Press "Enter" to skip to content

How the Net destroyed democracy | Lawrence Lessig | TEDxBerlinSalon


[Applause]

[Applause] so I’ve spent most of my career as an

so I’ve spent most of my career as an

so I’ve spent most of my career as an apologist for the Internet and the last

apologist for the Internet and the last

apologist for the Internet and the last 10 years of my career as a critic of

10 years of my career as a critic of

10 years of my career as a critic of governments in particular of the United

governments in particular of the United

governments in particular of the United States government and in the background

States government and in the background

States government and in the background of that apology and the background of

of that apology and the background of

of that apology and the background of that criticism there has been a glorious

that criticism there has been a glorious

that criticism there has been a glorious group called the people never criticized

group called the people never criticized

group called the people never criticized by me never questioned never questioned

by me never questioned never questioned

by me never questioned never questioned that at the core of democracy there was

that at the core of democracy there was

that at the core of democracy there was a well-functioning idea called We the

a well-functioning idea called We the

a well-functioning idea called We the People if only we could speak so today I

People if only we could speak so today I

People if only we could speak so today I don’t want to apologize for the net

don’t want to apologize for the net

don’t want to apologize for the net anymore I want to criticize it and I

anymore I want to criticize it and I

anymore I want to criticize it and I don’t want to talk about the corruption

don’t want to talk about the corruption

don’t want to talk about the corruption of government I want to ignore it and I

of government I want to ignore it and I

of government I want to ignore it and I don’t want to praise we the people I

don’t want to praise we the people I

don’t want to praise we the people I want to show you just how pathetic we

want to show you just how pathetic we

want to show you just how pathetic we have become we’re at least how pathetic

have become we’re at least how pathetic

have become we’re at least how pathetic we are understood because unless we find

we are understood because unless we find

we are understood because unless we find a way to recover a reason for democracy

a way to recover a reason for democracy

a way to recover a reason for democracy there is no fight for democracy to be

there is no fight for democracy to be

there is no fight for democracy to be had so I want to start with two things

had so I want to start with two things

had so I want to start with two things we could call them thing one and thing

we could call them thing one and thing

we could call them thing one and thing two thing one I want you to think about

two thing one I want you to think about

two thing one I want you to think about common knowledge knowledge held by all

common knowledge knowledge held by all

common knowledge knowledge held by all of us and thing two I want you to think

of us and thing two I want you to think

of us and thing two I want you to think about common will so common knowledge

about common will so common knowledge

about common will so common knowledge things known generally within a people

things known generally within a people

things known generally within a people everyone knows there was a wall in

everyone knows there was a wall in

everyone knows there was a wall in Berlin everyone knows this is our

Berlin everyone knows this is our

Berlin everyone knows this is our president everyone knows that most

president everyone knows that most

president everyone knows that most Americans don’t like that president

Americans don’t like that president

Americans don’t like that president these are common knowledge among

these are common knowledge among

these are common knowledge among Americans at least and then there’s

Americans at least and then there’s

Americans at least and then there’s common will what we want or we believe

common will what we want or we believe

common will what we want or we believe so Gallup tells us that Americans

so Gallup tells us that Americans

so Gallup tells us that Americans believe the freedom in their life has

believe the freedom in their life has

believe the freedom in their life has contracted over the last decade tells us

contracted over the last decade tells us

contracted over the last decade tells us that the confidence in the economy has

that the confidence in the economy has

that the confidence in the economy has grown and just to remind you it tells us

grown and just to remind you it tells us

grown and just to remind you it tells us that most Americans don’t like Donald

that most Americans don’t like Donald

that most Americans don’t like Donald Trump as our president these are the

Trump as our president these are the

Trump as our president these are the elements of common will so think one

elements of common will so think one

elements of common will so think one thing to seeing one things we know thing

thing to seeing one things we know thing

thing to seeing one things we know thing two things we want it’s good to get that

two things we want it’s good to get that

two things we want it’s good to get that order right if you want things before

order right if you want things before

order right if you want things before you know you get into trouble so we know

you know you get into trouble so we know

you know you get into trouble so we know before we want thing one versus thing

before we want thing one versus thing

before we want thing one versus thing two now what I want you to do is to

two now what I want you to do is to

two now what I want you to do is to think about thing one and thing two and

think about thing one and thing two and

think about thing one and thing two and three different periods over the last

three different periods over the last

three different periods over the last 200 years

200 years

200 years so first the period of the 19th century

so first the period of the 19th century

so first the period of the 19th century very cleverly took iconic images from

very cleverly took iconic images from

very cleverly took iconic images from Berlin but I’m not talking about Berlin

Berlin but I’m not talking about Berlin

Berlin but I’m not talking about Berlin I want to talk about America but iconic

I want to talk about America but iconic

I want to talk about America but iconic images from the 19th century in Berlin

images from the 19th century in Berlin

images from the 19th century in Berlin 20th century in Berlin and the 21st

20th century in Berlin and the 21st

20th century in Berlin and the 21st century in Berlin these images to

century in Berlin these images to

century in Berlin these images to trigger recognition of different periods

trigger recognition of different periods

trigger recognition of different periods so let’s start with the 19th century and

