Event for philip common good is an organization probably started 25 years ago i dont remember but i have been on the trustee for for a long and its a it supports you know philip and philips causes and these books are big events for common good philip for those who know him and im sure many of you do does everything with enthusiasm and passion for those of us who around philip its sometimes exhausting, but its always some we always learn something in our lives are enriched by it. There there are several in this room i know would say the same thing philip you know started hes had a career as a brilliant appellate lawyer which is where i first knew him. He then built a law firm in new from scratch and it was successful and that was thats a big event. But he got bored, decided he needed a new challenge and so he decided to fix the government and legal system in america somehow this anybody would do that. This is his seventh book, maybe his important but all of them had important effects. Common good has done other things that philip has led not in books that had been very powerful in some of our agency views but with i need to this is philip if you dont know just be sure you know and Charlotte Howard who is next to will introduce herself but. Shes the perfect questioner for philip because shes been doing that for most of her life. You dont know. Thanks to everybody for being here. Im Charlotte Howard my official capacity is im executive editor of the economist, but more i am philip second daughter, one of four. And you might think that by asking a child to do q and a, youre hoping for some softball questions. But he has 41 years of evidence to the contrary. So prepare for a roasting. Im in this room and on television, which is cspan was filming here and look forward to a conversation. So this is your seventh book . I very well. You writing your first book in our living room. This book comes at a time when we have all kinds of things happening. One could describe in hyperbolic terms and still seem understated. We have wars in the middle east, have an ongoing war. Ukraine, americas power on the global is being challenged by china. We have democracy that is, in my view, being threatened, a way that we havent seen in many years. So why book now . I im going to quote neil ferguson, you cant be strong if youre not strong home at home and i think putin and xi jinping and are just, you know, dying with laughter at our many forms of selfdestruction over our incredibly strong society. And so we need to figure out how to make democracy strong again and to have Government Trust it again and to make people feel that theyre of the society instead of enemies of half of society. And thats the reason i wrote book. So can you for those the people in the room have not yet read it and its brief i really recommend that everybody you can read it in two days tops and its as each sentence packs a real punch but for those who havent read it can you give brief synopsis of your argument what are is is it two of the main problems plaguing american domestic society, ineffective government, broad alienation, stem in large part from legal and governing systems that are designed to disempower people in their daily choices for the noblest of reasons, we reinvented the way govern, not our goals, how we govern after the 1960s to try to avoid any more abuses and the was in an effort to to guarantee to guarantee that there would be no abuse and failure. We guaranteed that there could be no success. And we need to pull back and restore what i think was the foundational principle of our which is a Democratic Society where people are elected, theyre given a authority to take responsibility. Theyre accountable for how they do. But their job is not to be robots complying with the rules. Their job is to use their judgment and take responsibility in the Old Fashioned way. And we dont at any level of society. So teachers lost the authority to maintain control of the classroom. Principals find impossible to get rid of a bad teacher. Doctors and nurses spend half their day filling out forms. The government cant, give a permit for, say, a transmission that everybody agrees needs to get built because Environmental Review a good idea in the abstract and if executed properly has turned into this process of no pebble left unturned and then in daily life people increasingly find themselves suffocated by all kinds of you dont tell a joke in the office have you been training businesses dont give job references because somebody might get mad and sue you. And so have this this culture within business where. Its like theres a big red blinking sign saying dont be yourself you know, its its a its really in port and spontaneity which had our thought was the most elemental aspect of freedom. Spontaneity has died in the workplace. Weve been trained its been trained out of it. Were told not to be spending. So so thats a and we need to create a legal that gives back to people their so its only because the question of agency particularly at this time when so many things seem out of control can almost seem like a scary concept. So i think the one hand you have this broad distrust of anyone right and there are also distrust of institutions so their distrust of other individuals. And then you look at the polling on institutional distrust. Its so alarming across really every segment of American Life from congress to the presidency. I was really struck by the data on the judicial system, which has taken an nosedive in recent decades previously the courts were somewhat immune from this broader trend. So how does what youre describing fit into that broad culture of distrust really important question in really hard to get back actually but you need a vision which im trying to provide were at least in part provide with this book. But you also need leaders moral authority, you