HEFFNER: I’m Alexander Heffner,
your host on The Open Mind.
I’m delighted to welcome
the chairman and the
executive director of the
Renew Democracy Initiative,
world chess champion, Garry
Kasparov and Uriel Epshtein.
Welcome to you both.
Garry, when did you really
come to understand the
threat of authoritarianism
in this millennium as a
global phenomenon, not
specific to Putin and now
not specific to Trump, but
as a worldwide phenomenon?
KASPAROV: Look, you don’t
have to be a strong chess
player to analyze the
trends in global politics.
And I had also my experience
growing up in the Soviet Union
and living in Putin’s Russia.
So all the signs were
on the wall and Putin‘s
assent to power.
And, and the reverse of the
trend of the 90‘s when many
countries decide to follow
America and Europe in exchange
for more authoritarian and,
and more strict form of
governance, it’s, you know,
it was a clear indication
that something went wrong.
And the, I’ve been warning for
many years that authoritarian
regimes dictatorships, they
never then, yeah, we use the
control, justify the rule to
explain why the economy is
not working and the domestic
policies are no longer
satisfactory for the majority
of the population that always
look outside and to try to
expand our, our influence.
That’s why I believe
that nobody was safe.
Even the United States, the
way Putin handles Russia and
the neighboring countries
with his hybrid wars.
And disinformation campaign
was a clear demonstration
that one-day he would try to
use the same technique,
the same, the same mechanisms 
of fake news to attack Europe
and the United States.
HEFFNER: And just one
follow up Garry,
do you want to warn
Americans, having had the
experience of the Soviet union
and now Russia under Putin,
that if you think that Donald
Trump may just be a fleeting
single-term president you may
well be wrong because there
was a perception, I guess I
should ask you, was there a
perception in Russia that Putin
would succeed, in the normal
sort of democratic succession?
What was there, was there
the fear from the beginning
that he would become the
lifelong president, then
dictator, tyrant or you know,
it’s very, his first term.
Was there some belief
that it wasn’t going to
turn in that direction?
KASPAROV: Unfortunately, many
people thought that Putin
would not be forever and
people like me, we were just,
there were a few of us who
were literally shouting in the
desert, pointing out at Putin‘s
KGB background and some of
his statements even before he
took over when he talked about
the KGB officer, it’s, it’s
always a KGB officer, about the
collapse of the Soviet union
as the greatest geopolitical
disaster of the 20th century.
His first action as the
president of restoring
the Soviet anthem.
So my, message to Americans
after November, 2016,
it was very simple.
Yes, your democracy, American
democracy is very strong.
It’s based on 200 years of
experience, more than 200 years
and institutions that guaranteed
the balance of power, but it’s
one man in the oval office
could do a lot damage it, and
don’t take it for granted.
And we could see that sets
in the first three years of
his presidency, Donald Trump
succeeded in destroying so many
pillars of American democracy
and basically, you know, forcing
some of the key institutions
to work for him personally.
So it’s not surprising that
he talks about loyalty to him,
to the president rather
than to the loyalty to the,
to the constitution.
And let’s remember he has 
been doing it you know, in his
first term, hopefully
the last one.
So facing reelection, now,
imagine what kind of damage
he can, he can do if he’s no
longer if he, if he doesn’t,
doesn’t care anymore
about re-election.
But also what bothers me
that is, that’s it’s Trump
demonstrated that so many
American institutions, they
based, the based their existence
and their stability on, on
custom owner on predictions
and Donald Trump’s response
to their symbol Sunni.
If it’s not, you know,
it’s all in the books.
If it’s not, you know, that
the letter of the law, I don’t
care about the spirit of law.
So there’s so much work to
be done to make sure that
the conditions that may
draw Donald Trump and his
presidency possible will be
eradicated to prevent another
Donald Trump who could be
younger, less corrupt, so more
articulate to, to ascend after
renew democracy initiative.
HEFFNER: How are you 
combating those conditions?
EPSHTEIN: Well, look, the
tagline that Garry and I and
the rest of the board have
discussed for RDI is that the
goal for us is to become a home
for the politically homeless.
The fact of the matter is,
this isn’t about one man.
This isn’t about
one political party.
This is about a trend in the
United States and around the
world that pits different
tribes against one another where
people’s political decision
making is no longer based
on actual policy arguments,
but rather based on their
personal sense of identity.
And as a result, you have
a number of different bad
actors from any number of
different political corners
taking advantage of that and
utilizing that in order to pit
people against one another.
And so take the
multimedia space online.
The commentators, the speakers,
the video editors, you know,
the, the, the Instagram,
whatever, the ones who are
getting the most views are the
ones who are kind of promoting
the most radical possible story.
They’re the ones who 
are trying to encourage
and deuce a sense of rage in
their, in their followers.