so let’s start with the 19th century and

so let’s start with the 19th century and question thing one asks how did we know

question thing one asks how did we know

question thing one asks how did we know in the 19th century well in the 19th

in the 19th century well in the 19th

in the 19th century well in the 19th century people knew or those who knew

century people knew or those who knew

century people knew or those who knew knew through technologies like this

knew through technologies like this

knew through technologies like this printed journals newspapers many many

printed journals newspapers many many

printed journals newspapers many many sources which would filter out to

sources which would filter out to

sources which would filter out to produce knowledge in a public fragmented

produce knowledge in a public fragmented

produce knowledge in a public fragmented and diverse there’s no Broadcasting in

and diverse there’s no Broadcasting in

and diverse there’s no Broadcasting in the 19th century no real syndication at

the 19th century no real syndication at

the 19th century no real syndication at least in the United States in the 19th

least in the United States in the 19th

least in the United States in the 19th century to the extent there is common

century to the extent there is common

century to the extent there is common knowledge common knowledge

knowledge common knowledge

knowledge common knowledge it is little and thin there are certain

it is little and thin there are certain

it is little and thin there are certain facts everyone knows that there was a

facts everyone knows that there was a

facts everyone knows that there was a war called the Civil War who the

war called the Civil War who the

war called the Civil War who the president is but facts like whether the

president is but facts like whether the

president is but facts like whether the tariff should go up and down those are

tariff should go up and down those are

tariff should go up and down those are not things that ordinary people knew but

not things that ordinary people knew but

not things that ordinary people knew but if you would ask the question what did

if you would ask the question what did

if you would ask the question what did ordinary people know or what did they

ordinary people know or what did they

ordinary people know or what did they want the proper answer in the 19th

want the proper answer in the 19th

want the proper answer in the 19th century was who

century was who

century was who frac knows because there was no

frac knows because there was no

frac knows because there was no technology to know what people wanted

technology to know what people wanted

technology to know what people wanted there was no polling there were no

there was no polling there were no

there was no polling there were no surveys people like James Bryce had

surveys people like James Bryce had

surveys people like James Bryce had mystical theories about how politicians

mystical theories about how politicians

mystical theories about how politicians came to know what the people wanted but

came to know what the people wanted but

came to know what the people wanted but in fact it was more like a Catholic

in fact it was more like a Catholic

in fact it was more like a Catholic priest or this is a Methodist priest but

priest or this is a Methodist priest but

priest or this is a Methodist priest but anyway a priest telling us what God

anyway a priest telling us what God

anyway a priest telling us what God wants never really believing we know

wants never really believing we know

wants never really believing we know what God actually wants just the priests

what God actually wants just the priests

what God actually wants just the priests interpretation that’s all we have and

interpretation that’s all we have and

interpretation that’s all we have and the consequence was that the will of the

the consequence was that the will of the

the consequence was that the will of the people was actually pretty irrelevant to

people was actually pretty irrelevant to

people was actually pretty irrelevant to most of what government does if somebody

most of what government does if somebody

most of what government does if somebody had stood up and very earnestly said

had stood up and very earnestly said

had stood up and very earnestly said what does the public want to a

what does the public want to a

what does the public want to a government official the reaction would

government official the reaction would

government official the reaction would have been sort of minion like ha ha yes

have been sort of minion like ha ha yes

have been sort of minion like ha ha yes sure as if that could possibly matter

sure as if that could possibly matter

sure as if that could possibly matter policymaking in the 19th century was by

policymaking in the 19th century was by

policymaking in the 19th century was by policy making elites so we have a 19th

policy making elites so we have a 19th

policy making elites so we have a 19th century knowledge fragmented what the

century knowledge fragmented what the

century knowledge fragmented what the people cared about basically unknown

people cared about basically unknown

people cared about basically unknown then the 20th century how do we know in

then the 20th century how do we know in

then the 20th century how do we know in the 20th century well the 20th century

the 20th century well the 20th century

the 20th century well the 20th century has two extraordinary technologies we

has two extraordinary technologies we

has two extraordinary technologies we need to reckon and to think about first

need to reckon and to think about first

need to reckon and to think about first a technology of broadcasting for the

a technology of broadcasting for the

a technology of broadcasting for the first time we have the capacity to speak

first time we have the capacity to speak

first time we have the capacity to speak to everybody at the same time and

to everybody at the same time and

to everybody at the same time and broadcasting dramatically affects news

broadcasting dramatically affects news

broadcasting dramatically affects news as leaders go to the radio to speak to

as leaders go to the radio to speak to

as leaders go to the radio to speak to the people for the first time and it

the people for the first time and it

the people for the first time and it affects culture generally far beyond

affects culture generally far beyond

affects culture generally far beyond issues of policy and this troubled many

issues of policy and this troubled many

issues of policy and this troubled many people in the history of culture 1906

people in the history of culture 1906

people in the history of culture 1906 this man John Philip Sousa went to the

this man John Philip Sousa went to the

this man John Philip Sousa went to the United States Capitol to testify against

United States Capitol to testify against

United States Capitol to testify against the evil technology called

the evil technology called

the evil technology called the talking machines Sousa was not a fan

the talking machines Sousa was not a fan

the talking machines Sousa was not a fan of the talking machines as he testified

of the talking machines as he testified

of the talking machines as he testified these talking machines are going to ruin

these talking machines are going to ruin

these talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in

the artistic development of music in

the artistic development of music in this country when I was a boy in front

this country when I was a boy in front

this country when I was a boy in front of every house you would in the summer

of every house you would in the summer

of every house you would in the summer evenings you would find young people

evenings you would find young people

evenings you would find young people together singing the songs of the day of

together singing the songs of the day of

together singing the songs of the day of the old songs today you hear these

the old songs today you hear these

the old songs today you hear these infernal machines going night and day

infernal machines going night and day

infernal machines going night and day we will not have a vocal cord left Sousa

we will not have a vocal cord left Sousa

we will not have a vocal cord left Sousa threatens the vocal cords will be

threatens the vocal cords will be

threatens the vocal cords will be eliminated by a process of evolution as

eliminated by a process of evolution as

eliminated by a process of evolution as was the tale of man when he came from

was the tale of man when he came from

was the tale of man when he came from the apes what Sousa feared here

the apes what Sousa feared here

the apes what Sousa feared here was it a certain technology technology

was it a certain technology technology

was it a certain technology technology of broadcasting or the technology of

of broadcasting or the technology of

of broadcasting or the technology of music in record players would make a

music in record players would make a

music in record players would make a certain kind of culture kind of couch

certain kind of culture kind of couch

certain kind of culture kind of couch potato culture a passive receptive

potato culture a passive receptive

potato culture a passive receptive culture that would not engage in

culture that would not engage in

culture that would not engage in creation on its own but consume creation

creation on its own but consume creation

creation on its own but consume creation produced elsewhere and that was the fear