know, in so name name the people in public life today who have moral authority. I mean so its i was with Jonathan Rauch brookings yesterday has written a lot about institution in such a so i talk a lot about institutions in the book peoples freedom in large part within institutions and whether its through business the university and such and and their freedom depends on a mutual trust of standards of performance and values of the institution cooperation being a nice person, you know, all sorts of things that need to be enforced by people who in charge of the institution. And if you actually disempower our people who are running the institution from making judgments about, whos doing a good job and whos not and all that sort of stuff, its the trust level dissipates enormously. And so whats happened in america at many levels is institutions have become comply arts machines. You know, you go see the doctor, you go to the hospital you know, youre being told things just because the rules say you have to tell there was a well, wellknown pediatrician in charlotte, North Carolina. You talking about how the practice had changed during his career as a pediatrician . Very you know, hes head of the North Carolina medical association. So he said, well, we should be we dont actually speak our minds because you wouldnt want to Say Something that might used against, you know. Youre taking care of children. You so so you have this kind of defensiveness that this would leak in society and. I think it makes everybody. People when people are not the truth people when theyre choosing their words. So neuroni writes about this and. Its say you cant have actually an organization thats trustworthy if people are scared to be themselves and if they make a mistake to apologize. So when you talk about so much of what you say rings true, but it also intersects with other really trends that are troubling in american society, i and i cant really fit them together. So, you know, trust depends on facts and an of whats true. So does what youre describing fit in with some of the broader issues that we have around just absolutely divergent narratives within a given institution right there was a really good column the other day Jonathan Chait in York Magazine about how republicans only have themselves to blame for the fact that the trump kind of lapping the field again, because didnt push back at him when he said the election was stolen. Its just its not a fact, a lie. And no one pushed back at him. And so so you cant possibly have a society, a healthy democracy, when people when theres no basis of common fact. And so so have to not simply the person they also have to fight the of lies. And that includes think using every tool in our arsenal know media appointments and all of that. Just you once you lose lose your foundation of facts and you know if you havent reread 1984 lately its all about that its about just it doesnt matter true what we say why it is black white, black its why you know so yeah so theres this funny thing thats happening thats on a very, very micro level, which is a lot of what this book is about. It feels like almost a catalog of macroeconomy choices that people are making throughout the and then thats overlaid with some of these very, very large cultural, i think across American Culture and politics. But one thing thats interesting in thinking about the micro is piecing together how these kind of things that seem a little bitty actually completely impede our ability as a country to pursue Major National priorities. I used to be an energy reporter, so i see this much in climate, but i wonder if theres specific examples because its helpful ground the discussion kind of in the here and now of what are tangible ways in you see this preventing american americans with very good intentions from doing actually what needs to be done. Its a great question. For the big things to happen. People need to see that things can happen, you know, because it all depends to some level, say, Climate Change or mutual that youre not going to squander money on ridiculous theories or something. So so there has to be some kind of elusive and sort of connection between ability to run a school or to or do or to figure out how to deal with the homeless people, the neighborhood and all of the things were not doing. You know, and the big things we need to i mean, Climate Change involves, it seems to me, to different, very kinds of two different kinds of choices. One, it involves the ability simply to make choices is like a built in transmission line, which we dont even have the authority to do. Thats what im writing about. It also involves a value judgment about. It involves redirecting social resources to towards towards climate. I mean, going to cost a lot of money to do some of the things we need to do with climate. So, so in order make that value judgment and elect a leader who will do that. I think there needs to be some confidence that that the government deliver. And if it isnt working out that it can adapt. Right. I think that thats key to it is that people feel like they have many decades of watching the government, you know, particularly within the Republican Party and watching government fail and fail again. And without what talking about is very in the weeds reform in some ways to pull back the laws that government will continue being ineffective. Yes and just to be clear, what im talking about is not deregulate. I mean, there is a lot of really stupid regulation that probably needs to get changed or eliminated, but its not deregulation. Its about making regulation work. So to that. So donald trump has this whole operation which people may be of so that he can really hit the ground running next year should he be elected, that the people within cabinet will be prevented. They have plans that they can implement and. One of the more aggressive