “I’m the great Bernie Sanders. Love me.” He’s doing it to help them. He can’t hold their hands forever. He’s not going to be around forever, so he’s
trying to impart to them the wisdom that he brought to his presidential campaign, the
energy that he got from young voters, to help rebuild the party. This isn’t about him. This is about the future of the United States
and the future of the Democratic Party. If they continue to ignore what he has to
say, then I hope they get used to losing, and I hope that they’re prepared for 50 years
from now, there be a little footnote in history books that say, “The Democratic Party was
a party in the United States that formally disbanded in the year 2020,” because that’s
where we’re headed if we don’t change the way we operate.

Office Politics In Software : How To Deal With Work Politics | IN Tamil | ENGLISH SUBTITLED

In this video, We are going to look at office politics Let us look into
‘How to handle office politics’ For example, Let us look into the software industry! Though it is prevalent
in every industry, we prefer the software industry
simply because, I have prior experience working
for a software company, and around 40% of my clients
are software professionals. Which is why predominantly
we are looking at software industry. I am Mr. Lakshman – an astrologer If you want to look at
astrology in a practical manner, All the videos here
will be helpful to you So, if you like, you can click
here and subscribe to the channel More such videos are on their way, so you
will get updates regarding them Before we look at office politics, there is something known as
basic energy in time science This means that each
industry has it’s own energy For instance, In a mechanical engineering
service company, Saturn will be a strong force
for those working there Only then they will be able to work
in a synchronised manner In healthcare industry,
like a hospital, Rahu will definitely
be present. Right from the doctors till
the house-keeping personnel should have Rahu as the
dominant energy. Only then they will have
the awareness and etiquette to how to behave in that profession
and learn how to treat patients They will look out all aspects
of a patient’s well-being naturally. That is their basic energy In the case of textiles industry,
it should have the presence of Venus Like this, there are different
types of energy So, when we look at the software
industry, the basic energy is Mercury Because language and logic
are what make software We understand the computer language
and write programs based on that So, Mercury is seen
as the core energy. After we have seen the basic
energy, we’ll take a look at the various types
of people in this industry Starting with the programmer or
what we call a software engineer First, you have the engineer
then the senior software engineer Above them is the manager Above him there is senior
manager and then, the vice president Moving up the ladder,there
are the CIO, CTO and CEO This is the hierarchy When we look at them, all of them must
have the dominant presence of Mercury Software Engineers can also be
split into different categories Those that work in UI or the
front end UI designers which is the UI team, Then comes the middle tier. Thirdly, you have the people who work
for the database and backend operations With regards to the UI department, Venus has to be the dominant energy. For any front-end operation,
Venus will be a strong force. If Venus has to be dominant for someone in the software industry,
they will have both Venus and Mercury For those in the middle tier,
Mercury alone is enough that is the core logic. For their problem solving mind, inclusion of Ketu is seen as fine. Finally for the backend and
the database team, Ketu is the fully dominant energy. If they are going to perform
SQL or Oracle programming along with Ketu, Mercury which helps in
programming skills should also be strong. Mercury is the common energy For managers, the energy
from Jupiter will be pronounced. Since they are in software,
they must have Jupiter plus Mercury Above them, the senior managers
all have the presence of Mercury Senior postions such as CIO,
CTO, CEO are powerpacked positions. The whole company
functions under them. Any decision that they take
will impact the whole company So what does someone in
that kind of a position need? It has to be the Sun. Without the Sun’s strength, you will
never be able to reach the top position. And since the basic energy
there is Mercury, both the Sun and Mercury
definitely have to be present as a rule of thumb. This is the hierarchy. What is the power politics that
comes into play here? The power of the Sun is the main
reason for both power and politics. So, if the Sun happens to be
dominant, these people can network easily They can attract people and
convince them to do things for them Let us define politics in
the literal sense, ‘It is not about what you do,
It is about who you know’. It means what work you do is of
little or no importance, instead, who are you connected with
is only important. This is what makes
something political. Is this right or wrong? Let’s say you work hard
and put in a lot of effort but when it’s time for an appraisal, or for a promotion,
they do not consider you. But someone else, who doesn’t
even understand the job properly They easily get promoted We consider this to be politics and
analyse if this is the right thing to do. There are two sides here:
right and wrong Because the area of
power can be split in two The first is leaders. The other is power mongers. What is the difference between a
leader and a power monger? Though the Sun is the
common factor in both cases, A leader will acquire
power and deliver. They deliver on
what they promise They are quite talented in what
they do which makes them leaders. When you look at power mongers, they can lead and influence people, but they lack the basic knowledge. They will not be adept at understanding
the concept that made them a leader. To understand this psychology,
you need to take a step back. Someone is productive, He knows what is happening around him,
and is in a powerful position as well. He will keep moving to the next level and
you can’t compare yourself with him because Even if he joins as a
new software engineer, since he has the leadership qualities to
lead a team, he will move up easily. This cannot be called political,
because they deliver. To hold top positions like that of a
Vice President, or a CTO, or CIO or CEO, they need people who have power. It is not suited for everyone. Not everyone can handle people without having power. Power is important and
power is needed To put it in better terms,
Power needs power. For a powerful position,
you need a powerful person. But as per the hierarchy, one will be a
trainee engineer in his first year But since his Sun energy is dominant, he has to move forward because
his position is quite different. He wants to lead and serve people So he will come up very fast. We are not going to
call it out as wrong because we feel he is talented On the other hand, we have
another category – the power mongers, this group lacks the basic energy. There starts the confusion. For example, if Mercury provides
energy for software engineers their Sun will be very good,
but Mercury not so good. Using influence or nepotism,
they will get in. But they will have no idea
what their subordinates are up to. Neither will they follow
what the seniors are doing. They are very good at networking. They can convince anyone and
make their presence felt everywhere. If there is an event they will
be in the front to make it happen. But the main problem is, When you do not know what your team
is doing, then you will be in trouble. When your subordinate works well, a leader can encourage and appreciate
them and motivate them to the next level. But when one is a power monger,
you have no idea who is doing what, you see the other person
as a threat to your postition. When your position is threatened,
you tend to obstruct the other person. In that case, we will push and motivate
the person who is sitting idle at work. Asking for a promotion or an
appraisal to be given to him So, the other guy who is working
hard will get demotivated If he is a brave person, he will quit
and go to another company, else he will be in trouble. Here, you see politics for
what it is – raw and unmasked This doesn’t require us to bifurcate
people into two categories, these people are power mongers and bad,
these people are leaders and good. These same power mongers, if they are in another
company or another team they might be leaders. There is a possibility
for that to happen as well. Let’s say someone joins the company
using the influence of someone He knows someone powerful in the firm
and his Sun energy is dominant as well. He joins the company without
attending any interview. After he joins, he is asked to lead a
database team. That is the Ketu team He has the dominant Sun
and doesn’t have Ketu Mercury’s presence is felt a little,
but the complete absence of Ketu means that
he can work in software but since he doesn’t have Ketu,
he cannot excel there So, he will keep troubling others
and won’t be able to guide them He’ll be confused and be a power monger Now, let’s say there is a
vacancy in the UI team There is no one to lead. He would have been be a bad performer
which people would have already found out. if they put him in the other team, And since he luckily has a dominant Venus When he goes there, he will go
from being a power monger to a leader It is a possibility. There is no bad person
in the world. People end up at the wrong place
at the wrong time. Or they are perceived as wrong people. There is a wrong perception and that’s
why they seem to be in the wrong Nobody is wrong.
Everyone has their own purpose. If we move them to the right position,
they will definitely start delivering But we don’t look at it this
way since we don’t know about it We don’t know human profiling and
that each individual is different We make everyone do everything
and that’s where the problem lies So in a situation like this,
how can you handle office politics? For those who have a problem with
politics, I’ll give you two choices You are one among two types of people.