produced elsewhere and that was the fear

produced elsewhere and that was the fear in politics too but an extraordinary

in politics too but an extraordinary

in politics too but an extraordinary technology that the birth of the 19th

technology that the birth of the 19th

technology that the birth of the 19th 20th century nobody ever thought about

20th century nobody ever thought about

20th century nobody ever thought about radically changed that affect the

radically changed that affect the

radically changed that affect the television and as an extraordinary

television and as an extraordinary

television and as an extraordinary scholar from Princeton Marcus Pryor has

scholar from Princeton Marcus Pryor has

scholar from Princeton Marcus Pryor has shown us through an incredible empirical

shown us through an incredible empirical

shown us through an incredible empirical analysis of political attitudes as it

analysis of political attitudes as it

analysis of political attitudes as it relates to the technology of

relates to the technology of

relates to the technology of broadcasting technology of television

broadcasting technology of television

broadcasting technology of television changed everything not just because of

changed everything not just because of

changed everything not just because of the concentration one or two channels

the concentration one or two channels

the concentration one or two channels that broadcast everything and indeed

that broadcast everything and indeed

that broadcast everything and indeed there was an extraordinary concentration

there was an extraordinary concentration

there was an extraordinary concentration sir Agnew writes at least 40 million

sir Agnew writes at least 40 million

sir Agnew writes at least 40 million Americans every night watched the

Americans every night watched the

Americans every night watched the network news in 1969 according to Harris

network news in 1969 according to Harris

network news in 1969 according to Harris polls in other studies for millions of

polls in other studies for millions of

polls in other studies for millions of Americans the networks are the sole

Americans the networks are the sole

Americans the networks are the sole source of national and world news even

source of national and world news even

source of national and world news even in 1977 news in this sense ninety

in 1977 news in this sense ninety

in 1977 news in this sense ninety percent of people got their news from

percent of people got their news from

percent of people got their news from three television networks so there’s an

three television networks so there’s an

three television networks so there’s an extraordinary concentration in the

extraordinary concentration in the

extraordinary concentration in the information people are exposed to but

information people are exposed to but

information people are exposed to but more than the concentration is priors

more than the concentration is priors

more than the concentration is priors demonstrates it’s also a certain kind of

demonstrates it’s also a certain kind of

demonstrates it’s also a certain kind of addiction people can’t turn the

addiction people can’t turn the

addiction people can’t turn the television off and not just in the 80s

television off and not just in the 80s

television off and not just in the 80s of the 90s but in the 1950s the

of the 90s but in the 1950s the

of the 90s but in the 1950s the television is turned on and just left on

television is turned on and just left on

television is turned on and just left on in the United States for those times of

in the United States for those times of

in the United States for those times of the day when the television is running

the day when the television is running

the day when the television is running always in the background and there’s a

always in the background and there’s a

always in the background and there’s a regular pattern to the day and if part

regular pattern to the day and if part

regular pattern to the day and if part of the day everybody

of the day everybody

of the day everybody is watching the news and what that does

is watching the news and what that does

is watching the news and what that does by putting the news through a channel

by putting the news through a channel

by putting the news through a channel that was inherently understandable to

that was inherently understandable to

that was inherently understandable to everybody was that we had a media that

everybody was that we had a media that

everybody was that we had a media that conveyed the news so that ordinary as

conveyed the news so that ordinary as

conveyed the news so that ordinary as well as elite citizens understood it for

well as elite citizens understood it for

well as elite citizens understood it for the first time this wasn’t speaking just

the first time this wasn’t speaking just

the first time this wasn’t speaking just to an elite in journals or newspapers

to an elite in journals or newspapers

to an elite in journals or newspapers that only the highbrow would consume

that only the highbrow would consume

that only the highbrow would consume everybody consumed it and what that did

everybody consumed it and what that did

everybody consumed it and what that did was to produce an extraordinarily

was to produce an extraordinarily

was to produce an extraordinarily egalitarian exposure to politics and in

egalitarian exposure to politics and in

egalitarian exposure to politics and in America radically changed who voted

America radically changed who voted

America radically changed who voted instead of just polarized extremes

instead of just polarized extremes

instead of just polarized extremes voting what Pryor demonstrates is that

voting what Pryor demonstrates is that

voting what Pryor demonstrates is that ordinary Americans who otherwise never

ordinary Americans who otherwise never

ordinary Americans who otherwise never were involved in politics turned out and

were involved in politics turned out and

were involved in politics turned out and voted and shifted America fundamentally

voted and shifted America fundamentally

voted and shifted America fundamentally towards what you would not recognize as

towards what you would not recognize as

towards what you would not recognize as the left but in America we think of as

the left but in America we think of as

the left but in America we think of as the left more citizens were engaged and

the left more citizens were engaged and

the left more citizens were engaged and the made in mainstream trusted sources

the made in mainstream trusted sources

the made in mainstream trusted sources because of course the three news

because of course the three news

because of course the three news channels shot right down the middle and

channels shot right down the middle and

channels shot right down the middle and they created characters like Walter

they created characters like Walter

they created characters like Walter Cronkite who conveyed a sense of trust

Cronkite who conveyed a sense of trust

Cronkite who conveyed a sense of trust in the public that the public followed

in the public that the public followed

in the public that the public followed it developed a common understanding

it developed a common understanding

it developed a common understanding common understanding which was thick and

common understanding which was thick and

common understanding which was thick and great a common set of facts sensible

great a common set of facts sensible

great a common set of facts sensible judgments shared by millions of

judgments shared by millions of

judgments shared by millions of Americans now don’t get me wrong I don’t

Americans now don’t get me wrong I don’t

Americans now don’t get me wrong I don’t mean to idolize what people believed at

mean to idolize what people believed at

mean to idolize what people believed at the time there was an obliviousness

the time there was an obliviousness

the time there was an obliviousness about race and obliviousness about

about race and obliviousness about

about race and obliviousness about poverty and obliviousness about issues

poverty and obliviousness about issues

poverty and obliviousness about issues nobody even thought about like sexual

nobody even thought about like sexual

nobody even thought about like sexual orientation there was all sorts of ways

orientation there was all sorts of ways

orientation there was all sorts of ways the system was biased but my point is

the system was biased but my point is

the system was biased but my point is the architecture at least made it

the architecture at least made it

the architecture at least made it possible for a public to understand a

possible for a public to understand a

possible for a public to understand a common set of questions and issues which

common set of questions and issues which

common set of questions and issues which they must themselves address politically

they must themselves address politically

they must themselves address politically it made sense a few sources concentrated

