Everything that will be confirmed over the next three months. For a physical calendar of events please silence your cell phones after the author finishes speaking well pass around a microphone please purchase your copy behind the register director of the program of law and the fellow at the center for american progress. Integrate democracy drying on the Political Legal to have two contrasting visions. One set of choices to the oligarchy and alternative course will establish a great democracy and to put in place a system. I am please to welcome. [applause] it is great to see so many people here tonight. And i am excited to talk to about my book the great democracy burke are particularly excited because i really have been thinking about it for almost 20 years. I know that seems crazy because i dont look that all that im not that all left but it is true. I started to think about this book first semester of my freshman year of college. And by it with that political history it is cyclical. And president to establish a coalition and ultimately it would collapse in the new era would start. Now the first person of the ancient greeks and romans in history of american historians like solicitor and then to talk about the business revolutions. But this approach how we think about politics is very differen different. And over the years, what would happen with the next era it was in our history and that is the origin of the book for call because we need to understand our historical moment in context. And our choices for the future. So i make three arguments. The first for the last 40 years in the neoliberal era. We are on the edge of a new era of history since world war ii. The first from the end of world war ii through the seventies that we think of as liberal era. In between the state control communism and fascism, an era of which Big Government and big business and big labor all Work Together with the interests of stakeholders and society. One of the striking things about this era is even conservatives are liberal. Eisenhower spent considerable sums of money to say i am now a keynesian in economics and after a while we saw a crisis of stagflation and then it came roughly in the time of jimmy carter. So just in general at the ford for a lot of people who dont like to use it. Didnt like to call other people neoliberals but as a policy matter the policy component is deregulation and privatization. And austerity. And under neoliberalism they are on their own responsible for themselves. So instead of government corporations and the interest of stakeholders in society the regulator social interest is the marketplace. And with those tony blair to declare the end of labor transforming into new labor. Then after that we come to the era of wars and the great recession, massive levels of inequality. It at the end of that era but we are in right now. And then it comes to an end. Because were at the end of an era and there are some big choices. So one of those choices is the form of neoliberalism to tackle the root structural issues. And to mitigate the worst aspects but for some there is a nostalgic wish to get back to normal but the worry with incremental changes it is just more of the same. And those demagogues wait in the wings. The second approach is a combination of three things of nationalism to the people that delivers the policies that serve the rich and powerful and the rigged political system so the small minority can stay in power. This is the model we see in a lot of different places. But this is the variation of hungary and places as well. This is nationalist oligarchy. In the reason for that is that we just talk about politics. And not the economic components and i think it is important we think about that how we describe it. We think of all three of these areas not just one. But the title is the great democracy to achieve our aspirations. And the third argument of the book and what democracy really is and to think about democracy with elections are very important things. In recent years a lot of commentators and writers and scholars talk about constitutional norms that are also important things. But to require much more out of us. Philosophers and statesmen that democracy could not persist in severe economic inequality. To create the oligarchy or the masses would overthrow the rich. So economic democracy not having too much economic power was essential. Similarly when a society becomes divided by that ideology it is difficult to sustain it requires us to determine our destiny together. To oppose future visions and then democracy cannot succeed. A house divided so solidarity united democracy but neither economic democracy are united as possible about a political democracy. Political scientists have shown over and over our government is responsive for the views of ordinary people. And to be mostly unresponsive is not a democracy at all. And the challenge today we have not truly achieved what democracy requires it is severely restricted before the liberal era. And through the g. I. Bill. And then to build great society. So then to end jim crow and protect whites for women and people of color because they knew that segregation could never mean equality let alone solidarity. The efforts are a massive upheaval in change and real democracy on the horizon but it also brought warfare and with that the old ultimate emergence of the neoliberal era. Then the realization of democracy. Than in those high levels of inequality of race and class and culture and then to serve their own interest. So a new era of democracy we will need an agenda that is commensurate and i offer what such an agenda could look like and then to become a united democracy. Then refused to fall prey for the rich and powerful. And to build solidarity to incorporate from the star and not as an afterthought. So thinking about communities that also means thinking differently about immigration to create opportunities for National Service to all different geographies. And i talk about in half the book and that i talk about these in more detail in the q a. And that is distributed economic power. And then expanded opportunity for everyone and everywhere in america. And the antimonopoly policies to regulate. To think about tax policy and you think about the public provision of services with Broadband Internet things that are important for modern life. And how we can support that engine of growth and opportunity right here. And then to claim that and then to ensure at the same time everyone participates in our democracy. And gerrymandering but if you think very differently about congress in an area that is a considerable influence in the lack of resources to think about challenging questions of technology. And then to see a revolving door. Right into the jobs they are supposed to be regulating. And thinking differently about the judiciary