The first type thinks that I don’t care about politics, I don’t know
anything about it, I can’t get into it But it affects me and
I want to know how to prevent that This is one category The other category has some political
sense but is unable to handle it They feel that they can’t handle
people who indulge in politics The first category does not have the
presence of the Sun. The second has the Sun but it is not at full capacity and they
haven’t been able to harness it’s energy What I’d like to tell people
in the first category is… There’s no other way Since you do a good job, try and move to
a new team that has a good leader Or at least try and make them
understand that you do a good job There’s a chance that they can use
their power to do some good for you If that doesn’t happen,
you will have to wait for them to leave Or you can search for a new company since
you have a good sense of programming And since you know
that you perform well Don’t think there’s no way for
you to shine, there is a path for you Look for another company without fear
if you have the potential to do well Now, the second category that has the
presence of Sun but it’s energy is low They are born with
the dominant Sun But there wouldn’t have been
anyone else with the dominant Sun So they would not have
developed it fully They won’t have met many leaders outside
but some have them at home For them, they can grasp the Sun’s energy
easily and will move to the next stage of leadership if their Sun is dominant In order to develop yourself, you must
look at good leaders in your organisation Connect with them and
gain knowledge from them One should learn and know politics. You shouldn’t hesitate Learn so much that you can network and develop the potential to replace
those that are already there It is survival of the fittest and
you have no other choice. Only if you are able to do this,
you can transform into a leader If you want to be a leader, there
is no right or wrong here Perhaps they are in the
wrong position and by leaving they can move to a better
company and a better job A power monger will only
help another power monger grow They don’t know anything, so by helping
someone similar, they can be safe This is the general
mindset that they have If many power mongers enter a
company, it will get destroyed You won’t be the only that is affected The total productivity of the company
will be affected and be of no use Because everyone will be trying
to bring the other person down Productivity of the company
will go down. So, because of that, we cannot
reject office politics completely We can’t say that it is completely
fair but at the same time… It is necessary because you cannot move
to a higher position without knowing it If you think you don’t
want a position like that And feel that I’ll just be a
developer and develop myself That I can look after myself with these
technical and principal activities There’s no problem for you and
you don’t have to get into this You also don’t have to
complain about others There’s no need for it so, it’s
better to stay away Hopefully this video has given
you a overview of office politics I haven’t shared anything in depth but I
hope that you got an overview We will be talking about
this further in more videos Not now but after I gain some more
information and I can delve deep into it If you have any queries about
challenges in the software industry You can comment them Message me or comment
on Facebook and YouTube If you are watching on
YouTube, you can subscribe here If you are watching it on
Facebook, you can like our page And if you see this on WhatsApp,
do share it with others Thank you

Political common ground in a polarized United States | Gretchen Carlson, David Brooks

Chris Anderson: Welcome
to this next edition of TED Dialogues. We’re trying to do
some bridging here today. You know, the American dream
has inspired millions of people around the world for many years. Today, I think, you can say
that America is divided, perhaps more than ever, and the divisions seem
to be getting worse. It’s actually really hard
for people on different sides to even have a conversation. People almost feel… disgusted with each other. Some families can’t even speak
to each other right now. Our purpose in this dialogue today
is to try to do something about that, to try to have a different kind
of conversation, to do some listening, some thinking,
some understanding. And I have two people with us
to help us do that. They’re not going to come at this
hammer and tong against each other. This is not like cable news. This is two people who have both spent
a lot of their working life in the political center
or right of the center. They’ve immersed themselves
in conservative worldviews, if you like. They know that space very well. And we’re going to explore together how to think about
what is happening right now, and whether we can find new ways to bridge and just to have wiser,
more connected conversations. With me, first of all, Gretchen Carlson, who has spent a decade
working at Fox News, hosting “Fox and Friends”
and then “The Real Story,” before taking a courageous stance
in filing sexual harassment claims against Roger Ailes, which eventually led
to his departure from Fox News. David Brooks, who has earned the wrath of many of [The New York Times’s]
left-leaning readers because of his conservative views, and more recently, perhaps,
some of the right-leaning readers because of his criticism
of some aspects of Trump. Yet, his columns are usually the top one, two or three
most-read content of the day because they’re brilliant, because they bring psychology
and social science to providing understanding
for what’s going on. So without further ado, a huge welcome
to Gretchen and David. Come and join me. (Applause) So, Gretchen. Sixty-three million Americans
voted for Donald Trump. Why did they do this? Gretchen Carlson: There are a lot
of reasons, in my mind, why it happened. I mean, I think it was a movement
of sorts, but it started long ago. It didn’t just happen overnight. “Anger” would be the first word
that I would think of — anger with nothing
being done in Washington, anger about not being heard. I think there was a huge swath
of the population that feels like Washington
never listens to them, you know, a good part of the middle
of America, not just the coasts, and he was somebody they felt
was listening to their concerns. So I think those two issues
would be the main reason. I have to throw in there also celebrity. I think that had a huge impact
on Donald Trump becoming president. CA: Was the anger justified? David Brooks: Yeah, I think so. In 2015 and early 2016,
I wrote about 30 columns with the following theme: don’t worry, Donald Trump will never
be the Republican nominee. (Laughter) And having done that
and gotten that so wrong, I decided to spend the ensuing year
just out in Trumpworld, and I found a lot of economic dislocation. I ran into a woman in West Virginia
who was going to a funeral for her mom. She said, “The nice thing about
being Catholic is we don’t have to speak, and that’s good,
because we’re not word people.” That phrase rung in my head: word people. A lot of us in the TED community
are word people, but if you’re not, the economy
has not been angled toward you, and so 11 million men, for example,
are out of the labor force because those jobs are done away. A lot of social injury. You used to be able to say,
“I’m not the richest person in the world, I’m not the most famous, but my neighbors can count on me
and I get some dignity out of that.” And because of celebritification
or whatever, if you’re not rich or famous, you feel invisible. And a lot of moral injury,
sense of feeling betrayed, and frankly, in this country,
we almost have one success story, which is you go to college, get
a white-collar job, and you’re a success, and if you don’t fit in that formula, you feel like you’re not respected. And so that accumulation of things — and when I talked to Trump
voters and still do, I found most of them completely
realistic about his failings, but they said, this is my shot. GC: And yet I predicted
that he would be the nominee, because I’ve known him for 27 years. He’s a master marketer, and one of the things
he did extremely well that President Obama also did
extremely well, was simplifying the message, simplifying down to phrases and to a populist message. Even if he can’t achieve it,
it sounded good. And many people latched on
to that simplicity again. It’s something they could grasp onto: “I get that. I want that.
That sounds fantastic.” And I remember when he used to come
on my show originally, before “The Apprentice”
was even “The Apprentice,” and he’d say it was the number
one show on TV. I’d say back to him, “No, it’s not.” And he would say, “Yes it is, Gretchen.” And I would say, “No it’s not.” But people at home would see that,
and they’d be like, “Wow, I should be watching
the number one show on TV.” And — lo and behold — it became
the number one show on TV. So he had this, I’ve seen
this ability in him to be the master marketer. CA: It’s puzzling
to a lot of people on the left that so many women voted for him, despite some of his comments. GC: I wrote a column
about this for Time Motto, saying that I really believe
that lot of people put on blinders, and maybe for the first time, some people decided
that policies they believed in and being heard
and not being invisible anymore was more important to them than the way in which he had acted
or acts as a human. And so human dignity — whether it would be the dust-up
about the disabled reporter, or what happened
in that audiotape with Billy Bush and the way in which he spoke
about women — they put that aside and pretended as if
they hadn’t seen that or heard that, because to them,
policies were more important. CA: Right, so just because
someone voted for Trump, it’s not blind adherence to everything
that he’s said or stood for. GC: No. I heard a lot of people
that would say to me, “Wow, I just wish he would shut up
before the election. If he would just stay quiet,
he’d get elected.” CA: And so, maybe for people on the left
there’s a trap there, to sort of despise
or just be baffled by the support, assuming that it’s for some
of the unattractive features. Actually, maybe they’re supporting
him despite those, because they see something exciting. They see a man of action. They see the choking hold of government
being thrown off in some way and they’re excited by that. GC: But don’t forget we saw that
on the left as well — Bernie Sanders. So this is one of the commonalities
that I think we can talk about today, “The Year of the Outsider,”
David — right? And even though Bernie Sanders
has been in Congress for a long time, he was deemed an outsider this time. And so there was anger
on the left as well, and so many people were in favor
of Bernie Sanders. So I see it as a commonality. People who like Trump,
people who like Bernie Sanders, they were liking different policies,
but the underpinning was anger. CA: David, there’s often
this narrative, then, that the sole explanation
for Trump’s victory and his rise is his tapping into anger
in a very visceral way. But you’ve written a bit about
that it’s actually more than that, that there’s a worldview
that’s being worked on here. Could you talk about that? DB: I would say he understood what,
frankly, I didn’t, which is what debate we were having. And so I’d grown up starting with Reagan, and it was the big government
versus small government debate. It was Barry Goldwater
versus George McGovern, and that was the debate
we had been having for a generation. It was: Democrats wanted to use
government to enhance equality, Republicans wanted to limit government
to enhance freedom. That was the debate. He understood what I think
the two major parties did not, which was that’s not the debate anymore. The debate is now open versus closed. On one side are those who have
the tailwinds of globalization and the meritocracy blowing at their back, and they tend to favor open trade, open borders, open social mores, because there are so many opportunities. On the other side are those
who feel the headwinds of globalization and the meritocracy
just blasting in their faces, and they favor closed trade,
closed borders, closed social mores, because they just want some security. And so he was right
on that fundamental issue, and people were willing
to overlook a lot to get there. And so he felt that sense of security. We’re speaking the morning after
Trump’s joint session speech. There are three traditional
groups in the Republican Party. There are the foreign policies hawks who believe in America
as global policeman. Trump totally repudiated that view. Second, there was the social conservatives who believed in religious liberty, pro-life, prayer in schools. He totally ignored that. There was not a single mention
of a single social conservative issue. And then there were the fiscal hawks, the people who wanted to cut down
on the national debt, Tea Party, cut the size of government. He’s expanding the size of government! Here’s a man who has single-handedly
revolutionized a major American party because he understood
where the debate was headed before other people. And then guys like Steve Bannon come in and give him substance to his impulses. CA: And so take that a bit further, and maybe expand a bit more
on your insights into Steve Bannon’s worldview. Because he’s sometimes tarred
in very simple terms as this dangerous, racist,
xenophobic, anger-sparking person. There’s more to the story;
that is perhaps an unfair simplification. DB: I think that part is true, but there’s another part
that’s probably true, too. He’s part of a global movement. It’s like being around Marxists in 1917. There’s him here, there’s the UKIP party,
there’s the National Front in France, there’s Putin, there’s a Turkish version,
a Philippine version. So we have to recognize that this
is a global intellectual movement. And it believes that wisdom and virtue is not held
in individual conversation and civility the way a lot of us
in the enlightenment side of the world do. It’s held in — the German word
is the “volk” — in the people, in the common, instinctive wisdom
of the plain people. And the essential virtue of that people
is always being threatened by outsiders. And he’s got a strategy
for how to get there. He’s got a series of policies
to bring the people up and repudiate the outsiders, whether those outsiders
are Islam, Mexicans, the media, the coastal elites… And there’s a whole worldview there;
it’s a very coherent worldview. I sort of have more respect for him. I loathe what he stands for
and I think he’s wrong on the substance, but it’s interesting to see someone
with a set of ideas find a vehicle, Donald Trump, and then try to take control
of the White House in order to advance his viewpoint. CA: So it’s almost become, like,
that the core question of our time now is: Can you be patriotic
but also have a global mindset? Are these two things
implacably opposed to each other? I mean, a lot of conservatives and, to the extent
that it’s a different category, a lot of Trump supporters, are infuriated by the coastal elites
and the globalists because they see them
as, sort of, not cheering for America, not embracing fully American values. I mean, have you seen that
in your conversations with people, in your understanding of their mindset? GC: I do think that there’s
a huge difference between — I hate to put people in categories, but, Middle America versus
people who live on the coasts. It’s an entirely different existence. And I grew up in Minnesota, so I have
an understanding of Middle America, and I’ve never forgotten it. And maybe that’s why I have
an understanding of what happened here, because those people often feel
like nobody’s listening to them, and that we’re only concentrating
on California and New York. And so I think that was a huge reason
why Trump was elected. I mean, these people felt like
they were being heard. Whether or not patriotism falls into that, I’m not sure about that. I do know one thing: a lot of things Trump talked about
last night are not conservative things. Had Hillary Clinton gotten up
and given that speech, not one Republican would have
stood up to applaud. I mean, he’s talking about spending
a trillion dollars on infrastructure. That is not a conservative viewpoint. He talked about government-mandated
maternity leave. A lot of women may love that;
it’s not a conservative viewpoint. So it’s fascinating that people who loved what his message
was during the campaign, I’m not sure — how do you
think they’ll react to that? DB: I should say I grew up
in Lower Manhattan, in the triangle between ABC Carpets,
the Strand Bookstore and The Odeon restaurant. (Laughter) GC: Come to Minnesota sometime! (Laughter) CA: You are a card-carrying member
of the coastal elite, my man. But what did you make
of the speech last night? It seemed to be a move
to a more moderate position, on the face of it. DB: Yeah, I thought it
was his best speech, and it took away the freakishness of him. I do think he’s a moral freak, and I think he’ll be undone by that fact, the fact that he just doesn’t know
anything about anything and is uncurious about it. (Laughter) But if you take away these minor flaws, I think we got to see him at his best, and it was revealing for me
to see him at his best, because to me, it exposed a central
contradiction that he’s got to confront, that a lot of what he’s doing
is offering security. So, “I’m ordering closed borders, I’m going to secure the world
for you, for my people.” But then if you actually look
at a lot of his economic policies, like health care reform, which is about
private health care accounts, that’s not security, that’s risk. Educational vouchers: that’s risk.