it made sense a few sources concentrated

it made sense a few sources concentrated everywhere okay that’s the first big

everywhere okay that’s the first big

everywhere okay that’s the first big change in technology the second relates

change in technology the second relates

change in technology the second relates to thing too because then you ask what

to thing too because then you ask what

to thing too because then you ask what is the public’s will the other thing the

is the public’s will the other thing the

is the public’s will the other thing the 20th century did was to provide a huge

20th century did was to provide a huge

20th century did was to provide a huge change as poor as important as the

change as poor as important as the

change as poor as important as the change of broadcasting and that change

change of broadcasting and that change

change of broadcasting and that change was really triggered by this

was really triggered by this

was really triggered by this extraordinary man George Gallup now

extraordinary man George Gallup now

extraordinary man George Gallup now Gallup of course you know is Gallup

Gallup of course you know is Gallup

Gallup of course you know is Gallup polls but Gallup began in 1936 as a

polls but Gallup began in 1936 as a

polls but Gallup began in 1936 as a figure in America because in 1936 there

figure in America because in 1936 there

figure in America because in 1936 there was an election the third time that FDR

was an election the third time that FDR

was an election the third time that FDR sorry second time FDR was going to be

sorry second time FDR was going to be

sorry second time FDR was going to be elected and when FDR ran for this his

elected and when FDR ran for this his

elected and when FDR ran for this his re-election by this time the elite in

re-election by this time the elite in

re-election by this time the elite in America was tired of this socialist I’m

America was tired of this socialist I’m

America was tired of this socialist I’m sorry Democratic Socialist running the

sorry Democratic Socialist running the

sorry Democratic Socialist running the country so the view of the elite was

country so the view of the elite was

country so the view of the elite was that he was going to be defeated and

that he was going to be defeated and

that he was going to be defeated and what literary digest did every election

what literary digest did every election

what literary digest did every election from Calvin Coolidge until FDR was that

from Calvin Coolidge until FDR was that

from Calvin Coolidge until FDR was that they would send out millions of ballots

they would send out millions of ballots

they would send out millions of ballots to people to ask them who they were

to people to ask them who they were

to people to ask them who they were gonna vote for and these millions of

gonna vote for and these millions of

gonna vote for and these millions of ballots would be sent back and they

ballots would be sent back and they

ballots would be sent back and they tallied them and they would predict who

tallied them and they would predict who

tallied them and they would predict who was going to win in every election until

was going to win in every election until

was going to win in every election until 1936 they were spot on within one or two

1936 they were spot on within one or two

1936 they were spot on within one or two points so they believed they had a

points so they believed they had a

points so they believed they had a system for polling down it just was

system for polling down it just was

system for polling down it just was unfortunately very expensive because you

unfortunately very expensive because you

unfortunately very expensive because you had to send out millions and millions of

had to send out millions and millions of

had to send out millions and millions of ballots well George Gallup looked at

ballots well George Gallup looked at

ballots well George Gallup looked at this he said wait a minute

this he said wait a minute

this he said wait a minute the views of people who owned

the views of people who owned

the views of people who owned automobiles or people who owned

automobiles or people who owned

automobiles or people who owned telephones the perfuse of the people who

telephones the perfuse of the people who

telephones the perfuse of the people who literary digest was reaching out to

literary digest was reaching out to

literary digest was reaching out to don’t represent the country because they

don’t represent the country because they

don’t represent the country because they are rich people and what I think we

are rich people and what I think we

are rich people and what I think we should do is instead randomly select

should do is instead randomly select

should do is instead randomly select people from the country and go out and

people from the country and go out and

people from the country and go out and talk to them not millions just a couple

talk to them not millions just a couple

talk to them not millions just a couple thousand and so whereas literary digest

thousand and so whereas literary digest

thousand and so whereas literary digest predicted Alf Landen would beat FDR 57

predicted Alf Landen would beat FDR 57

predicted Alf Landen would beat FDR 57 percent to 42 percent when Gallup was

percent to 42 percent when Gallup was

percent to 42 percent when Gallup was finished he said actually I think it’s

finished he said actually I think it’s

finished he said actually I think it’s going to be FDR winning by fifty four

going to be FDR winning by fifty four

going to be FDR winning by fifty four percent over Alf Landen and in fact the

percent over Alf Landen and in fact the

percent over Alf Landen and in fact the results were FDR beat him by 61 percent

results were FDR beat him by 61 percent

results were FDR beat him by 61 percent but with that defeat radical change in

but with that defeat radical change in

but with that defeat radical change in the tech

the tech

the tech nology of polling and George Gallup was

nology of polling and George Gallup was

nology of polling and George Gallup was a star and in a certain sense he was the

a star and in a certain sense he was the

a star and in a certain sense he was the Martin Luther of democracy right because

Martin Luther of democracy right because

Martin Luther of democracy right because he said we don’t have to talk to the

he said we don’t have to talk to the

he said we don’t have to talk to the priests we can talk directly to the

priests we can talk directly to the

priests we can talk directly to the people we can reach directly to the

people we can reach directly to the

people we can reach directly to the people to know in a practical way what

people to know in a practical way what

people to know in a practical way what the people want and indeed James Bryce

the people want and indeed James Bryce

the people want and indeed James Bryce who thought that there was a mystical

who thought that there was a mystical

who thought that there was a mystical way that we might be able to reach the

way that we might be able to reach the

way that we might be able to reach the people in visions in the 19th century a

people in visions in the 19th century a

people in visions in the 19th century a final stage in the evolution of

final stage in the evolution of

final stage in the evolution of democracy would be reached if the will

democracy would be reached if the will

democracy would be reached if the will of the citizens were to become

of the citizens were to become

of the citizens were to become ascertainable at all times and that’s

ascertainable at all times and that’s

ascertainable at all times and that’s precisely what George Gallup believed he

precisely what George Gallup believed he

precisely what George Gallup believed he was doing and he believed he was doing

was doing and he believed he was doing

was doing and he believed he was doing it in the name of supporting democracy

it in the name of supporting democracy

it in the name of supporting democracy for myself I have no hesitation Gallup

for myself I have no hesitation Gallup

for myself I have no hesitation Gallup wrote in living in a country whose

wrote in living in a country whose

wrote in living in a country whose everyday citizens feel about major

everyday citizens feel about major

everyday citizens feel about major issues as the citizens of our country

issues as the citizens of our country

issues as the citizens of our country feel if you say let the people rule you

feel if you say let the people rule you

feel if you say let the people rule you can count me on your side now the

can count me on your side now the

can count me on your side now the technology was expensive so there are

technology was expensive so there are

technology was expensive so there are relatively few polls early on but

relatively few polls early on but

relatively few polls early on but through the course of the 20th centuries

through the course of the 20th centuries

through the course of the 20th centuries of rising importance making in a sense a