And so what RDI is trying to
do in order to combat that
is we want to create a space
specifically online, but, but
you know, broader than that as
well where people from diverse
political backgrounds can feel
comfortable coming together
and working towards a more
moderate view of the future.
So the way that we see
ourselves doing that is by
creating exciting, creative
content that’s engaging.
That doesn’t feel boring,
that feels new, but isn’t
doing that at the expense
of, of reasonableness.
So in other words, we want
to create an exciting online
platform for reasonable people.
HEFFNER: The problem though,
the problem, Uriel and Garry,
and I’ll direct this to you
Uriel first and then ask
Garry to expand is political
diversity now includes
tolerance for autocracy.
And that is the defining
attribute of Trumpism.
I don’t want to speak to Boris
Johnson or other particular
figures who have different
degrees of demagoguery.
So we’ll just speak from
the American experience.
I think Garry would testify
to that in Russia in
a different context.
But I think that increasingly
in this country there is the
defense of political diversity
that includes I‘m conservative
under Trump and that means I
adhere to his autocratic vision.
So my political diversity is
representative government by
autocracy in of course, an
Elector College system that
denies the popular will.
But how do you get at that?
The fact that political
diversity now is including
people who are swearing an
oath to autocratic behavior.
EPSHTEIN: See, I think that’s
that since the end of the cold
war, the United States has,
you know, we did a victory lap
in the nineties, and while we
were doing that victory lap, we
failed to begin the hard work
of reprioritizing, relitigating,
reemphasizing the importance of
what we would consider classical
liberal democratic principles.
Now again, right, liberal
democratic principles have
nothing to do with liberal in
the sense of today of being on
the left, but rather liberal in
the sense of John Locke, liberal
in the sense of believing
in separation of powers,
free speech, and these core
principles that have underpinned
both American democracy and
democracies around the world
for the last 200 years.
And the way that I see us
combating this trend of
people being more accepting
of autocracy is really
in two different ways.
The first is we need to
actively, aggressively,
and creatively articulate
why core liberal democratic
principles, why American
principles matter and how
they relate to people’s lives.
So, in other words, this isn’t
about you know, just doing
what’s right for other people.
It’s about what’s doing
right, doing what’s right
for yourself and your family.
And if people can’t see why
these principles are important
to themselves, they’re not
going to prioritize them.
And so it’s our job to
show everyone why these
principles matter to them.
But secondly, we want, yeah --
HEFFNER: I was just going to,
on that note, Garry, how
do you think that, what has
been the template by which
some governments have emulated
the Putin experience and
how do you undo the damage.
Have they been using Putin as
the playbook or something else?
KASPAROV: I wouldn’t say Putin
as a playbook because Russian
democracy was very feeble and
we had little experience with
democracy and that’s why it was
not that difficult for Putin to
pop all these weak democratic
institutions and to establish
here his personal cult.
So the country that, you
know could be used as the,
as a sample to, to the United
States, I will pick up Hungary.
It’s a democracy.
It’s a member of European Union.
And still, you know, the
countries that democratic
institutions couldn’t resist
the pressure from Viktor Orban
elected prime minister who
consolidated power and now
using pandemics, concentrating
enormous power in his hands
and from what I know about
authoritarian regimes, I don’t
expect him to give his power
back when pandemics is over.
So another example is Turkey.
The democracy there was
not as stable as in other
European countries, but still
the way Erdogan built his
is a personal dictatorship.
It’s also, you know, quite the
message because Turkey,
let’s not forget, is
a member of NATO.
So and now Erdogan’s Turkey
is, is not so different
from Putin‘s Russia.
So we just have to recognize
that even established democratic
institutions don’t guarantee
success of a normal democratic
process unless people recognize
the importance of that.
And the growing pride,
bullies in American politics
help Trump dramatically to
consolidate his base of support.
And that’s what’s, what’s,
what we believe is, is one of
the most important roles of
RDI to actually move politics
back to, to the center where
people debate the issues.
They, they agree to disagree,
but it’s about issues.
It’s not about I belong
to, to do to this tribe.
It’s, no, we shouldn’t,
we should go back to
normal politics and not,
not to act like a, like a
football or baseball fans.
This is my team and a stick
was just no matter what.
EPSHTEIN: And if I
could just add to that
really, really quickly.
I mean that brings us that
brings us to the second
key way to combat this
kind of growing autocracy.
So first let me be clear. RDI.
We’re a 501©3, which means that
we are a nonpartisan nonprofit.
We, we fundamentally don’t
believe that this is an issue
that is just entirely endemic
to one side or another.
This is something that
can potentially infect.
The left can infect the right.
I mean, we see it, we saw
it happen in Venezuela
with the fall of democracy
there to the left.