Deregulation: that’s risk. There’s really a contradiction
between the security of the mindset and a lot of the policies,
which are very risk-oriented. And what I would say, especially
having spent this year, the people in rural Minnesota,
in New Mexico — they’ve got enough risk in their lives. And so they’re going to say,
“No thank you.” And I think his health care repeal
will fail for that reason. CA: But despite the criticisms
you just made of him, it does at least seem that he’s listening to a surprisingly wide range of voices; it’s not like everyone
is coming from the same place. And maybe that leads to a certain
amount of chaos and confusion, but — GC: I actually don’t think he’s listening
to a wide range of voices. I think he’s listening to very few people. That’s just my impression of it. I believe that some of the things
he said last night had Ivanka all over them. So I believe he was listening
to her before that speech. And he was Teleprompter Trump
last night, as opposed to Twitter Trump. And that’s why, before we came out here, I said, “We better check Twitter
to see if anything’s changed.” And also I think you have to keep in mind that because he’s such a unique character, what was the bar that we
were expecting last night? Was it here or here or here? And so he comes out
and gives a looking political speech, and everyone goes, “Wow! He can do it.” It just depends
on which direction he goes. DB: Yeah, and we’re trying
to build bridges here, and especially for an audience
that may have contempt for Trump, it’s important to say,
no, this is a real thing. But as I try my best to go an hour
showing respect for him, my thyroid is surging, because I think the oddities
of his character really are condemnatory
and are going to doom him. CA: Your reputation is as a conservative. People would you describe you
as right of center, and yet here you are
with this visceral reaction against him and some of what he stands for. I mean, I’m — how do you have
a conversation? The people who support him,
on evidence so far, are probably pretty excited. He’s certainly shown real engagement in a lot of what he promised to do, and there is a strong desire
to change the system radically. People hate what government has become
and how it’s left them out. GC: I totally agree with that, but I think that when he was proposing
a huge government program last night that we used to call the bad s-word,
“stimulus,” I find it completely ironic. To spend a trillion dollars
on something — that is not a conservative viewpoint. Then again, I don’t really believe
he’s a Republican. DB: And I would say, as someone
who identifies as conservative: first of all, to be conservative is to believe
in the limitations of politics. Samuel Johnson said, “Of all the things
that human hearts endure, how few are those that kings
can cause and cure.” Politics is a limited realm; what matters most
is the moral nature of the society. And so I have to think
character comes first, and a man who doesn’t pass
the character threshold cannot be a good president. Second, I’m the kind
of conservative who — I harken back to Alexander Hamilton, who was a Latino hip-hop star
from the heights — (Laughter) but his definition of America
was very future-oriented. He was a poor boy from the islands who had this rapid and amazing
rise to success, and he wanted government to give
poor boys and girls like him a chance to succeed, using limited but energetic government
to create social mobility. For him and for Lincoln
and for Teddy Roosevelt, the idea of America
was the idea of the future. We may have division and racism
and slavery in our past, but we have a common future. The definition of America that Steve
Bannon stands for is backwards-looking. It’s nostalgic; it’s for the past. And that is not traditionally
the American identity. That’s traditionally, frankly,
the Russian identity. That’s how they define virtue. And so I think it is a fundamental
and foundational betrayal of what conservatism used to stand for. CA: Well, I’d like actually
like to hear from you, and if we see some comments coming in
from some of you, we’ll — oh, well here’s one right now. Jeffrey Alan Carnegie: I’ve tried
to convince progressive friends that they need to understand
what motivates Trump supporters, yet many of them have given up
trying to understand in the face of what they perceive
as lies, selfishness and hatred. How would you reach out to such people,
the Tea Party of the left, to try to bridge this divide? GC: I actually think
there are commonalities in anger, as I expressed earlier. So I think you can come to the table,
both being passionate about something. So at least you care. And I would like to believe —
the c-word has also become a horrible word — “compromise,” right? So you have the far left
and the far right, and compromise — forget it. Those groups don’t want
to even think about it. But you have a huge swath
of voters, myself included, who are registered independents, like 40 percent of us, right? So there is a huge faction of America
that wants to see change and wants to see people come together. It’s just that we have to figure out how to do that. CA: So let’s talk about that for a minute, because we’re having these TED Dialogues,
we’re trying to bridge. There’s a lot of people out there,
right now, perhaps especially on the left, who think this is a terrible idea, that actually, the only moral response
to the great tyranny that may be about to emerge in America is to resist it at every stage,
is to fight it tooth and nail, it’s a mistake to try and do this. Just fight! Is there a case for that? DB: It depends what “fight” means.
If it means literal fighting, then no. If it means marching, well maybe
marching to raise consciousness, that seems fine. But if you want change in this country,
we do it through parties and politics. We organize parties, and those parties
are big, diverse, messy coalitions, and we engage in politics, and politics is always
morally unsatisfying because it’s always
a bunch of compromises. But politics is essentially
a competition between partial truths. The Trump people have a piece
of the truth in America. I think Trump himself is the wrong answer
to the right question, but they have some truth, and it’s truth found in the epidemic
of opiates around the country, it’s truth found in
the spread of loneliness, it’s the truth found in people
whose lives are inverted. They peaked professionally at age 30, and it’s all been downhill since. And so, understanding that
doesn’t take fighting, it takes conversation and then asking, “What are we going to replace Trump with?” GC: But you saw fighting last night,
even at the speech, because you saw the Democratic women
who came and wore white to honor the suffragette movement. I remember back during the campaign where some Trump supporters wanted
to actually get rid of the amendment that allowed us to vote as women. It was like, what? So I don’t know if
that’s the right way to fight. It was interesting,
because I was looking in the audience, trying to see Democratic women
who didn’t wear white. So there’s a lot going on there, and there’s a lot of ways to fight
that are not necessarily doing that. CA: I mean, one of the key
questions, to me, is: The people who voted for Trump
but, if you like, are more in the center, like they’re possibly
amenable to persuasion — are they more likely to be persuaded
by seeing a passionate uprising of people saying, “No, no, no, you can’t!” or will that actually piss them off
and push them away? DB: How are any of us persuaded? Am I going to persuade you by saying,
“Well, you’re kind of a bigot, you’re supporting bigotry,
you’re supporting sexism. You’re a primitive, fascistic rise
from some authoritarian past”? That’s probably not going to be
too persuasive to you. And so the way any of us
are persuaded is by: a) some basic show of respect
for the point of view, and saying, “I think this guy is not going
to get you where you need to go.” And there are two phrases
you’ve heard over and over again, wherever you go in the country. One, the phrase “flyover country.” And that’s been heard for years, but I would say this year,
I heard it almost on an hourly basis, a sense of feeling invisible. And then the sense a sense of the phrase
“political correctness.” Just that rebellion: “They’re not even
letting us say what we think.” And I teach at Yale. The narrowing of debate is real. CA: So you would say this is a trap
that liberals have fallen into by celebrating causes
they really believe in, often expressed through the language
of “political correctness.” They have done damage.