and finally we have to do defend that there are nationalist that actively try to use all forms to undermine our democracy at home. They try to corrupt our leaders and leverage over our companies to use the market power. And then that development at home with that democracy and political democracy like i discussed before it also means to be more connected together and yes in some areas to disentangle with National Security issues at stake. Because of a political democracy does not look backwards but instead it looks forward to the future. As Theodore Roosevelt once said and i recognize the irony to quote somebody is long dead making a claim about the future but he said a great democracy has got to be progressive or it will cease to be either great or a democracy. I think thats right. We have to look forward the neoliberal era is what put us in this moment of crisis. The fight for a great democracy will require courage and resolv resolve. It cannot be nostalgic because it was last within reach from our grasp. So to save democracy in america we have to achieve democracy in america. And that is the hope of the book giving us a blueprint how we can do that. Thank you very much for listening and coming out tonight. I will be happy to answer questions. [applause] with a united democracy. That you pointed out that lincoln set a house divided cannot stand you cant have a country those that on a very fundamental level and the constitution is made for people to provide peaceful structure. So i dont suppose we mean to say we could ever get rid of these very fundamentally different ideas of what direction or maybe you didnt mean to suggest that so could you expand . Thank you so much. With united democracy i think of it as social solidarity and we have a shared sense of who we are as a people and aspirational in large part. But it isnt that we have to be the same. James madison in the federalist papers says whats interesting about america is that this is never supposed to be possible in history and the reason to be a small republic everybody understands the interest and if you get too big you will have all these differences and factions and then to collapse into an oligarchy. So what madison said was actually we can have a larger public is long as there are different interest and no factions emerged and to build the public good. And in a backdrop and in that Constitutional Convention and that degree of similarity among those people and women are not considered part of the Political Community that madison and others were thinking about and that was the foundation for that but the argument is about a sense of a political project. That we see the challenges in each other and it is in contrast to two different things. Where there is zero sum that my winning has to be your losing. And then to think of the role differently. But in terms of the ethics of our democracy. And if you have the conservative writers i worry a lot about liberalism. And then to push too far towards individualism. And that we dont think only about ourselves. And then to talk about it on the conservative side how can we think about that in places where that is built . We can move just beyond the Civil Societies and where we make connections. And then to deepen and also to build a profit and thats why we should think about things like opportunities for service whether military or civilian service and think of ways to build and strengthen neighborhoods and communities together so there is a wide variety of policies to see the community rather than just individuals. [inaudible] i want to press you, i know you are doing a very quick overview but talking about the shift from liberalism to neoliberalism. But we know there are a lot of rich people like the Koch Brothers who systematically after he had a chance to read democracy in chains for she goes into detail that there was a systematic push by a few very wealthy people to advance the neoliberal viewpoint and strategy and the judiciary and academia that over the past 40 years to pushing the ideology and agenda. And im wondering given the reality of the impetus for that position we are in now , what specific ways you would have to address the people and the strategic infrastructure that is now there to push the neoliberalism where we are at today. Thank you. So let me start by separating out a couple of things. First is the idea from the content of if you take this approach with the ancient greeks or romans you can see the independence that there is always a change in history. With a jeffersonian era. And then to push by the agenda. And that of social change and change the world to force us to do things for go that is part of the story that there is no static were equilibrium and things that are changing. So neoliberalism so in the first part of the book i talk about the ideas and origins of the ideas of hayek and friedman and how those ideas got promoted and how they spread in that. I talk a little bit about that in the books you may enjoy the chapters and there are others that go into it in that time. One of the important things to think about with pushing back and when i think about where neoliberalism took us and then to think about markets and then to go back and read hayek and friedman of that late stage neoliberalism and what that looks like. And what happens in these interesting ways it creates all these problems that antitrust for example turns into a set of laws and policies that support monopolies. So where we come to the place we are thinking about money and power linked to gather we have a real problem and thats the place because willing to say we need to invest in Public Resources that we have seen a shift in power internally it hasnt been wellfunctioning other place that is fed into a political system to reinforce the concentration of economic power and that is called the oligarchy to support the rich and powerful they use their influence to create policies that entrench their wealth and power. So the question is how do we get through that quicks so you have to have ideas how to do it. And to combat corruption all of those kinds of ideas and talks about the economic and political domain and one way to think about that if you think about a monopoly it has considerable power and to break it up to have a serious antitrust policy. Any one of whom have a different interest not to have so much influence. There is a relationship between the political democracy the second thing you have to have people that want that to happen. And pushing from the outside. You have to have leaders to make it happen. And we are in washington dc. And then to have people to have people accomplish that change. And thats what allows me to make that change. When an opportunity to do something. And just push for the big change of the three visions for the future how are we already not in the