of rising importance making in a sense a

of rising importance making in a sense a respectable public because the public in

respectable public because the public in

respectable public because the public in part because of what I described as

part because of what I described as

part because of what I described as thing one was a public where we all knew

thing one was a public where we all knew

thing one was a public where we all knew we all had a common knowledge upon which

we all had a common knowledge upon which

we all had a common knowledge upon which to base our judgments about public

to base our judgments about public

to base our judgments about public policy we all judge in common and what

policy we all judge in common and what

policy we all judge in common and what that produced was sensible judgments

that produced was sensible judgments

that produced was sensible judgments that people like George Gallup could

that people like George Gallup could

that people like George Gallup could celebrate of a general public that

celebrate of a general public that

celebrate of a general public that understood and made sense so its 20th

understood and made sense so its 20th

understood and made sense so its 20th century is a century of concentrated

century is a century of concentrated

century is a century of concentrated information where the public’s views

information where the public’s views

information where the public’s views known and increasingly respected okay

known and increasingly respected okay

known and increasingly respected okay what about the twenty-first century well

what about the twenty-first century well

what about the twenty-first century well first how do we know what’s how do

first how do we know what’s how do

first how do we know what’s how do people come to know things in 21st

people come to know things in 21st

people come to know things in 21st century it’s back to the future because

century it’s back to the future because

century it’s back to the future because of course broadcasting is finished in

of course broadcasting is finished in

of course broadcasting is finished in the United States the way we know things

the United States the way we know things

the United States the way we know things is through a billion sources not three

is through a billion sources not three

is through a billion sources not three anymore and the most important

anymore and the most important

anymore and the most important of those sources our social media

of those sources our social media

of those sources our social media sources increasingly completely

sources increasingly completely

sources increasingly completely uncontrolled by any form of editor

uncontrolled by any form of editor

uncontrolled by any form of editor Donald Trump did me the favor yesterday

Donald Trump did me the favor yesterday

Donald Trump did me the favor yesterday of tweeting a relevant tweet he wrote

of tweeting a relevant tweet he wrote

of tweeting a relevant tweet he wrote the fake and fraudulent news media is

the fake and fraudulent news media is

the fake and fraudulent news media is working hard to convince Republicans as

working hard to convince Republicans as

working hard to convince Republicans as I should not use social media but

I should not use social media but

I should not use social media but remember I won using social media

remember I won using social media

remember I won using social media now mr. Trump you didn’t win because of

now mr. Trump you didn’t win because of

now mr. Trump you didn’t win because of Twitter you won because you got more

Twitter you won because you got more

Twitter you won because you got more votes than Europe I’m sorry

votes than Europe I’m sorry

votes than Europe I’m sorry forget that just forget the whole point

forget that just forget the whole point

forget that just forget the whole point but the point is this form of expression

but the point is this form of expression

but the point is this form of expression is many sources hugely fragmented public

is many sources hugely fragmented public

is many sources hugely fragmented public a diverse public which of course is a

a diverse public which of course is a

a diverse public which of course is a great thing for cultural issues Game of

great thing for cultural issues Game of

great thing for cultural issues Game of Thrones is something imaginable only in

Thrones is something imaginable only in

Thrones is something imaginable only in our time not in the time of the 60s or

our time not in the time of the 60s or

our time not in the time of the 60s or 70s when it would have to appeal to a

70s when it would have to appeal to a

70s when it would have to appeal to a much more mainstream audience and our

much more mainstream audience and our

much more mainstream audience and our friend Sousa would have loved the

friend Sousa would have loved the

friend Sousa would have loved the technology that enables this kind of

technology that enables this kind of

technology that enables this kind of diversity but though it’s great for

diversity but though it’s great for

diversity but though it’s great for culture it’s terrible for democracy

culture it’s terrible for democracy

culture it’s terrible for democracy because what this fragmentation means is

because what this fragmentation means is

because what this fragmentation means is that there’s no common story no common

that there’s no common story no common

that there’s no common story no common facts radical polarization in what we

facts radical polarization in what we

facts radical polarization in what we know and radical polarization in what we

know and radical polarization in what we

know and radical polarization in what we should do and there’s no better proof of

should do and there’s no better proof of

should do and there’s no better proof of this than this man you probably live in

this than this man you probably live in

this than this man you probably live in circles like I do where people cannot

circles like I do where people cannot

circles like I do where people cannot understand how he’s not being called out

understand how he’s not being called out

understand how he’s not being called out by the umpires of our democracy just

by the umpires of our democracy just

by the umpires of our democracy just pulled off the field for whatever reason

pulled off the field for whatever reason

pulled off the field for whatever reason how is it possible the man is still

how is it possible the man is still

how is it possible the man is still president we wonder doesn’t everyone see

president we wonder doesn’t everyone see

president we wonder doesn’t everyone see how ridiculous this is yet a poll last

how ridiculous this is yet a poll last

how ridiculous this is yet a poll last month found that of people who voted for

month found that of people who voted for

month found that of people who voted for Donald Trump only 2% would not vote for

Donald Trump only 2% would not vote for

Donald Trump only 2% would not vote for him again and in fact more people who

him again and in fact more people who

him again and in fact more people who voted for Hillary Clinton would not vote

voted for Hillary Clinton would not vote

voted for Hillary Clinton would not vote for her again if the election were held

for her again if the election were held

for her again if the election were held a month ago that is because we’ve

a month ago that is because we’ve

a month ago that is because we’ve separated ourselves and we live in

separated ourselves and we live in

separated ourselves and we live in totally different worlds and the reality

totally different worlds and the reality

totally different worlds and the reality we know is completely affected by the

we know is completely affected by the

we know is completely affected by the niche markets of those worlds so you

niche markets of those worlds so you

niche markets of those worlds so you might say okay so we in a sense have

might say okay so we in a sense have

might say okay so we in a sense have gone back to the 19th century fragmented

gone back to the 19th century fragmented

gone back to the 19th century fragmented media once again you might say what’s so