They have pushed people away. DB: I would say
a lot of the argument, though, with “descent to fascism,”
“authoritarianism” — that just feels over-the-top to people. And listen, I’ve written
eight million anti-Trump columns, but it is a problem, especially
for the coastal media, that every time he does something
slightly wrong, we go to 11, and we’re at 11 every day. And it just strains
credibility at some point. CA: Crying wolf a little too loud
and a little too early. But there may be a time
when we really do have to cry wolf. GC: But see — one of the most
important things to me is how the conservative media
handles Trump. Will they call him out
when things are not true, or will they just go along with it? To me, that is what is essential
in this entire discussion, because when you have
followers of somebody who don’t really care
if he tells the truth or not, that can be very dangerous. So to me, it’s: How is the conservative
media going to respond to it? I mean, you’ve been calling them out. But how will other forms
of conservative media deal with that as we move forward? DB: It’s all shifted, though. The conservative media used to be Fox
or Charles Krauthammer or George Will. They’re no longer the conservative media. Now there’s another whole set
of institutions further right, which is Breitbart and Infowars,
Alex Jones, Laura Ingraham, and so they’re the ones who are now
his base, not even so much Fox. CA: My last question for the time being
is just on this question of the truth. I mean, it’s one of the scariest
things to people right now, that there is no agreement,
nationally, on what is true. I’ve never seen anything like it, where facts are so massively disputed. Your whole newspaper, sir,
is delivering fake news every day. DB: And failing. (Laughter) CA: And failing. My commiserations. But is there any path whereby we can start to get
some kind of consensus, to believe the same things? Can online communities play a role here? How do we fix this? GC: See, I understand how that happened. That’s another groundswell kind of emotion that was going on in the middle of America and not being heard, in thinking that the mainstream
media was biased. There’s a difference, though,
between being biased and being fake. To me, that is a very important
distinction in this conversation. So let’s just say that there was some bias
in the mainstream media. OK. So there are ways
to try and mend that. But what Trump’s doing
is nuclearizing that and saying, “Look, we’re just going to call
all of that fake.” That’s where it gets dangerous. CA: Do you think enough of his supporters have a greater loyalty
to the truth than to any … Like, the principle
of not supporting something that is demonstrably not true actually matters, so there will be
a correction at some point? DB: I think the truth
eventually comes out. So for example, Donald Trump
has based a lot of his economic policy on this supposition that Americans
have lost manufacturing jobs because they’ve been stolen
by the Chinese. That is maybe 13 percent
of the jobs that left. The truth is that 87 percent of the jobs
were replaced by technology. That is just the truth. And so as a result, when he says, “I’m going to close TPP
and all the jobs will come roaring back,” they will not come roaring back. So that is an actual fact, in my belief. And — (Laughter) GC: But I’m saying what
his supporters think is the truth, no matter how many times
you might say that, they still believe him. DB: But eventually either jobs
will come back or they will not come back, and at that point, either something
will work or it doesn’t work, and it doesn’t work or not work
because of great marketing, it works because it actually
addresses a real problem and so I happen to think
the truth will out. CA: If you’ve got a question,
please raise your hand here. Yael Eisenstat: I’ll speak into the box. My name’s Yael Eisenstat. I hear a lot of this talk about how we all need to start
talking to each other more and understanding each other more, and I’ve even written about this,
published on this subject as well, but now today I keep hearing liberals —
yes, I live in New York, I can be considered a liberal — we sit here and self-analyze: What did we do to not understand
the Rust Belt? Or: What can we do to understand
Middle America better? And what I’d like to know: Have you seen any attempts
or conversations from Middle America of what can I do to understand
the so-called coastal elites better? Because I’m just offended
as being put in a box as a coastal elite as someone in Middle America is
as being considered a flyover state and not listened to. CA: There you go, I can hear Facebook
cheering as you — (Laughter) DB: I would say — and this is someone
who has been conservative all my adult life — when you grow up conservative, you learn to speak both languages. Because if I’m going to listen to music, I’m not going to listen to Ted Nugent. So a lot of my favorite rock bands
are all on the left. If I’m going to go to a school, I’m going probably to school
where the culture is liberal. If I’m going to watch a sitcom or a late-night comedy show,
it’s going to be liberal. If I’m going to read a good newspaper,
it’ll be the New York Times. As a result, you learn
to speak both languages. And that actually, at least
for a number of years, when I started at National Review
with William F. Buckley, it made us sharper, because we were used to arguing
against people every day. The problem now that’s happened
is you have ghettoization on the right and you can live entirely in rightworld, so as a result, the quality of argument
on the right has diminished, because you’re not in the other side all the time. But I do think if you’re living
in Minnesota or Iowa or Arizona, the coastal elites
make themselves aware to you, so you know that language as well, but it’s not the reverse. CA: But what does Middle America
not get about coastal elites? So the critique is, you are not dealing
with the real problems. There’s a feeling of a snobbishness,
an elitism that is very off-putting. What are they missing? If you could plant one piece of truth from the mindset of someone
in this room, for example, what would you say to them? DB: Just how insanely wonderful we are. (Laughter) No, I reject the category. The problem with populism
is the same problem with elitism. It’s just a prejudice on the basis of probably an over-generalized
social class distinction which is too simplistic
to apply in reality. Those of us in New York know
there are some people in New York who are completely awesome,
and some people who are pathetic, and if you live in Iowa, some people
are awesome and some people are pathetic. It’s not a question
of what degree you have or where you happen to live
in the country. The distinction is just a crude
simplification to arouse political power. GC: But I would encourage people
to watch a television news show or read a column
that they normally wouldn’t. So if you are a Trump supporter,
watch the other side for a day, because you need to come out of the bubble if you’re ever going
to have a conversation. And both sides — so if you’re a liberal, then watch something
that’s very conservative. Read a column that is not something
you would normally read, because then you gain perspective
of what the other side is thinking, and to me, that’s a start
of coming together. I worry about the same thing
you worry about, these bubbles. I think if you only watch
certain entities, you have no idea what the rest
of the world is talking about. DB: I think not only watching, being part of an organization
that meets at least once a month that puts you in direct contact
with people completely unlike yourself is something we all have
a responsibility for. I may get this a little wrong, but I think of the top-selling
automotive models in this country, I think the top three or four
are all pickup trucks. So ask yourself: How many people
do I know who own a pickup truck? And it could be very few or zero
for a lot of people. And that’s sort of a warning sign
kind of a problem. Where can I join a club where I’ll have a lot in common
with a person who drives a pickup truck because we have a common
interest in whatever? CA: And so the internet is definitely
contributing to this. A question here from Chris Ajemian: “How do you feel structure
of communications, especially the prevalence of social
media and individualized content, can be used to bring together
a political divide, instead of just filing communities
into echo chambers?” I mean, it looks like Facebook
and Google, since the election, are working hard on this question. They’re trying to change the algorithms so that they don’t amplify fake news to the extent that it happened
last time round. Do you see any other
promising signs of …? GC: … or amplify one side
of the equation. CA: Exactly. GC: I think that was the constant
argument from the right, that social media
and the internet in general was putting articles towards the top
that were not their worldview. I think, again, that fed into the anger. It fed into the anger of: “You’re pushing something
that’s not what I believe.” But social media has obviously
changed everything, and I think Trump is the example
of Twitter changing absolutely everything. And from his point of view, he’s reaching the American people
without a filter, which he believes the media is. CA: Question from the audience. Destiny: Hi. I’m Destiny. I have a question regarding political
correctness, and I’m curious: When did political correctness
become synonymous with silencing, versus a way that we speak
about other people to show them respect
and preserve their dignity? GC: Well, I think the conservative media
really pounded this issue for the last 10 years. I think that they really, really
spent a lot of time talking about political correctness, and how people should have
the ability to say what they think. Another reason why Trump
became so popular: because he says what he thinks. It also makes me think about the fact that I do believe there are a lot
of people in America who agree with Steve Bannon, but they would never say it publicly, and so voting for Trump
gave them the opportunity to agree with it silently. DB: On the issue of immigration,
it’s a legitimate point of view that we have too many immigrants
in the country, that it’s economically costly. CA: That we have too many — DB: Immigrants in the country,
especially from Britain. (Laughter) GC: I kind of like the British accent, OK? CA: I apologize. America, I am sorry. (Laughter) I’ll go now. DB: But it became
sort of impermissible to say that, because it was a sign that somehow
you must be a bigot of some sort. So the political correctness
was not only cracking down on speech that we would all find
completely offensive, it was cracking down on some speech
that was legitimate, and then it was turning speech
and thought into action and treating it as a crime, and people getting fired
and people thrown out of schools, and there were speech codes written. Now there are these diversity teams, where if you say something
that somebody finds offensive, like, “Smoking is really dangerous,”
you can say “You’re insulting my group,” and the team from the administration
will come down into your dorm room and put thought police upon you. And so there has been a genuine narrowing
of what is permissible to say. And some of it is legitimate. There are certain words that there
should be some social sanction against, but some of it was used
to enforce a political agenda. CA: So is that a project you would urge on liberals,
if you like — progressives — to rethink the ground rules
around political correctness and accept a little more
uncomfortable language in certain circumstances? Can you see that being solved to an extent that others
won’t be so offended? DB: I mean, most American universities,
especially elite universities, are overwhelmingly on the left, and there’s just an ease of temptation to use your overwhelming cultural power
to try to enforce some sort of thought that you think is right
and correct thought. So, be a little more self-suspicious
of, are we doing that? And second, my university,
the University of Chicago, sent out this letter saying,
we will have no safe spaces. There will be no critique
of micro-aggression. If you get your feelings hurt,
well, welcome to the world of education. I do think that policy — which is being embraced by a lot
of people on the left, by the way — is just a corrective to what’s happened. CA: So here’s a question
from Karen Holloway: How do we foster an American culture that’s forward-looking, like Hamilton, that expects and deals with change, rather than wanting to have everything
go back to some fictional past? That’s an easy question, right? GC: Well, I’m still a believer
in the American dream, and I think what we can teach
our children is the basics, which is that hard work and believing in yourself in America, you can achieve
whatever you want. I was told that every single day. When I got in the real world, I was like,
wow, that’s maybe not always so true. But I still believe in that. Maybe I’m being too optimistic. So I still look towards the future
for that to continue. DB: I think you’re being too optimistic. GC: You do? DB: The odds of an American young person
exceeding their parents’ salary — a generation ago, like 86 percent did it. Now 51 percent do it. There’s just been a problem
in social mobility in the country. CA: You’ve written that this entire
century has basically been a disaster, that the age of sunny growth is over
and we’re in deep trouble. DB: Yeah, I mean, we averaged,
in real terms, population-adjusted, two or three percent growth for 50 years, and now we’ve had less
than one percent growth. And so there’s something seeping out. And so if I’m going to tell people
that they should take risks, one of the things we’re seeing
is a rapid decline in mobility, the number of people who are moving
across state lines, and that’s especially true
among millennials. It’s young people that are moving less. So how do we give people the security
from which they can take risk? And I’m a big believer in attachment
theory of raising children, and attachment theory
is based on the motto that all of life is a series
of daring adventures from a secure base. Have you parents given you a secure base? And as a society,
we do not have a secure base, and we won’t get to that “Hamilton,”
risk-taking, energetic ethos until we can supply a secure base. CA: So I wonder whether
there’s ground here to create almost like a shared agenda,
a bridging conversation, on the one hand recognizing
that there is this really deep problem that the system,
the economic system that we built, seems to be misfiring right now. Second, that maybe, if you’re right
that it’s not all about immigrants, it’s probably more about technology, if you could win that argument, that de-emphasizes what seems to me
the single most divisive territory between Trump supporters and others,
which is around the role of the other. It’s very offensive to people on the left
to have the other demonized to the extent that the other
seems to be demonized. That feels deeply immoral, and maybe people on the left
could agree, as you said, that immigration
may have happened too fast, and there is a limit beyond which
human societies struggle, but nonetheless this whole problem
becomes de-emphasized if automation is the key issue, and then we try to work together
on recognizing that it’s real, recognizing that the problem
probably wasn’t properly addressed or seen or heard, and try to figure out
how to rebuild communities using, well, using what? That seems to me to become
the fertile conversation of the future: How do we rebuild communities
in this modern age, with technology doing what it’s doing, and reimagine this bright future? GC: That’s why I go back to optimism. I’m not being … it’s not like
I’m not looking at the facts, where we’ve come or where we’ve come from. But for gosh sakes, if we don’t look
at it from an optimistic point of view — I’m refusing to do that just yet. I’m not raising my 12- and 13-year-old
to say, “Look, the world is dim.” CA; We’re going to have
one more question from the room here. Questioner: Hi. Hello. Sorry. You both mentioned
the infrastructure plan and Russia and some other things that wouldn’t be
traditional Republican priorities. What do you think, or when,
will Republicans be motivated to take a stand against Trumpism? GC: After last night, not for a while. He changed a lot last night, I believe. DB: His popularity among Republicans —
he’s got 85 percent approval, which is higher than Reagan
had at this time, and that’s because society
has just gotten more polarized. So people follow the party
much more than they used to. So if you’re waiting for Paul Ryan
and the Republicans in Congress to flake away, it’s going to take a little while. GC: But also because they’re all
concerned about reelection, and Trump has so much power
with getting people either for you or against you, and so, they’re vacillating
every day, probably: “Well, should I go against
or should I not?” But last night, where he finally
sounded presidential, I think most Republicans are breathing
a sigh of relief today. DB: The half-life of that is short. GC: Right — I was just going to say,
until Twitter happens again. CA: OK, I want to give
each of you the chance to imagine you’re speaking
to — I don’t know — the people online who are watching this, who may be Trump supporters, who may be on the left,
somewhere in the middle. How would you advise them to bridge
or to relate to other people? Can you share any final wisdom on this? Or if you think that they shouldn’t,
tell them that as well. GC: I would just start by saying that I really think any change
and coming together starts from the top, just like any other organization. And I would love if, somehow, Trump supporters or people on the left
could encourage their leaders to show that compassion from the top, because imagine the change
that we could have if Donald Trump tweeted out today, to all of his supporters, “Let’s not be vile anymore to each other. Let’s have more understanding. As a leader, I’m going
to be more inclusive to all of the people of America.” To me, it starts at the top. Is he going to do that? I have no idea. But I think that everything
starts from the top, and the power that he has in encouraging his supporters to have an understanding of where
people are coming from on the other side. CA: David. DB: Yeah, I guess I would say I don’t think we can teach
each other to be civil, and give us sermons on civility. That’s not going to do it. It’s substance and how we act, and the nice thing about Donald Trump
is he smashed our categories. All the categories that we thought
we were thinking in, they’re obsolete. They were great for the 20th century.