We saw it happen in
Hungary with the fall of
democracy to the right.
But what’s important is
that we offer a space for
people who right now are
not represented by the more
extreme elements of society.
So the way that you combat
autocracy is you empower the
people who don’t believe in it.
HEFFNER: Garry said something
really critical too, I think,
which is agreeing to disagree,
but in those coalitions
you don’t want to have,
you don’t want to tolerate
agreement with autocracy.
And that’s where I go back
to the rub of this and that
is building a coalition.
Is it possible to build a
coalition with folks who accept
and practice authoritarianism
as their governing philosophy
or their political strategy?
There can’t really be
that kind of melting pot
or compromise that you’re
envisioning if that’s part
of the equation, right?
EPSHTEIN: Keep in mind the
majority of Americans don’t
believe in that, right?
When you, when we look at
surveys that have been conducted
over the last decade or so,
even with sort of the rise
in autocracy around the world
in the last few years, you
still have the majority of
American citizens who disagree
with tenants of autocracy.
And in fact, a super majority of
Americans who fundamentally, you
know, there’s this organization
called More in Common, which
did a survey and they found that
a majority of Americans fall
into a group that they would
call the exhausted majority.
So these are people who may
well affiliate themselves
with Democrats or Republicans.
But when push comes to shove,
they are not overwhelmingly
extreme or overwhelmingly tribal
in, in their identification.
They are people that can be
reasoned with, right,
they are people that that can
disagree with one another.
And so to your point, if someone
believes that liberal democracy
has run its course and it’s not
something that matters to us
anymore, then that’s probably
someone who would not be
interested in working with us.
HEFFNER: Right.
I’m not talking
about the citizens.
I’m talking about elected
officials, namely Republicans
who share a lot of culpability,
the deed with the acceptance
of and the emboldening of
autocratic behavior from Trump.
So in order to kind of
cleanse that, if you will,
you have to get back to a
point where the United States
Senate is not just unwilling
to perform its function in
a separation of powers and
the three-party system where
there’s independence and
courage and Garry, in effect,
the United States Senate
is operating as a one party
institution so long as it is
just beholden to Donald Trump.
KASPAROV: Yes.
But you know, it’s these we,
while speaking about the very
negative role played by the U.S.
Senate and Mitch McConnell
and Republicans in the last
few years when they ignored
or actually refused to
perform their duties on the
Constitution to curb the
excesses of executive office.
So let’s not forget that
the filibuster rule have
been abolished by Democrats.
So that’s the, the trends
of pushing more power in
the Executive Office has
not started with Trump.
Trump benefited from that.
It’s very important for us
to reverse the trend that
unfortunately, after the end
of the cold war you know, it
had been used excessively both
by Democrats and Republicans.
And it’s very important
that we don’t leave is
actually to find a new, a
new common ground, political
common ground for Americans
in the right in the left.
Those we agree on some basic
principles and also we should
recognize that while we
want to keep the foundation
that left for us by founding
fathers now more than 200
years ago, it’s 21st century.
And we have to make sure that
our, you know, our democracy
will be renovated, to be
adjusted to the challenges
of the 20th century.
And we should also learn a lot
from Trump and from previous
administrations to understand
how we keep this, this very
subtle balance of power.
Because with all this new
technology that allow government
to fall on us, to spy on
us, to collect data on us.
The role of executive office
keeps growing and we should
be very, you know, creative to
make sure that the legislation
and also the judiciary will,
will guarantee the full
protection of our rights.
But this is a debate
we must have instead of
caring for our candidate
against another candidate.
And as you pointed out, we have
few people less than on the
right, but still few people
on the left that also do not
believe in representative
democracy and they don’t
believe in capitalism.
And it’s very important to make
sure that the people who are
challenging the two pillars of
American society, free market
and liberal democracy, these
people will not have the final
say in the political agenda.
EPSHTEIN: And so long as we’re,
and just to add, just to add
to what Garry just said, so long
as we’re divided into these
two camps where it’s either one
or the other and if one wins,
the other necessarily loses,
thereby setting up an absolutely
zero-sum game that doesn’t allow
for compromise, we’re setting
ourselves up for failure.
So the best way to combat sort
of what you’re, what you’re
describing and you know, the
possibility that that elected
officials could become and to
some extent have become both
emboldened and adherents of a
more authoritarian vision of
American politics, the way to
combat that is to move beyond
this zero-sum, either you,
either you win or I win, but
we can’t both win situation.
And the best way to do that at
this point, we believe, is we
need to try to start uniting
people and making people
recognize that the political
coalitions of yesterday are not
necessarily the ones that are
going to survive until tomorrow.
KASPAROV: Yeah.