media once again you might say what’s so

media once again you might say what’s so bad about that but it’s not quite

bad about that but it’s not quite

bad about that but it’s not quite the 19th century because yes of course

the 19th century because yes of course

the 19th century because yes of course we’re fragmented again but in the 19th

we’re fragmented again but in the 19th

we’re fragmented again but in the 19th century the will of the people was

century the will of the people was

century the will of the people was silenced they didn’t even know what it

silenced they didn’t even know what it

silenced they didn’t even know what it was but for us today because of the 20th

was but for us today because of the 20th

was but for us today because of the 20th century there’s a normative will of the

century there’s a normative will of the

century there’s a normative will of the people a public that remains and if we

people a public that remains and if we

people a public that remains and if we think of this question of thing to what

think of this question of thing to what

think of this question of thing to what is for us the public’s will we still

is for us the public’s will we still

is for us the public’s will we still know what the public’s will is today all

know what the public’s will is today all

know what the public’s will is today all the time thousands of poles asking us

the time thousands of poles asking us

the time thousands of poles asking us what do we think and these answers get

what do we think and these answers get

what do we think and these answers get used they get used against us because

used they get used against us because

used they get used against us because they have a presumptively normative role

they have a presumptively normative role

they have a presumptively normative role they’re relevant but this will that gets

they’re relevant but this will that gets

they’re relevant but this will that gets identified what we the people believe is

identified what we the people believe is

identified what we the people believe is not informed by common facts this will

not informed by common facts this will

not informed by common facts this will is ignorant I don’t mean stupid

is ignorant I don’t mean stupid

is ignorant I don’t mean stupid I mean ignorant a white guy my age from

I mean ignorant a white guy my age from

I mean ignorant a white guy my age from America is likely to be able to tell you

America is likely to be able to tell you

America is likely to be able to tell you all sorts of things about this activity

all sorts of things about this activity

all sorts of things about this activity I think it’s it’s football right likely

I think it’s it’s football right likely

I think it’s it’s football right likely be able to tell you all sorts of things

be able to tell you all sorts of things

be able to tell you all sorts of things about who’s winning what the stats are

about who’s winning what the stats are

about who’s winning what the stats are blah blah blah I don’t know any of this

blah blah blah I don’t know any of this

blah blah blah I don’t know any of this stuff I don’t know the first thing about

stuff I don’t know the first thing about

stuff I don’t know the first thing about that game my dad used to make me watch

that game my dad used to make me watch

that game my dad used to make me watch it I like like to pretend I liked it

it I like like to pretend I liked it

it I like like to pretend I liked it because I like to be with my dad but I

because I like to be with my dad but I

because I like to be with my dad but I hate the game but that’s not because I’m

hate the game but that’s not because I’m

hate the game but that’s not because I’m stupid

stupid

stupid I’m just ignorant I don’t know anything

I’m just ignorant I don’t know anything

I’m just ignorant I don’t know anything I could learn a lot about this game I

I could learn a lot about this game I

I could learn a lot about this game I could learn I think everything there is

could learn I think everything there is

could learn I think everything there is to know about telling you about this

to know about telling you about this

to know about telling you about this game but I don’t because I don’t want to

game but I don’t because I don’t want to

game but I don’t because I don’t want to I’m ignorant I’m not stupid

I’m ignorant I’m not stupid

I’m ignorant I’m not stupid and so too with us because for us for

and so too with us because for us for

and so too with us because for us for most of us in a democracy life is not

most of us in a democracy life is not

most of us in a democracy life is not politics there are other things to life

politics there are other things to life

politics there are other things to life and for most of us in liberal democracy

and for most of us in liberal democracy

and for most of us in liberal democracy what we do is live with our tribe people

what we do is live with our tribe people

what we do is live with our tribe people like us we live with our friends and

like us we live with our friends and

like us we live with our friends and those two facts mean we don’t know a

those two facts mean we don’t know a

those two facts mean we don’t know a clue about most important issues most of

clue about most important issues most of

clue about most important issues most of the time and if we do we’re likely to be

the time and if we do we’re likely to be

the time and if we do we’re likely to be biased because we’re doing what our

biased because we’re doing what our

biased because we’re doing what our tribe says we don’t know but we could

tribe says we don’t know but we could

tribe says we don’t know but we could know

know

know now that’s bad enough but it gets even

now that’s bad enough but it gets even

now that’s bad enough but it gets even worse because in this business model of

worse because in this business model of

worse because in this business model of media in a fragmented media environment

media in a fragmented media environment

media in a fragmented media environment which the United States is the business

which the United States is the business

which the United States is the business model makes this problem even worse

model makes this problem even worse

model makes this problem even worse because the aim of the business is to

because the aim of the business is to

because the aim of the business is to polarize the aim is to find a way to

polarize the aim is to find a way to

polarize the aim is to find a way to make people even hate each other more

make people even hate each other more

make people even hate each other more because that drives loyalty to the brand

because that drives loyalty to the brand

because that drives loyalty to the brand so think of the problem of science Dan

so think of the problem of science Dan

so think of the problem of science Dan kahan from Yale and others have

kahan from Yale and others have

kahan from Yale and others have developed where they call cultural

developed where they call cultural

developed where they call cultural cognition theory and what this theory

cognition theory and what this theory

cognition theory and what this theory demonstrates massive empirical work is

demonstrates massive empirical work is

demonstrates massive empirical work is that how people view facts not arguments

that how people view facts not arguments

that how people view facts not arguments about what’s good and bad not values

about what’s good and bad not values

about what’s good and bad not values questions but facts is a function of

questions but facts is a function of

questions but facts is a function of your tribe who you are the same facts

your tribe who you are the same facts

your tribe who you are the same facts told the different tribes produce

told the different tribes produce

told the different tribes produce radically different understandings now

radically different understandings now

radically different understandings now that’s depressing

that’s depressing

that’s depressing yeah what’s interesting about that is

yeah what’s interesting about that is

yeah what’s interesting about that is that’s only true with issues that have

that’s only true with issues that have

that’s only true with issues that have become polarized issues on the right

become polarized issues on the right

become polarized issues on the right like climate change where nobody on the

like climate change where nobody on the

like climate change where nobody on the right will admit that climate change is

right will admit that climate change is

right will admit that climate change is caused by humans issues on the left like

caused by humans issues on the left like

caused by humans issues on the left like GMO or no person the left will admit the