They’re not good for today. He’s got an agenda which is about
closing borders and closing trade. I just don’t think it’s going to work. I think if we want to rebuild
communities, recreate jobs, we need a different set of agenda that smashes through all our current
divisions and our current categories. For me, that agenda is Reaganism
on macroeconomic policy, Sweden on welfare policy and cuts across right and left. I think we have to have a dynamic
economy that creates growth. That’s the Reagan on economic policy. But people have to have that secure base. There have to be
nurse-family partnerships; there has to be universal preschool; there have to be charter schools; there have to be college programs
with wraparound programs for parents and communities. We need to help heal the crisis
of social solidarity in this country and help heal families, and government just has to get
a lot more involved in the way liberals like
to rebuild communities. At the other hand, we have to have
an economy that’s free and open the way conservatives used to like. And so getting the substance right
is how you smash through the partisan identities, because the substance is what
ultimately shapes our polarization. CA: David and Gretchen, thank you so much for an absolutely
fascinating conversation. Thank you. That was really,
really interesting. (Applause) Hey, let’s keep the conversation going. We’re continuing to try and figure out whether we can add something here, so keep the conversation
going on Facebook. Give us your thoughts from whatever part
of the political spectrum you’re on, and actually, wherever
in the world you are. This is not just about America.
It’s about the world, too. But we’re not going
to end today without music, because if we put music
in every political conversation, the world would be
completely different, frankly. It just would. (Applause) Up in Harlem, this extraordinary woman, Vy Higginsen, who’s actually right here — let’s get a shot of her. (Applause) She created this program
that brings teens together, teaches them the joy
and the impact of gospel music, and hundreds of teens have gone
through this program. It’s transformative for them. The music they made, as you already heard, is extraordinary, and I can’t think of a better way
of ending this TED Dialogue than welcoming Vy Higginsen’s
Gospel Choir from Harlem. Thank you. (Applause) (Singing) Choir: O beautiful
for spacious skies For amber waves of grain For purple mountain majesties Above the fruited plain America! America! America! America! God shed his grace on thee And crown thy good with brotherhood From sea to shining sea From sea to shining sea (Applause)

Leadership and Transparency: Obama’s Reddit Fail on Pot Legalization

One of the most interesting examples of an
engaged leader is when President Obama decided to go onto Reddit as part of his presidential
campaign in 2012. And he held what is called an ask me anything session. So they announced
he was going to be on there and anybody could ask any question of Obama. What a great opportunity,
right? And so he studiously sat there and responded to people and answered their questions.
Except he didn’t. The most popular and most frequently asked question of Obama was what
do you think of the legalization of marijuana? And it was very clear, so evident that Obama
wanted to have nothing to do with that topic. He just studiously kept ignoring that topic
and answering all the other questions that were coming up. So it’s interesting that
you can ask me anything but I may not necessarily answer you. In many ways this was considered a very successful
example of an engaged leader. Somebody who was willing to come on to Reddit and be able
to answer all the questions that people were going to ask. But in reality that relationship
was a bit tarnished for the people who were on that session because they quickly realized
he’s not willing to truly engage in the spirit of this. He was going to answer only
the questions that he wanted to. If they knew anything about the Reddi audience they would
have known that would have been the very top question that somebody was going to ask. So as a leader when you’re in those situations,
when you’re not ready, a better way to deal with that is to be very honest. I’m not
prepared today to answer those questions. And if Obama had just said I hear all of you
asking about the legalization of marijuana. I’m not ready to answer that question today
and these are the reasons why. Clearly it’s important to some people and we will have
a position on that at some point in the future. So as a leader be clear, you set expectations
but what you will engage on. You may have it worked out in your mind it’s really important
to tell the people who are really following you as a leader to tell them what can they
expect in that engagement. How far will you go in that engagement to set those expectations
early on so that they’re not disappointed.

Ben Sasse on the Vacuum of Political Leadership | Conversations with Tyler

COWEN: Just to be clear, what’s going to
follow is not in any way a question about President Trump. But Trump —
SASSE: Good. Thank you. [laughter]
COWEN: Trump is a kind of data, right? So he is not, in every way, a traditional religious
conservative it would be fair to say. SASSE: Really?
[laughter] COWEN: And given that the Republican party
elected Trump as their candidate, and he then has become president, what should this cause
us to rethink about the role of religion in the rise of the right over the last 20 to
30 years? Does that new data in any way revise previous theses about whether it’s Reaganomics
or religion or counterreaction to the 1960s or — do you see what I’m asking?
SASSE: Not really. [laughter]
SASSE: A bit. I don’t know that there’s any way we could do justice to a question
that big in under a couple of hours but maybe just a few big glosses. I think that both
of these political parties are almost completely intellectually exhausted. I don’t think
either party can articulate a vision for America that’s five or ten years future-looking
right now. So when you ask the American people, “Do
you identify more with the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?” and if you don’t
give them the option to say “none of the above,” 46 percent of people still interrupt
to say “none of the above.” That’s stunning. Basically there are 29 percent Democrat-leaning,
25 percent Republican leaning, and 46 percent refuse to answer your question. If you’re
of the party of Lincoln as I am, that’s really scary because our 25 percent are lots
and lots older than the Democrats’ 29 percent. Then when you drill down on the 54 percent
who are willing to answer, and you say, “Why are you a Republican? Why are you a Democrat?”
Something like 70 percent of the people begin by talking about why the other party is so
much worse than your party. So these parties don’t know what they stand for, and they
surely can’t communicate it, and they definitely can’t communicate it in a constructive,
positive, winsome way. That’s the starting point for the election
cycle of 2016. So both parties were ripe for a hostile takeover. And if you think about
17 candidates in the Republican primary, you went a long way into that cycle before the
now-president’s numbers ever got anywhere near 40 percent. And at that same point, Bernie
Sanders was getting 45 percent of the Democratic vote and he’s not a Democrat. Right?
So both parties were very ripe for hostile takeover. Then you have to understand some
of what happened in the 2016 cycle on the Republican side as partly legacy of a 2012
moment where Mitt Romney had difficulty closing the deal because of the way Ron Paul was able
to stick around. So the party changed a bunch of the rules so there would be easier consolidation.
Why do I say all that? I say that because you have to understand the 2016 primary as
one thing on the Republican side, and the Republican Party is too vacuous of what we
stand for right now. So it was ripe for a hostile takeover. That happened, and then
you ended up with what was perceived as a binary choice for a lot of voters between
two candidates that were not viewed as very trustworthy. So you end up with a general
election choice that is not a big-vision choice. I don’t know how you would go the next level
down and talk in great detail about what the religious components were to a political ideology
because I don’t think we made a choice about ideology in the 2016 cycle. We sort of made
a choice that was about a lot of folks saying, “Burn the place down and let’s just see
what happens because I don’t like the direction we’re headed now.”

Political Party Platforms Have Changed

bottom line of what we want the viewers to know today
in this show is that the Democrat Party has
skewed much further to the radical unbiblical left than
they have ever skewed before. (Music) GEORGE PEARSONS: Hello. This is
Pastor George Pearsons and welcome to this very special
edition of the Believers Voice of Victory Broadcast. Faith For
Our Nation. We are preparing right now for the midterm
elections and we have two of my most favorite people on this set
with me today. First of all, Buddy Pilgrim. Buddy, welcome.
is the president of Integrity Leadership, a ministry that
ministers about business principles, financial principles
and has also been involved in the corporate world as a
CEO over billion dollar corporations. Rub on this guy a
little bit. Also he is a board member of Kenneth Copeland
Ministries. He is an advisor to our KCM executive team which is
me. Also Buddy, you’ve had such tremendous experience in the
political realm as well. Major campaigns, rallying Christians
to vote so I appreciate you being here on this broadcast.
BUDDY PILGRIM: Thank you. GEORGE PEARSONS: He is my co-host this
week. And our guest this week is Representative Michele Bachmann.
Michele, welcome to the Believers Voice of Victory
have been so involved in the political realm for many years
from being Representative, candidate for President of the
United States and now a major voice, a major conservative
voice into our nation. A major supporter of Israel. And so we
welcome you to the Believers Voice of Victory broadcast. So
thankful that you’re here. And Michele Bachmann has some
tremendous things that she’s going to be bringing to us this
week. All of her notes are available on, just
click on to the picture of us. MICHELE BACHMANN:
Thank you Buddy. GEORGE PEARSONS: On
the website and all of these notes will be available
to you. And as I’ve been reading through them it really is quite
an education and we are in a very serious time in our nation
and we do make the difference. So Michele I know, because every
time Michele comes here she just lights up the place. Michele,
please help us know why it’s so important that we all need to be
voting in these mid-term elections. MICHELE BACHMANN:
Pastor George and Buddy, I couldn’t be in the presence of
two finer men that I admire more. I highly respect and
admire both of you and I am so grateful to Kenneth Copeland
Ministries for taking on this important part of the Bible. The
scripture is not silent about what believers need to do in
regard to our nations. We have a sacred duty in our nation to be
salt and light, but also to be participatory and to vote.