nationalist oligarchy quicks and then to become increasingly corrupt with making America Great again. And im curious on your thoughts on that. So the way i think about this in one of the striking ways is that you cant really know when you are just starting one. You can have the interpretation of the past. See you could imagine a world in which Margaret Thatcher is out of office immediately. Do you have that neoliberal era . May be. May be as delayed. Its hard to know. So it is possible that the nationalist oligarchy is our future and it could be the new normal defining politics for 30 years. But it also doesnt have to be there are choices that are not entrenched. So if they become entrenched when everybody starts to agree. To go back to the both to the era that people on both sides have as sense of the broad ideology. And that is important. Especially in the nineties move from the old democrats to the new democrats building on that dominant ideology and view. But that leads to be dominant. From the traditional oligarchy and then to that ideology. That part of it around the world the rigging of the political game so that democracy doesnt actually work. You change structural elements of democracy so its not quite a democracy anymore. That is a potential difference where you change the rules of the system so it does it make so that is a slight difference if or when oligarchy becomes the dominant paradigm for society. That says shift then the other side adopting the views. And her how that would happen. You talked about era and the 40 year. And people were concerned for the next stage. So im curious if we do move into your great democracy if they come to talk about 40 years from now what was the crisis of the great democracy . That is a great question also. Because you dont fully know the consequences as you live through them in the striking thing in both eras that one of the major disruptive features of vietnam iraq and afghanistan. And in some ways to grow out of the ideology of the time and as the defining regime and George Cannon was not that it was meant to do Something Different that it was part of a broader neoconservative approach to be more aggressive and hawkish from the eighties onward and then to seem like a natural extension that containment has not spilled into vietnam it would not have taken the course that it did. But there is an element we can try to see the concerns in their. And what that might look like 20 years from now and the challenge of the next generation to figure out their problems. If im going to pick something the biggest is the misogynist thing and that would be a major challenge through the era had depending on that pace with additional changes over time. So a lot of this seems okay surrounded by the context. But of the entrenched systems talking about the voting policies or the way that economic democracy is realized and what you see for state and local governments with this new democracy . And in a world where so many of these are at the city level . So those at the state and local level. A lot of those policies and i would just pick a couple to think about. One is criminal justice policy. And there are choices that cities make and those officials and to set at the criminal justice process. And how we build our criminal Justice System in the community. And those rules on what is criminalized and a lot of those decisions because how they are drawn at. And then it is inclusive and those are the ways to be affected. But then often excluded by this and then to highlight the work of Barry Friedman and then what that would mean from a democracy perspective. And from a totally different context and Broadband Internet is extremely important for economy and society and yet 30 percent of Rural America does not have access to it and turn on dash internet and many of you probably dont have any choice and there are cities that decided to take aim at this directly chattanooga tennessee has a public option through the electric poweroard is a public option theyve had it ten years now. And created of jobs and businesses people wanting to come there and its extremely popular. So there is some competition in that as well there is opportunity for local government to really work to help their economy and so on. And one striking thing for sharon on chattanooga to offer the service to them. So it is very popular because everyone understands how important it is to have the connection to communication these days. Thank you so much. You have mentioned several times already the importance of Public Participation with the criminal Justice System and public policy. What are your thoughts on how these disciplines and areas are taught in the academic institutions and it seems to me the various areas are taught to diminish the importance not only Public Participation but in science or policy what are your thoughts of what the institutions could do . Thinks. The education side is important and i am a law professor and that Educational Institution for how people think about any of these questions. But to push the focus that on the education side and on the higher and level but thinking about power and who has power and what are the structures in our system that prevent people from having power or the groups above others. And is not just a matter of education but how we think about it in society. And the focus we want to have in terms of changing things. So in the federal level one thing you see in Political Science literature is that wealthy people and Interest Groups have with that political process from donating more money contacting the congressman. And down the line at every level if they have the influence. And with that general population and then to bring to bear those policy choices and this is where power comes in the question. So to think about it at the level of destruction but the rest we need to work on and those political institutions. And from what you describe to come up in this era of crisis and i curious to understand the limits and the political and economic institutions. Thats a great question. What is interesting taking a historical approach is that you see the different possibilities and the expansive nature of possibilities differently. And rather than in your own context. So the political constellation. But how big the changes were. So to use this as an opportunity which changes the history of economic equality in our constitutional tradition and one of the striking things i found is how many big changes there were. So if you go back to the progressive era and in the gilded age. And the populist and the progressives for women pushing for equal rights and the 40 hour workweek, the First Campaign finance laws, and then come to pass. But what is possible with a historical approach from what we can see in our own time. So that is why in the book that this book