plans is for Civil Service. And youve written a lot about Civil Service and this is the most dramatic Service Reform probably we see in 50 years. So to what extent do do his ideas as they have been outlined, solve or compel the problem . First of all, its my fault. I wrote an essay a review article five years ago arguing that the Civil Service reform act and key places was unconstitutional because article two of the constitution gives the president power to decide who who should work for it. And that essay radical at the time there were this six months, everybody accepted it. The Trump Administration called me and said, would you like to work on civil reform . And i gracefully declined. And and so he came up this idea that would replace he would make all the top senior Civil Servants basically politically accountable and and and there does need to be more political accountability. There has to be. And in my view, however his idea is simply say, youre fired if somebody doesnt do exactly what he wants, whats needed to make government is not the putting. So executive control over the top people. Its giving executive control to those people over the people underneath them. So the dysfunction of government is the inability of the 14th and 15th to manage to manage their departments. I mean, there lots of dedicated, really smart who work in the federal government delegated their lives to, you know, you name it health the Weather Department or whatever and it and theyre the biggest fans of the stuff im talking about because im about giving the authority to manage their departments. So trump sort of has it backwards. Im working with francis and don kettle and some others, and were going to have a workshop in two months on redesigning the Civil Services in a way that actually does restore accountability. But much more importantly restores manageability to the government. So i want to ask you about something that i remain confused about and you, and im sure other lawyers in the room could help me understand it, which is we had this argument in the Supreme Court last week on the chevron case, which is, you know, i think over 90, Something Like that, as many Supreme CourtSupreme Courts that have relied on chevron as as precedent and 17,000, i think, in lower. Right. So theres a very wellestablished case which is about the executive branchs ability to interpret congresss intent in statute and that power risks primarily with executive branch or with the judiciary. And that really is about, you know, in the weeds of once you have statute, how does it then effectuated into law and i was covering the Affordable Care act at the time it was being implemented and i went through, you know, thousands and thousands of pages, regulatory guidance, proposed rulemaking, all that stuff and those details really, really matter to, you know, microwaves in in ways that you describe your book. So how if the Supreme Court overturned chevron, what would would it be a huge deal . Not as big as i think it would be. Well, i think they will overturn i think it will be on a of 1 to 10. I think the impact be a three. And and the reason wont be much impact because because chevron is about deciding whether the agency makes the interpretive decision or a court can make the interpretive that actually the agency will make the interpretive decision. The question is whether the court in reviewing has to give a presumption to the agency and whereas what im writing about here is nobody can make a decision at all. You know, you cant get a permit, you cant maintain, you can try and document no decision. So its chevrons deciding who should make the decision. My as a lawyer tells me that when there is an interpretive issue, even people with different ideologies, tend to land in the practical place. In other words, they go. So i think it will make a difference, but i dont think it will be a tectonic difference. I so im not a lawyer, but i like to assert opinion arbitrarily and i think its more like a six because particular with the makeup of this court and i think thats probably why you see, thats part of the reason why youve seen erosion in trust in the court is that there is a sense that justices are deciding based on their personal preferences rather than what is just reasonable. The most notable display, this, which i thought was very silly during oral arguments, is Justice Gorsuch i probably shouldnt say in a room of people who work for the Supreme Court are here before the Supreme Court, but he was talking about, you know, theres a lot of judicial modesty in changing being able to change your mind saying says this powerful life appointed Supreme Court clerk who Supreme Court justice but anyway, well see how. It plays out. Okay. Let me just modify my there will be high issues where will make the difference. Yes the front page issues the chevron decision will make a difference in 98 of all the nations fees. Do i think it will make almost no difference. Okay. So moving on, because i want to leave time for other people to ask questions. One thing that you hear businesses say and again and increasingly governments say again, again is we want all of our decisions to be informed by data, want data driven decisions. Theyve been talking about this for a long time, but they finally have become better at deploying data to inform Public Policy in big ways and in small ways. And then now we have generative ai, which is set to completely transform the inputs into Decision Making on an organizational level. So what is the role for human in a world in these types of decisions that youre describing and Human Authority in a world where a. I. Is increasingly deployed as a tool, either alongside or instead of humans judgment . Very good question. I data is incredibly and largely ignored by. Congress in its oversight of the laws. You look at cbo reports all the time. You kn