That’s why it’s so crucial that we’re here with these programs.
We have a very important election coming up in the United
States Senate, United States House, state races, municipal
races and if believers stay home our nation will turn a decidedly
anti-biblical way. GEORGE PEARSONS: That’s a strong
statement, but so true. MICHELE BACHMANN: We saw it. We saw it
because of our scripture that we’re … our theme this week is
“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” from Psalms 33:12.
We know that’s true because we have received the blessings of
liberty. But I want to talk very clearly about your listeners
because I want your listeners to know they changed the
world in November of 2016. GEORGE PEARSONS: Yes.
literally changed the world. You’re saying
Michele, aren’t you overstating this? GEORGE
PEARSONS: Not at all. MICHELE BACHMANN: Absolutely not.
So what I want to do is point to the greatest
pollster that I know of today, George Barna,
in the United States. And George Barna has
information they put out. I want your viewers to know who
they are. They make up 9% of the American public. They are twenty
million people in the United States. These are the people
that George Barna said were key and responsible for the election
results in 2016. It was a shock that is still giving fits and
conniptions to people all across the United States. GEORGE
PEARSONS: Yep. We were together on election night for that.
MICHELE BACHMANN: We were together. That’s right. GEORGE
PEARSONS: And we saw it happen right before our eyes. MICHELE
BACHMANN: That’s right. And they still are having fits that
Donald Trump won. But again it isn’t about republican/democrat.
It’s about Biblical versus unbiblical. GEORGE
And the believers, the difference makers, saw
what a difference was made. We also have another
slide that talks about the fact that 91% of the difference
makers came out to vote. They were so highly motivated because
they saw the difference in the two candidates that were running
for President in 2016 and they knew our country was literally
at our last exit ramp and we could fall off the cliff if we
continued to go in the unbiblical direction we were
going. And so believers showed up. Of the 91% of the difference
makers who showed up, evangelical Christians in other
words. People who take this Word of God and believe that this is
true. They not only believe God, but they seek in their lives to
obey His Word. Now we know the scripture says all sin, all fall
short of the glory of God. I imagine even you two sin. I know
I do. I’m a big sinner all the time. But thank God for a God
who saved me and gave His life for me to save me out of my sin.
That’s the good news of Jesus Christ. But the believers in
Jesus Christ came out in force and they voted. That’s what this
show is about today. We want your viewers to understand the
very stark difference that there is between the two party
platforms. We only have two choices in the United States.
You either vote democrat or you vote republican. And the bottom
line of what we want the viewers to know today in this show is
that the Democrat Party has skewed much further to the
radical unbiblical left than they have ever skewed before and
we’re going to go through that in the next few minutes. But
first let’s take a look at the video describing the
republican party platform versus the democrat
party platform. MALE: Let’s talk about
party platforms. This might seem boring, but
they’re important. Every four years democrats and
republicans gather and each writes a document to establish
how they will govern. That document is called a platform.
It’s a big deal because the platform defines what the
parties believe and the policies they will pursue. Sure there are
times when politicians don’t vote with their respective party
platforms. Republicans vote with theirs nearly nine tenths of the
time. Democrats nearly three quarters. A very large amount of
the time what you see in the platform is what you get with
your politician. So let’s take a look at the platforms. On our
first freedom, the freedom of religion, the democrat platform
is silent on the right of Americans to live according to
their beliefs outside the walls of their churches and places of
worship. The GOP platform affirms the rights of conscience
for all and for the first time the platform calls for a repeal
of the 1954 Johnson Amendment which effectively silenced
churches on issues deemed political. On life, democrats
for the first time call for the federal government to force tax
payers to fund elective abortion. Democrats believe
unequivocally that every woman should have access to safe and
legal abortion and to fund this access their platform calls for
repealing the Hyde Amendment. Republicans support an end to
abortion and the funding of abortion and the GOP supports a
human life amendment to the Constitution. On marriage,
democrats embrace the redefinition of marriage stating
LGBT people have the right to marry the person they love.
Republicans believe the cornerstone of society is
natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman. On
judicial appointments, democrats promise to appoint judges who
protect a woman’s right to abortion and see the
Constitution as a blueprint for progress. Republicans support
judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity
of innocent human life. They seek to enable courts to begin
to reverse the long line of activist decisions. On school
choice, democrats offer no support for families who want
private or faith based schooling for their children. The GOP
platform supports homeschooling, private or parochial schools and
vouchers. These things matter and that little R and that
little D next to a candidates name, that says a lot.
The parties are telling you what they will
do. The question is now that you know,
what will you do? BUDDY PILGRIM: Boy,
what a terrific summary that was. GEORGE PEARSONS:
Yeah, it was good. MICHELE BACHMANN: It
was. BUDDY PILGRIM: I appreciate you bringing
that because it really did clarify the differences
between the democrat and republican parties. I remember
as we went into the 2016 election, we knew then that the
difference that was going to be made in the outcome of that
election was going to be determined by you. By people of
faith voting. I was very involved in the 2016 election as
you know. Significantly with Senator Ted Cruz and his
campaign. But in addition to that I talked to Mike Huckabee.
I talked to Rick Santorum. I talked to most of the other
candidates during that period of time. One of the things I said
before … in the very early stages of the 2016 election is I
was absolutely convinced that there was no republican
regardless of who it was, there were 17 running, that could win
in the 2016 general election unless people of faith turned
out and there was no republican that would lose if people of
faith turned out. MICHELE BACHMANN: That’s right. BUDDY
PILGRIM: Okay? They could only win if people of faith turned
out. And that actually turned out to be the case. MICHELE
BACHMANN: That’s right. BUDDY PILGRIM: And we saw a number of
different people have the lead at various stages. Donald Trump
ended up being the candidate. And people of faith turned out
not because they loved Donald Trump as a person maybe or the
things that he did, but they knew that the republicans had
the right platform and it’s a platform that aligns with
Biblical values which is what you’re talking about. MICHELE
BACHMANN: You’re exactly right. And sixty percent of the people
who voted in 2016 Buddy voted based upon the platform. GEORGE
PEARSONS: Isn’t that something. MICHELE BACHMANN: Because people
weren’t quite sure about Donald Trump. It’s a little bit
different today. He’s more than delivered. He is the most
pro-life President we’ve ever had. He’s the strongest on
religious liberty that we have ever had. He has literally
performed a miracle in the economy and turned the economy
around with the help of Congress because they passed the biggest
tax cuts that we’ve ever seen and they have gotten rid of the
burdensome regulation which actually is the biggest tax that
you can have on job creation. All that they’ve done and more.
But this is the key. The democrat party, we just saw
their platform, the democrat party recently has taken a
quantum leap. They’ve shifted even further left than we ever
thought possible before. That was demonstrated in the month of
July when we saw an open socialist win in a congressional
seat in the state of New York. I think we have a photo of that
candidate. This is what we need to know. This is the new face of
the democrat party. GEORGE PEARSONS: And it’s even changed.
These are the original ones from several years ago. MICHELE
BACHMANN: That’s right, the original party platforms. GEORGE
PEARSONS: All original party platform. MICHELE BACHMANN:
That’s right. GEORGE PEARSONS: This one has changed since then.
MICHELE BACHMANN: The democrat party platform. You’re exactly
right George. It has changed. GEORGE PEARSONS: So this is
obsolete right now. MICHELE BACHMANN: It is almost obsolete.
That’s right. And that may be what’s on paper, but that’s not
what their candidates are advocating anymore. GEORGE
PEARSONS: Okay, that’s important to know. MICHELE BACHMANN: And I
think that for the viewers that are watching today on Believers
Voice of Victory, they need to understand the reality of the
new democrat party. They call themselves democrat socialists
and they’re not afraid of being called socialists. GEORGE
PEARSONS: My goodness. MICHELE BACHMANN: This is literally what
they stand for. We have a photo of the candidate that won in New
York. She tweeted this photo of abolish iced. What does that
mean? That means the United States … she’s advocating that
the position of the United States would be that there would
be no borders. Now just think about that. There would be no
borders. Anyone who wants to come into the United States can
walk right in and you would immediately have access to the
88 federal welfare programs in addition to all the state
programs. You may have a disease that you bring into this
country. You may be a terrorist coming in with evil intent.
Nothing would stop you from coming in. GEORGE PEARSONS:
Drugs. MICHELE BACHMANN: That’s the position of the democrat
socialist party. Here’s the second thing. Abolish profit.
Buddy, what does that mean? BUDDY PILGRIM: That means
there’s zero incentive to invest in a business. MICHELE BACHMANN:
That’s right. BUDDY PILGRIM: If you can’t earn a profit from
that investment. And that’s not Biblical either. You know you
look at the parable of the pounds and the parable of the
talents in the Bible. Both of those the people who were
entrusted with minas in one and with talents in the other were
charged with the responsibility to go and invest those and earn
more. It’s a Biblical principle to take what’s been entrusted to
you and go and earn a greater return from it. The one that
didn’t earn anything from it had it taken away from him. MICHELE
BACHMANN: That’s right. So capitalism is considered evil by
the democrat socialists, their party platform. That’s evil. But
from the republican party platform we want more jobs. We
want more prosperity. We want more people. And again we’re not
here to talk about democrat/republican.
We’re talking about Biblical versus unbiblical.
And it is amazing the suffering that goes along
with an unbiblical view of economics. Just when we
look at our most recent President of the United States.
He took over one sixth of the American economy with health
care. He worked to take over an American auto company, General
Motors, and was called Government Motors because the
federal government took it. GEORGE PEARSONS: Yeah, that’s
right. That’s right. MICHELE BACHMANN: He put together a US
task force on car dealerships and they literally closed down
fifteen hundred car dealerships in the United States. BUDDY
PILGRIM: That’s right. MICHELE BACHMANN: People spend their
whole life building up a business and it was gone because
the President of the United States in the last
administration said so. BUDDY PILGRIM: They nationalized the
student loan business also. MICHELE BACHMANN: They
nationalized the student loan industry. So we already have an
example of the old platform. GEORGE PEARSONS: Of the old
platform, yeah. MICHELE BACHMANN: The platform
that you might even consider more
conservative than this new democrat socialist
platform. So what is it that they want now? This is literally
on their website. The Democrat socialist. They want
government owned and run healthcare. Government run and
owned housing. Government run and owned food for people. No US
borders. In other words, there are seven billion people on the
planet today. Seven billion people. Three hundred twenty six
million people in the United States. Can you imagine if we
were swamped with seven billion people who could come into the
United States? We’d be over. We’d be crushed. We would no
longer have a country. They believe on their website that
anyone should be able to walk into this country and demand
housing, education, healthcare and be paid a government wage
whether they work or not. BUDDY PILGRIM: Yeah, they call that a
universal guaranteed wage. And it sounds like a good idea. What
it means is people would receive money whether they work or not.
MICHELE BACHMANN: Whether they work or not. BUDDY PILGRIM: That
has to come from someplace. It comes from the people who do
work. MICHELE BACHMANN: Right. The people who do work and so
they have to take it away from those who work. They also
believe in no prisons. Now, just stop for a second. GEORGE
PEARSONS: Yeah, that would- MICHELE BACHMANN: Just
stop for a second. No prisons? So
somebody could walk into your business and hold
you up and blow your head off and we’re not going to
have prisons for people like that? This is literally their
party platform. This is what they believe. No borders. No
prison. Are you kidding me? I don’t want to live in a country
like that. They believe in ending private businesses.
Making businesses government controlled. But they also
believe regarding Israel. BUDDY PILGRIM: Didn’t
Venezuela try that? MICHELE BACHMANN:
Venezuela tried it and people are eating
out of garbage cans today. They also believe that all Jews
should be removed from the land. I don’t know what they’re going
to do with them if they’re going to kill them or what. But they
believe all Jews should be removed from the land and that
the entire land should go to Palestine. This is their view.
So you want to talk about a Biblical versus an unbiblical
viewpoint? We have two complete stark positions. They undermine
our party. And the interesting thing is that according … we
have a picture of Bernie Sanders, he’s a sitting US
Senator. This new democrat party doesn’t think that Bernie
Sanders, an open socialist, is even far radical enough for them
because he won’t embrace the position of no borders. And
that’s why you see the sub-headline that says Will the
Trump Voters be Complacent? That’s why we’re here doing this
show today. We can’t just come up and vote every four years for
a President because if we don’t have a house and a senate that
will back our President I’ll tell you what will happen.
Impeachment. We’ve already seen that from these radical democrat
socialists on the left. They’ve already come out. They’re very
bold. And they’re saying that we are going to impeach the
President of the United States. That’s our first agenda item.
There isn’t any evidence that he’s done anything wrong, that
he’s committed an impeachable offense. It doesn’t matter.
They want power. That’s what this is about.
BUDDY PILGRIM: Well, they do want power. Let me
mention this too. We’re just touching the top of each of
these mountains right now because you’re giving this
overview that contrasts the two different platforms, but if
you’ll stay with us, those of you that are watching out there
through every broadcast this week, Congresswoman Bachmann is
going to take us through each of these issues in greater detail
each and every day of the week. We’re going to spend a day
talking about Israel. We’re going to spend a day talking
about economics. Today is just kind of an overview to lay down
the foundation for this Pastor George and we’re going to get
much deeper into this as we go through the week. GEORGE
PEARSONS: Absolutely. Absolutely. MICHELE BACHMANN:
We have a video of an open democrat socialist
calling for the impeachment of Donald
Trump. Let’s take a look. FEMALE: Where do
you fall? Would you push for a Trump
impeachment should you win? FEMALE: Well, I would
support impeachment. MICHELE BACHMANN:
This is the agenda of the new democrat party. Their number one
action item is to impeach Donald Trump, the President of the
United States. All of the tremendous gains that have been
made for the economy, for Israel, for pro-life, for
religious freedom, it all comes to a screeching heart and this
radical agenda of no borders, no prison, doing away with private
businesses. That’s their agenda that goes forward. So at the end
of the day here’s the question Pastor George and Buddy. Do we
want to be America the greatest military and economic super
power of the world or do we want to be Venezuela where people are
literally eating out of garbage cans? You say Michele, are you
crazy? That would never happen in the United States. Venezuela
in 1940 was I believe the second highest standard of living in
the world. Nations can change. If they embrace Godly values
they will be blessed. If they embrace unbiblical atheistic
values, which is represented by the new democrat socialist
platform, they will not be blessed. That’s how serious this
is and that’s why the difference makers in this country- GEORGE
PEARSONS: The difference makers. MICHELE BACHMANN: The believers,
the evangelical Christians who came out and made all the
difference in 2016 … 2018 is equally as precious and
important and we need them to get out and vote in the Senate
and the House. BUDDY PILGRIM: We have to maintain these
majorities in the house and the senate because not only will
they go after Trump to try to impeach him, and that’s what
they’re using as part of the issue to stir up the base and
get them excited. That’s why they villainize President Trump
so severely so they can get people whipped up in this frenzy
and get them to go out to vote. And that’s why it’s so important
that all of you listening today make sure that you stay just as
committed to go out and vote in November of this year as well.
We absolutely have to turn out. Somebody said well even if they
were to impeach Trump, which I don’t think they will, but even
if they did Vice President Pence would become President so we’re
still okay. No, we’re not still okay because they would have
taken over the House and taken over the Senate and they will
stop all of the positive legislation that’s been moving
us forward in the last couple of years. MICHELE BACHMANN: Because
the way our government works we’re a divided government.
Three parts. You have an Executive, the President. You
have the Congress that passes the laws. And then you have the
Supreme Court. The President can’t do everything on his own.
He has to have a Congress that he can work with. Today we have
a Republican house and a Republican Senate and we can get
more republicans in the house and more Godly men and women in
the Senate if people come out and vote. If our difference
makers are salt and light in this nation. Isn’t it amazing
how God has sprinkled believers all across this nation to be
salt and light? GEORGE PEARSONS: He has. He really has. MICHELE
BACHMANN: We don’t have to be everybody, but if we show up and
vote then every election we can win with Biblical candidates.
GEORGE PEARSONS: I like the phrase that you have, the
difference makers and that’s who we are. When we go into those
polls to vote we are casting our seed for what we are wanting the
harvest to be. So we have a responsibility. The Lord has
placed upon us the responsibility to see to it that
this continues as a Godly nation, as a Biblical nation. I
believe that what Michele Bachmann is bringing
to us during these broadcasts is really
going to bring into focus how severely
important and critical it is for us to do this and to go out
there and vote. To not only pray over our nation, but to vote. So
let’s take a moment before we have one minute left. Father, in
the name of Jesus, we pray over our nation right now and I thank
you for a Godly nation. I thank you Lord that the people of God
are showing up to vote. Every one who is registered, every one
who is dedicated and committed to the Biblical principles is
going to go and cast that seed and we are going to see an
overwhelming victory in this nation. We are going to continue
on with what You have started, what You have begun. And Lord I
praise You that the blessing of the Lord has been conferred upon
us when we moved the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem we
opened ourselves up for the blessing of God. And Lord we
will not ignore this election. We will do our part in the
name of Jesus. Amen. And Amen. We’ll be right
back. You stay with us. ANNOUNCER: We hope you enjoyed
today’s teaching from Kenneth Copeland Ministries. And
remember Jesus is Lord.

The political power of being a good neighbor | Michael Tubbs

So I know for sure there’s at least
one thing I have in common with dentists. I absolutely hate
the holiday of Halloween. Now, this hatred stems
not from a dislike of cavities, nor was it a lifetime in the making. Rather, this hatred stems
from a particular incident that happened nine years ago. Nine years ago, I was even younger,
I was 20 years old, and I was an intern in the White House. The other White House. And my job was to work
with mayors and councilors nationwide. November 1, 2010
began just like any other day. I turned on the computer, went on Google
and prepared to write my news clips. I was met with a call from my mother,
which isn’t that out the norm, my mom likes to text, call,
email, Facebook, Instagram, all that. So I answered the phone expecting
to hear maybe some church gossip, or maybe something from WorldStarHipHop
she had discovered. But when I answered the phone, I was met with a tone that was unlike
anything I had ever heard from my mother. My mother’s loud. But she spoke in a hush,
still, muffled tone that conveyed a sense of sadness. And as she whispered, she said, “Michael, your cousin Donnell
was murdered last night, on Halloween, at a house party in Stockton.” And like far too many people
in this country, particularly from communities like mine, particularly that look like me, I spent the better part of the year
dealing with anger, rage, nihilism, and I had a choice to make. The choice was one
between action and apathy. The choice was what could I do
to put purpose to this pain. I spent a year dealing
with feelings of survivor’s guilt. What was the point of me
being at Stanford, what was the point
of me being at the White House if I was powerless to help my own family? And my own family was dying,
quite literally. I then began to feel
a little selfish and say, what’s the point of even trying
to make the world a better place? Maybe that’s just the way it is. Maybe I would be smart to take advantage
of all the opportunities given to me and make as much money as possible, so I’m comfortable,
and my immediate family is comfortable. But finally, towards the end of that year, I realized I wanted to do something. So I made the crazy decision,
as a senior in college, to run for city council. That decision was unlikely
for a couple of reasons, and not just my age. You see, my family
is far from a political dynasty. More men in my family
have been incarcerated than in college. In fact, as I speak today,
my father is still incarcerated. My mother, she had me as a teenager, and government wasn’t something
we had warm feelings from. You see, it was the government that red-lined the
neighborhoods I grew up in. Full of liquor stores
and no grocery stores, there was a lack of opportunity
and concentrated poverty. It was the government and the politicians that made choices, like the war on drugs and three strikes, that have incarcerated
far too many people in our country. It was the government and political actors that made the decisions
that created the school funding formulas, that made it so the school I went to
receive less per pupil spending than schools in more affluent areas. So there was nothing about that background
that made it likely for me to choose to be involved in being
a government actor. And at the same time,
Stockton was a very unlikely place. Stockton is my home town,
a city of 320,000 people. But historically, it’s been a place
people run from, rather than come back to. It’s a city that’s incredibly diverse. Thirty-five percent Latino,
35 percent white, 20 percent Asian,
10 percent African American, the oldest Sikh temple in North America. But at the time I ran for office, we were also the largest city
in the country at that time to declare bankruptcy. At the time I decided to run for office, we also had more murders
per capita than Chicago. At the time I decided to run for office, we had a 23 percent poverty rate, a 17 percent college attainment rate and a host of challenges and issues
beyond the scope of any 21-year-old. So after I won my election, I did what I usually do
when I feel overwhelmed, I realized the problems of Stockton
were far bigger than me and that I might need
a little divine intervention. So as I prepared
for my first council meeting, I went back to some wisdom
my grandmother taught me. A parable I think we all know, that really constitutes
the governing frame we’re using to reinvent Stockton today. I remember in Sunday school,
my grandmother told me that at one time, a guy asked Jesus,
“Who was my neighbor? Who was my fellow citizen? Who am I responsible for?” And instead of a short answer,
Jesus replied with a parable. He said there was a man on a journey, walking down Jericho Road. As he was walking down the road, he was beat up,
left on the side of the road, stripped of all his clothes, had everything stolen from
and left to die. And then a priest came by,
saw the man on the side of the road, maybe said a silent prayer, hopes and prayers,
prayers that he gets better. Maybe saw the man on the side of the road and surmised that it was ordained by God for this particular man,
this particular group to be on the side of the road,
there’s nothing I can do to change it. After the priest walked by,
maybe a politician walked by. A 28-year-old politician, for example. Saw the man on the side of the road
and saw how beat up the man was, saw that the man was a victim
of violence, or fleeing violence. And the politician decided,
“You know what? Instead of welcoming this man in,
let’s build a wall. Maybe the politician said, “Maybe this man chose
to be on the side of the road.” That if he just pulled himself up
by his bootstraps, despite his boots being stolen, and got himself back on the horse, he could be successful,
and there’s nothing I could do.” And then finally, my grandmother said,
a good Samaritan came by, saw the man on the side of the road and looked and saw not centuries of hatred between Jews and Samaritans, looked and saw not his fears reflected, not economic anxiety, not “what’s going to happen to me
because things are changing.” But looked and saw
a reflection of himself. He saw his neighbor,
he saw his common humanity. He didn’t just see it,
he did something about it, my grandmother said. He got down on one knee, he made sure the man was OK, and I heard, even gave him a room
at that nice Fairmont, the Pan Pacific one. (Laughter) And as I prepared to govern, I realized that given
the diversity of Stockton, the first step to making change
will be to again answer the same question: Who is our neighbor? And realizing that our destiny as a city
was tied up in everyone. Particularly those who are left
on the side of the road. But then I realized
that charity isn’t justice, that acts of empathy isn’t justice, that being a good neighbor
is necessary but not sufficient, and there was more that had to be done. So looking at the story, I realized that the road,
Jericho Road, has a nickname. It’s known as the Bloody Pass,
the Ascent of Red, because the road
is structured for violence. This Jericho Road is narrow,
it’s conducive for ambushing. Meaning, a man on the side
of the road wasn’t abnormal. Wasn’t strange. And in fact, it was something
that was structured to happen, it was supposed to happen. And Johan Galtung, a peace theorist, talks about structural
violence in our society. He says, “Structural violence
is the avoidable impairment of basic human needs.” Dr. Paul Farmer talks
about structural violence and talks about how it’s the way our institutions,
our policies, our culture creates outcomes that advantage
some people and disadvantage others. And then I realized,
much like the road in Jericho, in many ways, Stockton, our society, has been structured
for the outcomes we complain about. That we should not be surprised when we see that kids in poverty
don’t do well in school, that we should not be surprised
to see wealth gaps by race and ethnicity. We should not be surprised to see
income pay disparities between genders, because that’s what our society,
historically, has been structured to do, and it’s working accordingly. (Applause) So taking this wisdom, I rolled up my sleeves and began to work. And there’s three quick stories
I want to share, that point to not that we
figured everything out, not that we have arrived, but we’re trending in the right direction. The first story, about the neighbor. When I was a city council member, I was working with one of the most
conservative members in our community on opening a health clinic
for undocumented people in the south part of the city,
and I loved it. And as we opened the clinic, we had a resolution to sign, he presented me a gift. It was an O’Reilly Factor
lifetime membership pin. (Laughter) Mind you, I didn’t ask
what he did to get such a gift. What blood oath —
I had no idea how he got it. But I looked at him and I said, “Well, how are we working together
to open a health clinic, to provide free health care
for undocumented people, and you’re an O’Reilly Factor member?” He looked at me and said, “Councilman Tubbs,
this is for my neighbors.” And he’s a great example of what it means to be a good neighbor,
at least in that instance. The robbers. So after four years on city council,
I decided to run for mayor, realizing that being a part-time
councilman wasn’t enough to enact the structural
changes we need to see in Stockton, and I came to that conclusion
by looking at the data. So my old council district,
where I grew up, is 10 minutes away
from a more affluent district. And 10 minutes away in the same city, the difference between
zip code 95205 and 95219 in life expectancy is 10 years. Ten minutes away, 4.5 miles, 10 years life expectancy difference, and not because of the choices
people are making. Because no one chose
to live in an unsafe community where they can’t exercise. No one chose to put more liquor stores
than grocery stores in the community. No one chose these things,
but that’s the reality. I realized, as a councilman, to enact a structural change
I wanted to see, where between the same zip codes there’s a 30 percent difference
in the rate of unemployment, there’s a 75,000 dollars a year
difference in income, that being a councilman
was not going to cut it. So that’s when I decided to run for mayor. And as mayor, we’ve been focused
on the robbers and the road. So in Stockton, as I mentioned, we have historically had problems
with violent crime. In fact, that’s why I decided
to run for office in the first place. And my first job as mayor
was helping our community to see ourselves, our neighbors, not just in the people
victimized by violence but also in the perpetrators. We realized that those
who enact pain in our society, those who are committing homicides
and contributing to gun violence, are oftentimes victims themselves. They have high rates of trauma,
they have been shot at, they’ve known people who have been shot. That doesn’t excuse their behavior,
but it helps explain it, and as a community,
we have to see these folks as us, too. That they too are our neighbors. So for the past three years — (Applause) So for the past three years,
we’ve been working on two strategies: Ceasefire and Advance Peace, where we give these guys
as much attention, as much love from social services,
from opportunities, from tattoo removals, in some cases even cash, as a gift from law enforcement. And last year, we saw
a 40 percent reduction in homicides and a 30 percent reduction
in violent crime. (Applause) And now, the road. I mentioned that my community
has a 23 percent poverty rate. As someone who comes from poverty,
it’s a personal issue for me. So I decided that we
wouldn’t just do a program, or we wouldn’t just do something
to go around the edges, but we would call into question
the very structure that produces poverty in the first place. So starting in February,
we launched a basic income demonstration, where for the next 18 months, as a pilot, 130 families,
randomly selected, who live in zip codes at or below
the median income of the city, are given 500 dollars a month. And we’re doing this
for a couple of reasons. We’re doing it because we realize that something is structurally
wrong in America, when one in two Americans
can’t afford one 400-dollar emergency. We’re doing it because we realize
that something is structurally wrong when wages have only increased
six percent between 1979 and 2013. We’re doing it because we realize
something is structurally wrong when people working two and three jobs, doing all the jobs
no one in here wants to do, can’t pay for necessities, like rent, like lights, like health care,
like childcare. (Applause) So I would say, Stockton again,
we have real issues. I have constituent emails in my phone now,
about the homelessness issue, about some of the violent crime
we’re still experiencing. But I would say, I think as a society,
we would be wise to go back to those old Bible stories
we were taught growing up, and understand that number one, we have to begin to see
each other as neighbors, that when we see someone
different from us, they should not reflect our fears,
our anxieties, our insecurities, the prejudices we’ve been taught,
our biases — but we should see ourselves. We should see our common humanity. Because I think once we do that, we can do the more important work
of restructuring the road. Because again, I understand
some listening are saying, “Well, Mayor Tubbs, you’re talking about
structural violence and structural this, but you’re on the stage. That the structures can’t be too bad
if you could come up from poverty, have a father in jail, go to Stanford, work in the White House and become mayor.” And I would respond by saying
the term for that is exceptionalism. Meaning that we recognize it’s exceptional
for people to escape the structures. Meaning by our very language, we understand that the things we’re seeing
in our world are by design. And I think that task for us, as TEDsters, and as good people,
just people, moral people, is really do the hard work necessary
of not just joining hands as neighbors, but using our hands
to restructure our road, a road that in this country has been
rooted in things like white supremacy. A road like in this country
has been rooted in things like misogyny. A road that’s not working
for far too many people. And I think today, tomorrow and 2020
we have a chance to change that. So as I prepare to close, I started with a story from nine years ago
and I’ll end with one. So after my cousin was murdered, I was lucky enough
to go on the Freedom Rides with some of the original freedom riders. And they taught me a lot
about restructuring the road. And one guy in particular,
Bob Singleton, asked me a question I’m going to leave with us today. We were going to Anniston,
Alabama, and he said, “Michael,” and I said, “Yes, sir.” He said, “I was arrested
on August 4, 1961. Now why is that day important?” And I said, “Well, you were arrested, if you weren’t arrested,
we wouldn’t be on this bus. if we weren’t on this bus,
we wouldn’t have the rights we enjoy.” He rolled his eyes and said, “No, son.” He said, “On that day,
Barack Obama was born.” And then he said he had no idea
that the choice he made to restructure the road would pave the way, so a child born as a second class citizen, who wouldn’t be able to even get
a cup of water at a counter, would have the chance,
50 years later, to be president. Then he looked at me and he said, “What are you prepared to do today so that 50 years from now a child born has a chance
to be president?” And I think, TED, that’s
the question before us today. We know things are jacked up. I think what we’ve seen
recently isn’t abnormal but a reflection of a system
that’s been structured to produce such crazy outcomes. But I think it’s also an opportunity. Because these structures we inherit
aren’t acts of God but acts of men and women,
they’re policy choices, they’re by politicians like me,
approved by voters like you. And we have the chance
and the awesome opportunity to do something about it. So my question is:
What are we prepared to do today, so that a child born today,
50 years from now isn’t born in a society
rooted in white supremacy; isn’t born into a society
riddled with misogyny; isn’t born into a society riddled
with homophobia and transphobia and anti-Semitism
and Islamophobia and ableism, and all the phobias and -isms? What are we prepared to do today, so that 50 years from now we have a road in our society
that’s structured to reflect what we hold
to be self-evident? That all men, that all women, that even all trans people are created equal and are endowed by your Creator
with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. Thank you. (Applause)