You know, just adding to
what you’ve said, you know it
just, it reminded me of the
first televised debate in this
country, when Nixon and Kennedy
you know, I wish people who
could actually, you know, watch
it again because the way it has
been handled it’s just, it’s
unheard by today’s standards.
It’s a ton of respect for
the opposite candidate
Senator, Vice President.
But what was important, these
debates, they debated so that
their vision for the future but
not, you know, not the goals,
they, they agreed on what they
want to achieve for America.
They argued about new ways
to do that, about needs.
So that was very important.
The country had, it’s
not just the center.
The country had a gravitas,
you know, from both political
parties that guaranteed debt,
you know, extremists on either
side could have their say.
HEFFNER: Absolutely Garry.
And I mean, honestly, I
don’t think you have to go
far as far back as 1960.
I think you can go back to 2008
when John McCain and Barack
Obama were running and there was
a fidelity to, to patriotism.
But under guarding that -- 
yeah. Go ahead.
KASPAROV: You said patriotism.
I want to use
another word decency.
I think this is, this is
what had been lost completely
because you can, like John
McCain dislike John McCain.
You could like ABOM or
dislike Ababa, but nobody
can argue about decency.
So let’s see.
That’s what has been
lost completely.
And that’s what, what’s
Trump that was Trump’s goal.
And I have to say he succeeded
by, by normalizing abnormal.
So, so many things that we
believe were impossible in
American politics, in terms
of language and action, it has
been normalized under Trump.
And I, I think that is in
2016 elections, the Trump’s
political style has been
normalized and the greatest
danger is that if Trump is
reelected, he’s political
methods will be normalized.
And that could be, that
could be a deadly blow
to American democracy.
HEFFNER: Right.
Uriel, I know one of
the facets of the Renew
Democracy Initiative is
to target this online.
What do you find to be the most
pernicious exploitation and
amplification of the
tactics that Garry mentioned?
EPSHTEIN: So, yeah, I
mean, that’s a, that’s
a great question. And you know,
Garry and I, we, we talk
about this a lot and,
and I’m always torn whether to
specifically reference people,
individuals, organizations, and
thereby give them more attention
in order to combat what they’re
saying or whether to ignore them
and kind of try to plow ahead.
And the problem is,
unfortunately, we have to
mention we have to talk
about some of the things
that other organizations
and individuals are doing
in order to take advantage
of people’s frustrations.
And so the example that I’ll
give the most pernicious
way that this is leveraged
is through individuals
and organizations like
Candace Owens, organizations
like Prager University.
What these groups do is they
take issues that are already
controversial and then they
espouse the most controversial,
the most aggressive, the most
kind of far-reaching argument
they possibly can in order to
get people like us and people
like me to respond to them.
So for them, whether we respond
negatively or positively, it
doesn’t matter because attention
is good for its own sake.
And that brings me to sort
of, you know, a little bit
more of an underlying point
here, which is insincerity.
You know, I won’t, I won’t name
specific names here, but I have
a number of former classmates
of mine from college that I
see in the news, day in and day
out espousing God knows what,
which I know for a fact they
don’t believe because I was
with them, you know you know, in
the Yale College Conservatives
or whatever else and I know
that they don’t believe some
of these things, but they saw
an opportunity to become rich
and famous and they took it.
And so insincerity in
commentators online and on TV
I think is probably one of the
single most dangerous trends
that we’ve been seeing in there.
And what they’re doing is
they’re leveraging kind of
people’s natural tendency
to reflect upon, to respond
to and to then promote the
most kind of an aggressive
take that exists online.
HEFFNER: In the seconds we
have left, I just want you
to maybe give our listeners
and viewers hope; we really
just have a minute left.
How much worse will it
get before it gets better?
Bradley Whitford said in
a commencement address
recently, we have to make
our democracy every damn day.
We have to protect it.
We have to; we have
to make it possible.
Do you see the light at
the end of the tunnel?
Garry In the closing
seconds, we have.
KASPAROV: There is
only one solution.
It’s active participation
of citizens in democracy.
Nearly a hundred million
Americans did not vote in 2016.
So it’s very important that
people recognize that no one
can save them but themselves.
And this is the, this
is our old response.
I’m an optimist, incorrigible,
optimist by nature.
And, and I think American
democracy will be saved,
but only by the active
participation, active spirit of
American citizens.
HEFFNER: Uriel Epshtein,
Garry Kasparov, the
executive director and chair of
the Renew Democracy Initiative.
Thank you so much
for joining me today.
EPSHTEIN: Thank you.
KASPAROV: Thank
you for inviting us.
HEFFNER: Please visit
The Open Mind website at
Thirteen.org/OpenMind to view
this program online or to
access over 1,500 interviews
and do check us out on Twitter
and Facebook @OpenMindTV for
updates on future programming.