GMO or no person the left will admit the

GMO or no person the left will admit the GMOs could be safe to consume so for

GMOs could be safe to consume so for

GMOs could be safe to consume so for example climate change at first

example climate change at first

example climate change at first everybody agreed with climate change in

everybody agreed with climate change in

everybody agreed with climate change in 2008 both McCain and Obama endorsed

2008 both McCain and Obama endorsed

2008 both McCain and Obama endorsed radical changes to deal with climate

radical changes to deal with climate

radical changes to deal with climate change then this extraordinary movie in

change then this extraordinary movie in

change then this extraordinary movie in community truth came out and tied the

community truth came out and tied the

community truth came out and tied the issue to a very polarizing figure a hero

issue to a very polarizing figure a hero

issue to a very polarizing figure a hero of mine but still a polarizing figure Al

of mine but still a polarizing figure Al

of mine but still a polarizing figure Al Gore and after that was done people on

Gore and after that was done people on

Gore and after that was done people on the right can’t hear arguments about

the right can’t hear arguments about

the right can’t hear arguments about climate changes anymore because it’s to

climate changes anymore because it’s to

climate changes anymore because it’s to identify them with Al Gore now what’s

identify them with Al Gore now what’s

identify them with Al Gore now what’s interesting is not all science is

interesting is not all science is

interesting is not all science is partisan like this this you can’t read

partisan like this this you can’t read

partisan like this this you can’t read this but basically what this shows is

this but basically what this shows is

this but basically what this shows is those graphs where the lines are

those graphs where the lines are

those graphs where the lines are diagonal are partisan air questions so

diagonal are partisan air questions so

diagonal are partisan air questions so climate change is the first but those

climate change is the first but those

climate change is the first but those graphs where the black lines are flat

graphs where the black lines are flat

graphs where the black lines are flat are not partisan which means that

are not partisan which means that

are not partisan which means that whether you’re on the right of the Left

whether you’re on the right of the Left

whether you’re on the right of the Left are basically going to believe the same

are basically going to believe the same

are basically going to believe the same thing for those questions of science

thing for those questions of science

thing for those questions of science here’s why this is really terrifying

here’s why this is really terrifying

here’s why this is really terrifying because if the media’s business model is

because if the media’s business model is

because if the media’s business model is to polarize what they’re doing is

to polarize what they’re doing is

to polarize what they’re doing is looking at those non partisan scientific

looking at those non partisan scientific

looking at those non partisan scientific questions and finding ways to make them

questions and finding ways to make them

questions and finding ways to make them partisan they have an interest in a

partisan they have an interest in a

partisan they have an interest in a sense in making us stupid and that

sense in making us stupid and that

sense in making us stupid and that interest manifests itself most violently

interest manifests itself most violently

interest manifests itself most violently in this highly fragmented media

in this highly fragmented media

in this highly fragmented media environment this is a problem it is a

environment this is a problem it is a

environment this is a problem it is a problem for democracy as we get rendered

problem for democracy as we get rendered

problem for democracy as we get rendered ignorance the push against a democracy

ignorance the push against a democracy

ignorance the push against a democracy grows around the world it’s a great book

grows around the world it’s a great book

grows around the world it’s a great book terrible title but great book

terrible title but great book

terrible title but great book technocracy in America which that’s what

technocracy in America which that’s what

technocracy in America which that’s what can we learn from these amazing

can we learn from these amazing

can we learn from these amazing countries Singapore and Switzerland

countries Singapore and Switzerland

countries Singapore and Switzerland which have highly functional governments

which have highly functional governments

which have highly functional governments and the answer as this author puts it is

and the answer as this author puts it is

and the answer as this author puts it is that we should focus less on democracy

that we should focus less on democracy

that we should focus less on democracy and more on governance lesson trying to

and more on governance lesson trying to

and more on governance lesson trying to get democracy writers work on making

get democracy writers work on making

get democracy writers work on making government work that of course is the

government work that of course is the

government work that of course is the precursor to the authoritarianism we see

precursor to the authoritarianism we see

precursor to the authoritarianism we see spreading everywhere in the world my

spreading everywhere in the world my

spreading everywhere in the world my view is the answer is not to reject

view is the answer is not to reject

view is the answer is not to reject democracy the answer is to find a way

democracy the answer is to find a way

democracy the answer is to find a way for democracy to represent us better to

for democracy to represent us better to

for democracy to represent us better to give up the idea that when we talk about

give up the idea that when we talk about

give up the idea that when we talk about we as in we the people we’re talking

we as in we the people we’re talking

we as in we the people we’re talking about what we all happen to think now

about what we all happen to think now

about what we all happen to think now and replace that idea with a conception

and replace that idea with a conception

and replace that idea with a conception of we where what may mean is what we

of we where what may mean is what we

of we where what may mean is what we think when we are informed and

think when we are informed and

think when we are informed and deliberated for any thing about talking

deliberated for any thing about talking

deliberated for any thing about talking to audiences that are not

to audiences that are not

to audiences that are not english-speaking audiences natively as

english-speaking audiences natively as

english-speaking audiences natively as you can make up words like The Liberator

you can make up words like The Liberator

you can make up words like The Liberator doesn’t completely made up word but you

doesn’t completely made up word but you

doesn’t completely made up word but you get the sense right the fact the fact of

get the sense right the fact the fact of

get the sense right the fact the fact of having deliberated okay so the public is

having deliberated okay so the public is

having deliberated okay so the public is deliberated meaning they’ve had a chance