is so important. But the question is what will come next with there is a lot of possibilities that are available to us. Some could be why the transformative in the same way that neoliberal era is so different that proceeded it. So thats how i think about it rather than being particular moments that have limited my thoughts about it and that history has expanded about what is possible. There is a conservative version of the globalization. And globalization and Human Capital that has risen in people consult in the cities hollowing out the middle class and with that technological trend so in turn the real centers of power is not the 600 billionaires in america but actual the managerial elites. And to tell the New York Times the middle class but we dont think of themselves as oligarchs. But they are very big source of power with an easier ability to deny that status. So a couple of reactions to that. One of the things to interpret the neoliberal component that this may be part of that story that there is an alliance between this group as long as they are doing well they are very happy. And there is some work that has been done on how much influence over particular policies over income brackets and there is a disproportionate influence and thats part of the story. And i would not say that is why one that we could accept as a natural phenomenon and that is just a function of policy choices and to liberalize trade and to counterbalance those opportunities and what kind of policy you would create and those policy choices and political choices so i push back on the first part of your question but then there is that element and then there is another divide then but that is geographic with that in x herbal force that happened. And that too is a function of variety choices that we made inside cities and we talk about this in the book and to have policies that did not result in a hollowing out its not just investing in new york and chicago but building schools and post offices in every part of the country to provide jobs and those that need it. There is a lot of ways we have policies whether rule electrification and that focus geographically that we dont need to accept this story. And by moving to a market to address these problems we miss the fact we have policies that were designed to do this in the first place. And with the shifting of power is forgetting we have choices that you can live in much of america and have a successful life. And you dont have to move to San Francisco or a superstar city. And thats where we should be have opportunities. And from those political perspectives. And then to work on jumpstarting america. And then there is a real opportunity. This is very thoughtprovoking. Thank you very much. Do you have an example you can point to today in the recent past to exemplify your democracy . What is it . And the second one is a little darker. You are assuming to these descriptions that there is stability that democracy might be a moot point as we start to fall apart so do you have an idea of a system that would take care the crisis. So i will not answer your question and here is why because theres two reasons for go the first you should see the context as different the great democracy is basically about america and its written in the american context. And even if there are similarities of those before it there are serious differences in how we operate. So to my mind the model to think about of the america we want to be. Because the challenges will be different than other places. Because we have a different baseline and the second reason why to think of models in a historical sense is that part of the problem is to see that as nostalgic or to look to some other place to deal with the challenges we have today. And with that broad and informed and philosophy. But that month that manifest today has to be built very deeply. So thats why im not as excited and what i try to do in the book is to show how in our context we could achieve these principles. So a lot of that draws on history as we think about that but really its in her own context. The second thing about the dark future is that one of the things am part of the argument in the form policy section but its really throughout it is that this kind of great democracy is a plausible case for a relatively stable equilibrium for a time. The whole theory of the book is based on change and eras that only last for so long but for what we can do now Going Forward and how we build that resilience system even in the face of the major choices i talk about climate in the book and how we need to think of it in policy terms. And with those groups that will be affected because there would be a significant disconnect some could be impacted too much greater degree than others so this is the policy question and its part of thinking about solidarity and thats what we should be thinking about that question about justice and how we respond to the climate crisis. Thats how i would think about it but at the global level it will create additional problems because the National Boundaries would be complicated so thats a place to be a lot more work there is time for one more question. Listening to everything you have been saying it seems like the universal basic income would empower people directly to be an active citizen i like to hear your thoughts about that. We talk about that in the book and my feeling is my concerns that there are proposals that are people suggest they could get 1000 a month or Something Like that and in return to basically get rid of the entirety of the other things we have of Social Security and all the other things that we have. This is a serious problem not a great solution with the idea to have extremely concentrated wealth in the hands of a very small number of people and then to give them a thousand dollars a month while taking away Social Security and medicare. On 12000 a year if thats the future one is imagining and there is no jobs how the story is told that people on 1000 a month strikes me as implausible. We will see the idea we should concentrate all the power in a very small number of people and through the scraps of 1000 a month. There are other proposals that we should have a much more robust in conjunction with all these others and i think that is more promising. There is a third set of policies instead of thinking as the problem but that is the most promising because of the challenge is just a solution for everything it assumes we have an extremely concentrated economy and that no one else can have a job that creates wealth and the middle class. Thats why you need it in the first place. Maybe we should create an economy to have a thriving worklife. Thats the place of pre distribution rather than redistribution and to think about the structures of the economy and what they create in the first place from the getgo