deliberated meaning they’ve had a chance

deliberated meaning they’ve had a chance to talk now I’ve seen such publics I’ve

to talk now I’ve seen such publics I’ve

to talk now I’ve seen such publics I’ve seen such a week I’ve met them they are

seen such a week I’ve met them they are

seen such a week I’ve met them they are extraordinary people here’s a picture of

extraordinary people here’s a picture of

extraordinary people here’s a picture of the one I saw most recently so that

the one I saw most recently so that

the one I saw most recently so that picture comes from this place

picture comes from this place

picture comes from this place that’s Mongolia the Mongolian Parliament

that’s Mongolia the Mongolian Parliament

that’s Mongolia the Mongolian Parliament for mystical reasons passed a law that

for mystical reasons passed a law that

for mystical reasons passed a law that said whenever there’s a change to the

said whenever there’s a change to the

said whenever there’s a change to the Constitution the government has

Constitution the government has

Constitution the government has to pick a random selection of 800

to pick a random selection of 800

to pick a random selection of 800 Mongolians

Mongolians

Mongolians from across Mongolia c’mon goalie is the

from across Mongolia c’mon goalie is the

from across Mongolia c’mon goalie is the size of Western Europe for the

size of Western Europe for the

size of Western Europe for the population of 3 million so here is 800

population of 3 million so here is 800

population of 3 million so here is 800 randomly selected Mongolians

randomly selected Mongolians

randomly selected Mongolians representative who traveled to the

representative who traveled to the

representative who traveled to the capital to sit in the parliament for two

capital to sit in the parliament for two

capital to sit in the parliament for two ten-hour days to deliberate the proposed

ten-hour days to deliberate the proposed

ten-hour days to deliberate the proposed changes to the Constitution now I’m a

changes to the Constitution now I’m a

changes to the Constitution now I’m a law professor at Harvard

law professor at Harvard

law professor at Harvard I am elitist therefore and I’m a pretty

I am elitist therefore and I’m a pretty

I am elitist therefore and I’m a pretty snobby law professor meaning I pretty

snobby law professor meaning I pretty

snobby law professor meaning I pretty regularly condemn people when they start

regularly condemn people when they start

regularly condemn people when they start talking about constitutional laws people

talking about constitutional laws people

talking about constitutional laws people who don’t know anything but i sat there

who don’t know anything but i sat there

who don’t know anything but i sat there through a translator listening to what

through a translator listening to what

through a translator listening to what these ordinary people said and argued

these ordinary people said and argued

these ordinary people said and argued about for two days as they deliberated

about for two days as they deliberated

about for two days as they deliberated these really important changes the

these really important changes the

these really important changes the Constitution and I was humbled by

Constitution and I was humbled by

Constitution and I was humbled by recognition that if you give people the

recognition that if you give people the

recognition that if you give people the information and you give them a sense

information and you give them a sense

information and you give them a sense that they are important and you give

that they are important and you give

that they are important and you give them a chance to talk they are actually

them a chance to talk they are actually

them a chance to talk they are actually worth listening to and that the

worth listening to and that the

worth listening to and that the conception of We the People that we get

conception of We the People that we get

conception of We the People that we get through the stupid press is not a

through the stupid press is not a

through the stupid press is not a conception that reflects who we can be

conception that reflects who we can be

conception that reflects who we can be if we structure who we are in our

if we structure who we are in our

if we structure who we are in our democratic process properly now what

democratic process properly now what

democratic process properly now what they did is something called a

they did is something called a

they did is something called a deliberative poll and there have been

deliberative poll and there have been

deliberative poll and there have been scores of these done across the world

scores of these done across the world

scores of these done across the world but what a deliberative pole is

but what a deliberative pole is

but what a deliberative pole is represents we as representative and

represents we as representative and

represents we as representative and informed and deliberated people making

informed and deliberated people making

informed and deliberated people making judgments that are smart and balanced it

judgments that are smart and balanced it

judgments that are smart and balanced it is a we we can all be proud of it is a

is a we we can all be proud of it is a

is a we we can all be proud of it is a way to represent us the challenge here

way to represent us the challenge here

way to represent us the challenge here is how do you scale such a project and

is how do you scale such a project and

is how do you scale such a project and the truth is the depressing truth is the

the truth is the depressing truth is the

the truth is the depressing truth is the reason I don’t have a witty happy ending

reason I don’t have a witty happy ending

reason I don’t have a witty happy ending to my story is I have no idea not even

to my story is I have no idea not even

to my story is I have no idea not even sure it’s possible what I know is we

sure it’s possible what I know is we

sure it’s possible what I know is we have to resist a media that works hard

have to resist a media that works hard

have to resist a media that works hard to make us seem stupid a media that

to make us seem stupid a media that

to make us seem stupid a media that represents us as stupid yes we don’t

represents us as stupid yes we don’t

represents us as stupid yes we don’t know everything always why would we

know everything always why would we

know everything always why would we that’s not embarrassing we live a life

that’s not embarrassing we live a life

that’s not embarrassing we live a life we are humans

we are humans

we are humans but we can if a democracy learns how to

but we can if a democracy learns how to

but we can if a democracy learns how to listen to us speak in a way that ought

listen to us speak in a way that ought

listen to us speak in a way that ought to be respected and we have to find a

to be respected and we have to find a

to be respected and we have to find a way to recover that truth about us

way to recover that truth about us

way to recover that truth about us because the alternative the alternative

because the alternative the alternative

because the alternative the alternative that imagines us as a people who

that imagines us as a people who

that imagines us as a people who responds the way democracy engages us

responds the way democracy engages us

responds the way democracy engages us today for example again thanks to my

today for example again thanks to my

today for example again thanks to my friend Donald Trump I have a great

friend Donald Trump I have a great

friend Donald Trump I have a great example here he tweeted yesterday my use

example here he tweeted yesterday my use

example here he tweeted yesterday my use of social media is not presidential

of social media is not presidential

of social media is not presidential it’s modern-day presidential make

it’s modern-day presidential make

it’s modern-day presidential make America great again if this is the way

America great again if this is the way

America great again if this is the way our democracy engages with us this is

our democracy engages with us this is

our democracy engages with us this is not just not great about America it is

not just not great about America it is

not just not great about America it is hopeless about the future of democracy

hopeless about the future of democracy

hopeless about the future of democracy we have to find a way to elevate the

we have to find a way to elevate the

we have to find a way to elevate the people again because we are an

people again because we are an

people again because we are an extraordinary resource that makes

extraordinary resource that makes

extraordinary resource that makes democracy work thank you very much

democracy work thank you very much

democracy work thank you very much [Applause]

”

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *