Rana Mitter [00:00:06] It's a huge pleasure
to welcome you back to Hay well I say back
because I see many of you have been here many
times before and I hope you have and will
be coming again and we're starting this evening
with a debate that I suspect will be provocative
and stimulating in equal measure. It's titled
Darkness authority and dreams. And to discuss
the core question at the heart of it do we
need authority. What kind of authority do
we need. Ah and we're getting our overseas
transmission there as well. Do we need authority.
What kind of authority do we need. And how
might we rethink authority for the future.
We have three very distinguished speakers
joining us we have on my left although I think
not on anyone else's left so to speak. Professor
Deirdre McCloskey professor emerita at the
University of Illinois in Chicago an immensely
distinguished economic historian on my right.
Professor Mark Lilla of Columbia University
author amongst many other books of the recent
very successful volume The Once and Future
liberal. And joining us from I think Cambridge
Massachusetts professor Noam Chomsky who one
almost says needs no introduction but of course
immensely distinguished public intellectual
Professor of Linguistics at M.I.T. and the
author of a very large number of very distinguished
books. In times that at least some people
consider to be dark troubled turbulent. Do
we need authority. And I got to start if I
may with Professor Deirdre McCloskey.
Deirdre McCloskey [00:01:35] Well we we we
need some authority I think gives the is the
obvious answer to this but but a much smaller
amount than we now have. But the problem about
authority is that it's basically the art of
pushing people around of men pushing women
around the cops pushing poor people around
the United States pushing everyone around.
And I think we need to draw back from this
idea that we need laws and authority to run
everything. I have a cousin who works for
the CIA. She she said to me and she's a very
reasonable person and she said well you know
a modern economy needs a lot of supervision
a lot of authority a lot of people making
regulate antitrust laws and blah blah blah.
And I said no it doesn't. I think that like
language to speak of our colleague here the
language is a spontaneous order. It's not
there's not some central committee that's
deciding what conjugation should be in English.
And the same is true of the economy. And the
same is true of a lot of our life much more
than people think and they think Oh we've
got to have a boss here and regulations and
oh gosh. And then we have to pass laws all
the time. Now really I say let's stop passing
laws let's have a year in which we don't pass
any laws in parliament or congress and see
what happens. So I think we'd be better off.
There are too damn many laws too much authority
Rana Mitter [00:03:28] Thank you very much
indeed for that for a cogent statement there.
I think the way theU.S. Congress is going
not passing these laws might soon be the norm.
Deirdre McCloskey [00:03:35] And that's fine.
But we we real liberals and I am I'm a John
Stuart Mill type nineteenth century liberal
about modern clothing we think that it's a
good thing that Congress can't do anything.
Deirdre McCloskey [00:03:53] Yes.
Rana Mitter [00:03:54] And I would like to
think did read that John Stuart Mill in particular
would have worn that sparkly top. I can see
it very very much on on on in there.
Rana Mitter [00:04:06] Mark Lilla. We have
heard from Deirdre McCloskey that we're posting
too many damn laws too much authority. Get
off our backs. Is this a viewpoint that you
can agree with.
Mark Lilla [00:04:15] No I think we suffer
from an authority deficit and different kinds
of authority. The original authority problem
if you go back to play to win Aristotle's
authority over the self yes. How do you become
a subject capable of reaching your own goals
and setting goals and reaching them. Well
that only comes when you have you know the
rational part of you or the moral part of
you has authority over other parts of you
now. And the only way to establish that is
it doesn't come naturally to us is through
education. And the only way to help people
become authoritative over themselves is to
give them authoritative education. There is
no spontaneous order of becoming a self a
self can shift in society through authority.
We're also suffering an authority deficit
when it comes to social mores. You know it
50 years ago today or now. Back it back in
1968. People were very happy to question all
sorts of authoritative mores and taboos having
to do with the treatment of women. Now what
we're trying to do is reconstitute those taboos
and those mores and those norms because we
got rid of many of them. And for many for
understandable reasons. Hypocrisy and all
the rest. But how do you do that when you
have to do that in some other authoritative
way. Young boys need to learn how to treat
young girls and women when they get older.
That requires that certain authority. Yeah.
Finally at the political level. Donald Trump
is right now destroying as many democratic
norms as he possibly can. What are norms norms
are not things written down there are things
that are authoritative because they become
taken for granted. The thing about a taboo
is you don't know you have a taboo until you
use it lose it. It's in that moment that it's
gone that you realize that up until then it
never would have occurred to you to call for
your political opponent to be jailed. Yes.
And then once that happens the question in
all these rounds I'm talking about is how
do we put the genie back in the bottle. And
so I think we're too. I think Americans in
particular are absolutely paranoid about authority.
They have been since Tocqueville wrote and
one of the problems with that is we put so
many constraints on authority while at the
same time asking more and more from government
so the government cannot actually provide
the things that we're asking them to do so
we have to choose either we ask for fewer
things or we give more leeway and discretion
to those in public office in order to reach
the ends that we want to send all those sorts
of ways. I think we actually need to think
through and reacquire and appreciation of
authority.
Rana Mitter [00:07:29] But within that Mark
Lilla there is presumably a distinction to
use highly sophisticated turns between good
authority and bad authority. You're not talking
about simply obeying norms or ideas because
they're there already because they're inherent.
Well.
Mark Lilla [00:07:42] Part of the way norms
work is that. And the reason they're authoritative
is because you're not questioning them or
at least when you're educated in them you're
not questioning them. You begin by taking
them as authoritative and then hopefully later
on either you question them and reject them
or you appreciate the reason behind them.
Deirdre McCloskey [00:08:02] But but we should
do we. I don't think we should be asking the
government to do so much. I don't think we
should be turning to the government.
Rana Mitter [00:08:10] All that said let's
hold that thought. There is a debate sort
of breaking out on stage but we have another
voice to hear Professor Chomsky you've just
heard from Mark Lilla here in Hay the case
for more authority and the right sort of authority.
Would you agree with that case or would you
want to argue against it?
Noam Chomsky [00:09:14] I would argue against
it in a qualified fashion. Now there is a
general simple principle about authority,
namely, that any form of authority, domination,
hierarchy are not self-justifying. They face
a burden of proof. And if they can't meet
it, which I think is commonly the case, they
should be dismantled in favour of more free
and just social order. But there are many
different facets in this consideration one
has to pay attention to. Do we need authority
in dark times? First, its important to recognise
that yes indeed we face dark times. The symbol
of that is the minute hand in the famous DoomsDay
Clock that moved two minutes to midnight,
closest we have ever been to terminal disaster
since it was opened with one exception in
1953 when the US and former Soviet Union exploded
the hydrogen bombs - for the reasons are environmental,
the environmental capacity and the threat
of nuclear war. We have to ask the question
- do we need authority to deal with these
issues? But I don't think that this is quite
the way to put the question. The proper question
is whether authority helps or harms in dealing
with these issues. I think, if we lok closely
we will see it characteristically harms. As
we peak the environmental capacity, just take
a look at the most powerful thing in history,
I need not comment on this. The fact that
you can tolerate that the authorities are
acting to accelerate the race to destruction.
Exactly what we don't need. As a result no
counterpart can be accessed in history and
technically in war. If we look at the past
record, its rather a miracle that we escaped
destruction. And its often repeatedly because
of the reckless acts that have gone on. If
you look for other issues, background different
kinds of issues, voluntary subordination to
authority. There is a medieval doctrine quote
this that whatever has pleased the prince,
has the force of law, since the people have
yeilded up to him their power and authority.
Voluntary and contractual submisison to the
rules of philosophical axiom. Well, we rejected
that act, and have subverted it. In fact,
we claim to - in reality we don't. Take, say,
the European Union, part of its problems is
that authority has been ceded to an unelected
troika, and the consequences of that we see
quite regularly in elections with what you
call populism, better understood as the rejection
of illegitimate power and authority.
[00:11:52] Well look at the United States.
We don't have that, but we do have something
similar. Now there's extensive, convincing
research from academic political science showing
that the single variable of campaign funding
is a remarkably precise prediction of electability
and programmes pursued. Other research shows
that a large majority of the population is
literally disenfranchised, in that their representatives
pay no attention to their opinions. They are
living listening to the voices of the wealthy
and the powerful. So, do we need authority?
Not quite. Let me just take a last analogue
to the medieval doctrine - labour contracts,
the foundation of our economic order. They
very closely resemble the philosophical axiom
as contractual submission to the ruling authority.
And in the early days of the industrial revolution,
such arrangements were literally condemned
as so called wage slavery, differing from
the chattel slavery only in the length of
the tenure of the slaves. As classical liberal
James Mill put it that was a doctrine held
by Abraham Lincoln, Republican Party, classical
liberal icons like John Stuart Mill who very
much like American workers....those who work
in the middle of..... The times may have changed,
but the principles remaind. And I think there
are good increasing questions as to whether
or when authority is legitimate when it should
be dismantled in favour of popular control
of institutions.
Rana Mitter [00:13:30] Pofessor Chomsky May
I take that point which you've articulated
very clearly and throw it to our fellow panelists
here to get some discussion on that. We wanted
to bring it back in and just a a moment I
think Noam Chomsky said several things there
that we should pick up in terms of thinking
about this question of how and whether centralized
authority is essential for a society to work
effectively. Actually the last part of what
Professor Chomsky said Mark I'd like to throw
to you. You've written a great deal about
identity and without caricaturing you've argued
that identity politics in some ways is becoming
very corrosive of democratic society. Let
me take a specific example that I think relates
to one aspect of what Noam Chomsky has just
said. Supposing you are one of the many African-Americans
who feel that the police will not be a sensible
source of authority in society do not represent
your interests do not have your interests
at heart I'm not protecting you and your community
and in a city in the United States. Is that
a form of authority which they should be respecting
and taking account of or do they have a legitimate
just intimate case to say this is something
that is widely recognized as authoritative
but we don't feel it should be for us.
Mark Lilla [00:14:45] Oh sure it's very understandable.
But one has to understand that I mean if I
can back up to answer the question that I
really read recently Lennon's attack on Rosa
Luxemburg which is called infantile leftism.
And I realized that he was totally right and
Luxembourg was totally wrong. It didn't tell
you the life you've endorsed Lenin. Yes you
know what. I'm becoming more Leninist by the
day. But the point is that in the end you
need a party. You need authority you have
to work within a system of something and there
is a kind of infantile leftism that talks
about authority in the way Kafka talked about
the castle. There is authority there is the
wall and we have social movements where we
come up and we're ramming the door. And every
once in a while authority tosses things down
to us right. That is not the way democracies
work and we cannot exaggerate the problems
of legitimacy in our democracies that know
there are doors into the earth into the into
the castle. There are conversations about.
How about things we might do. Certain people
have more voice than others. That's absolutely
right. But it is not a wall. And one consequence
of infantile leftism is that in rejecting
authority if it throws itself into the hands
of the so-called people and one populist Tribune
yeah that pretends to speak for the people.
Yeah yeah. And there's a long list of that
beginning from the Soviet Union down to Hugo
Chavez and a certain kind of infantile leftists
that falls in love with these truly authoritarian
figures because they're against authority.
Deirdre McCloskey [00:16:34] Well I agree
with that in part because indeed if you're
going to do politics by majority vote which
which which ends up with Chavez or or bomb
this this this fellow and in Hungary as an
example or God help us Donald Trump that's
where your appealing would not you. But one
is appealing to a majority rule we vote and
then the minority is crushed you jail your
political opponents and so forth. But there
is a third way which is not infantile. It's
an optimism about self organizing Yeomans
free Yeomans. And indeed as as an economist
I of course am very enthusiastic about this
notion that a market society doesn't need
massive walls massive authorities castles
to telling them what to do. I think you're
right that if you take the political view
of naive democracy you're going to get naive
results are really great. Journalist in the
United States in the early 20th century H.L.
Mencken said democracy is the theory that
the common people know what they want and
deserve to get it good and hard.
Noam Chomsky [00:18:11] As one of those infantile
leftists let me respond first to the history.
Rosa Luxembourg and other left marxists who
objected to Lenin's conception that the public
should subject itself to the party, which
subjects itself to the centra, committee,
which should subject itself to the maximal
leader, who would construct, what he himself
called the labour army by answering to the
name of leader. Those are the infantile leftists,
and I'm glad to be among them. When we turn
to the modern society, we have to ask ourselves,
does the majority (take the United States)
- does the majority hate authority? Well,
the anwer is no. As I pointed out briefly,
you can look at the literature, there is overwhelming
evidence that the elections are essentially
bought. With astonishing precision, you can
predict the outcome of an election simply
by looking at campaign funding. And that's
only one of the many factors by which concentrated
welath and corporate power will determine
the nature of legislations - there is lobbying
and many other devices. And in fact the large
majority of the population are indeed unrepresented.
Their own representatives disregard their
opinions totally, and pay attention to the
same centres of power. That's simply not true
that we pick our leaders: we don't. Formally,
that's possible. But in fact, it isn't. Same
is true with labour contracts. As a classical
liberal I do agree with John Stuart and James
Mill that the propert form of association
in an economic system is for working people
to own and to control their own enterprises,
not be subordinated to the masters, which
is a temporary slavery as they called it.
Temporary if you assume there is a way of
getting out of it, which back in those days
isn't a thing. Yes I think you have to question
very seriously the actual role of authority,
the way it functions in creating dark times,
in imposing repression. Populism shouldn't
mean and properly does mean, taking seriously
Thomas Jefferson's distinction between aristocrats,
who want to appropriate to themselves full
power (Lenin was a typical example) versus
the democrats, who regard the common people
with the opportunities for what's now called
the deliberative democarcy be the safest suppository
of common interest, and I thikn the direction
in which we should be trying to move.
Rana Mitter [00:21:34] Could I put that point
Professor Chomsky back to our other panelists
here. I mean Mark Lilla it seems to me that
infantile leftist versus future liberal is
possibly the worst superhero movie ever. But
if we wanted to get past that. Would you accept
Professor Chomsky's proposal that the basis
the actual basis of what he would call so-called
liberal democracy is so corroded so corrupt
that actually the pillars of authority that
you're putting forward don't really have validity
in the first place.
Mark Lilla [00:22:04] No. Because what's being
compared is our present reality and the disaster
of our campaign finance system which I agree
with entirely with some fantasy of a plebicite
like democracy that is not the democracy we
have in fact we have constitutional democracy.
And it was constructed in a certain way so
that authority was would be diffuse in different
sorts of institutions. They would lean against
each other and disagree with each other in
other ways. It's an indirect democracy. And
that allows consultation. And frankly it leaves
room for elites to be in a room and to reflect
on these things and our great powers after
we get to put people into office that is that
eventually we can get rid of them. And that's
the test I think.
Rana Mitter [00:22:51] But of probably democracy
without putting words in Noam Chomsky's mouth
he would say that you can substitute a Democrat
for a Republican but essentially they all
come from the same sort of background with
the same sort of assumptions and the same
sorts of. But there is power it's not really
actually.
Deirdre McCloskey [00:23:04] But there that
there's there's an underlying problem here
with with both the the infantile but very
does distinguished left distinguished colleague
in the end and the fascist.
Deirdre McCloskey [00:23:22] Oh yeah. I don't
actually mean that. But. That we're all we're
both of them are assuming.
Deirdre McCloskey [00:23:30] That our lives
should be entirely political and that politics
should dominate the economy the society that
that's where all the action is. And I I I
I I look left and right is simply an argument
over how massive state power will be used
on the left encouragement of class warfare
on the right encouragement of the imperial
expansion to curse on both their houses. Let's
move to say I less governed society.
Rana Mitter [00:24:15] I'm going to go back
to Professor Miller and then to Professor
Chomsky. You look in the first place and then
we'll go to report.
Noam Chomsky [00:24:22] Now you've got nothing.
The most obvious. You want more government
I want less.
Rana Mitter [00:24:30] It was the CIA. It
was her. It was the Andrews cousin. My cousin.
I'm hoping we will get Professor Chomsky about
the line because that was actually a really
rather well. Well we do that. That's just
too bad not enough to guarantee it.
Mark Lilla [00:24:47] I mean I agree with
Deidre McCloskey more than she might think.
Yeah. And I think you are part of the art
of authority is that to the extent that you
can have spontaneous or you should have there
you then write our will join on and so but
to the extent that you. Have government that
acts it must have authority within the realm
that it does not like. There were so the the
American movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
has a lot to answer for. Yeah there's this
idea. This kind of Frank Frank Capra view
of politics in America that you can find some
corn pone guy you know who is this pure individual
and he'll go to Washington and I'll see how
corrupt everyone is. And you know the people
will flood in and and everything will change.
Also President Trump right. Right. Yeah. American
movies are like that. What are they about
some corporate structure right. And there's
one computer programmer there who understands
everything and the journalists won't listen
to me. Eventually they overcome them and that
makes Americans suspicious of authority. I
would like more limited government but more
authoritative government in the things that
government does.
Deirdre McCloskey [00:26:02] Well I agree
with you there. But look in in nineteen thirteen
the share of all levels of government expenditure
state federal local in the United States was
about seven and a half percent of national
income of all the stuff produced in the country.
Seven and a half percent. Now it's 32 percent.
Rana Mitter [00:26:25] But definitely let
me let me come in on that. One of the reasons
it rose so fast was two little things one
called the New Deal and the on the back of
the Great Depression and one when the second
world war. Yes. Are you suggesting the United
States either should not have dealt with the
Great Depression or fought the Second World
War.
Deirdre McCloskey [00:26:40] Well I have great
criticisms of Franklin Roosevelt's economic
policy. I get into arguments with my mother
who's 95 on these matters and she's an FDR.
Rana Mitter [00:26:54] But the authority of
the American system by the end of the 1920s
has been heavily corroded by the fact that
capitalism at that time seemed to have failed
and put up in.
Deirdre McCloskey [00:27:02] Well yeah I put
that extra and haven't failed and hasn't failed.
Look here we go. Where we're vastly. We're
vastly better off in in in 1941. Just take
one date. The average income in the United
States was what it is now in Brazil. And I
love Brazil. It's a wonderful place but it's
poor. And I hope it will stop being poor but
the way it's going to stop being poor is the
spontaneous order of the market and Anna and
I want to make again this point that language
is a spontaneous order and an argument is
a spontaneous order and the and the and the
common law is a spontaneous order. And they
work reasonably well they're not perfect.
And and we don't need to be bossed around
all the time.
Rana Mitter [00:27:51] Professor Chomsky would
you say the spontaneous order of the market
will get us through.
Noam Chomsky [00:27:56] Well actually I lost
the last. Sorry. I don't know if what I said
last over we got most of it actually there.
But wait which we just did.
Noam Chomsky [00:28:10] Let me just start
with the last comment. 1941. Yeah we were
a much richer society. Incidentaly for most
of the population that stops at around 1980,
when the liberal principles were instituted.
By now, real wages for the majority were approximately
what they were in the 1960s. We've grown by
very few. However, its true that we were much
richer than in the 40s we have all sort of
things that we didn't have back then. For
example, what we are using the computers and
the internet - where did they come from? Did
they come from the market? Absolutely not!
They came from dynamic state sector of the
economy. For decades, the creative and risky
work was done either in under tax payer subsidies
in institutions like my own (MIT) or other
research institutions under tax payers subsidies,
for the institutions like IBM, which were
subsidised. Finally when IBM was able to create
a computer that was fast and usable, they
couldn't sell it. So it was bought by a government
institution, Los Alamos. Well-established
procurement is a major way in which the taxpayer,
meaning the statem subsidises private enterprise.
And to a large extent what we call a market
is a system of public subsidy and private
marketing and profit. We ought to face the
reality. I agree with Deirdre McCloskey that
we shouldn't take orders and that includes,
crucially, the orders that are taken by the
worker who rents himself toa boss. No one
should do that. The idea that a private wealth
and corporate power should have an overwhelming
effect on choice of legislation that's a form
of subordination to power that we should not
accept. So I agree with McCloskey that we
should not distinguish that political and
economic system that are totally interwoven,
but we should face the reality of each of
them and question whether the authority is
exercised is in fact legitimate, say, by classical
liberal principles.
Rana Mitter [00:30:50] Well that question
of legitimate authority I think will lead
us very neatly to the next part of our discussion
we I think have had plenty of discussion but
we're not going to get agreement rightly so
I think on the question of whether we have
too much authority or too little in various
societies. But I think we need to bring particular
human beings into this more because the question
of leaders and leadership has also become
a very very live one in the last couple of
years whether in the Western world with the
election of President Trump the election of
President McCraw in France a rather different
sort of leader from Trump perhaps but certainly
some a very strong personality. All the criticism
of some other leaders. Perhaps the leaders
in Western Europe including for some prime
minister may as not having enough authority
enough leadership then of course the emergence
of Aryan in Turkey Xi Jinping and China a
whole variety of different sorts of leaders.
And I suppose the question comes if we turn
from authority to authoritarianism which is
a related but different sorts of question
and what Leila you obviously as our other
speakers are based in the United States you've
seen the phenomenon emerging there. But more
broadly globally do you think that we're entering
a world where authoritarianism is becoming
too attractive away for leaders to operate.
Mark Lilla [00:32:07] Oh absolutely. And what's
especially disturbing about it is that these
right wing authoritarians are learning from
each other. So you know left wing authoritarian
as well as I was more in the past. But now
when Orban does something it might be mimicked
on the French right. And and so on. And you
know but but but authoritarian ism and I'm
not even sure it's the right word. I'm not
sure what it has to do with authority. I mean
it has to do with nationalism and has to do
with racism it has to do with anti-Semitism.
It has to do with militarism has to do with
all sorts of things I don't know what it makes
it authoritarian ism.
Rana Mitter [00:32:52] I think probably the
idea would be in this case that in those cases
that the authority is embedded in the government
indeed this in this case the leaders sense
of his or her own sort of the Paris charismatic
ization of authority in that sense ie the
leader of China ie the leader of Turkey i.e.
the leader of the United States perhaps these
data the rights to everyone when there is
not a word for it which is simply tyranny
and and I'm against it.
Deirdre McCloskey [00:33:20] I think that
the tyranny of the women of of whites over
blacks over rich people over poor people.
These are the things that I think should be
made. Nuts should be made. I can't really
say this smaller. That is the the the range
of authority that men had over or over women
was once extremely large. There is a marvelous
statement of this by someone who said in the
18th century kings had power and women had
none. Now it's the other way around. And that's
OK with me.
Rana Mitter [00:34:01] But inherently is the
problem. Yeah okay. But if we're talking about
certain leaders of countries which have shrunk
the democracies that's one thing. Yeah. Would
you say that legitimately elected Democratic
leaders in the making it is Angela Merkel
a tyrant in Germany.
Deirdre McCloskey [00:34:18] That's a good
question. Thank you. She didn't look like
a tyrant. I mean take a look. She's a she's
a German. Armstrong. I mean well she did make
more than that to be fair she kept her veto
a dissident background came through a very
very male dominated patriarchy to get us to.
I mean just like Germany.
Rana Mitter [00:34:36] The question I mean
is what is it that makes Angela Merkel not
a tyrant and presumably also Who are you suggesting.
Deirdre McCloskey [00:34:42] Is it because
she listens to people. So this is the big
drop of yet. And b be afraid because Donald
Trump doesn't listen daily anyone he thinks
he knows everything he's a complete fool and
he's very dangerous precisely for that reason.
She listens to her opponents to her when she
did this terrible mistake of allowing them
a million people from Syria. And she she she
reacted.
Rana Mitter [00:35:13] She's she's at least
who presumably brought many of Donald Trump's
voters would say that he listened to them
and it's your idea not to let in a million
people in the United States he did that and
that's that's the trouble to to.
Rana Mitter [00:35:27] That doesn't make him
a tyrant. That makes him so somebody listens
to a different set of people.
Deirdre McCloskey [00:35:30] It makes him
a tyrant when he does the things that Mark
was pointing out to find erupt every and.
Mark Lilla [00:35:36] I think I think I understand
your question better now. Someone like Erdogan
is a good example right. Where who's someone
who's elected on the basis of a kind of charisma
and then proceeds then to destroy the democratic
institutions within. Apart from the power
it comes out of his presidency. And if that's
what you mean by authoritarian is that that
is the problem of violence in Syria.
Rana Mitter [00:35:58] So let me turn to Professor
Chomsky. I mean you have been very critical
in the first part of the discussion about
the nature of what you say is so-called liberal
democracy. Do you think that tyranny and democracy
can be clearly differentiated in terms of
leaders who who would you choose today as
a genuine democrat and who would you say is
perhaps an elected tyrant.
Noam Chomsky [00:36:17:00] Not one of the
personalities, I feel that this is slightly
misleading. So if we look at the EU: who makes
the basic decisions? It's not the national
states. The basic decisions are made by the
troika, the IMF, the unelected European Commission
and the central bank operating in Brussels.
One of the reasons we are seeing in Europe
the spread of so-called populism in opposition
to the main established institutions to the
centrists and left-of-centre parties that
had governed the country, plenty of opposition
to them - outrage, anger, fear - past of the
reason is that the decision making has been
further removed (it was always quite remote)
further removed from people themselves. And
the decisions that are being made, at the
higher level beyond popualr control, basically
respond to the banks not to the population.
The level of austerity, the version of neo-liberalism,
has had dire economic effects on large parts
of the population. And it has angered and
outraged people. When we turn here, is Trump
listening to his constituency? No he has one
major legisaltive achievement so far, what
economist Joseph Stiglit properly calls the
donor tax bill of 1917. The bill which harms
the general popuation, harms Trump's constituency,
then benefits his actual constituency which
is concentrated wealth and corporate power.
We have been observing in the US for the last
year, in my view- its the sensible system
in which the figure in the White House focuses
attention on himself, total media attention
on Trump, his antics and showing up the falsehoods
of yesterday which have now been forgotten.
And while he is doing that, the more savage
wing of the Republican party - Paul Ryan,
Mitch McConnell and the rest are ramming through
a legislation, which is extremely harmful
to their constituency, their voters and everyone
else. And in fact the world in general. We
cannot forget why the Doomsday clock has moved
two minutes to midnight. That's an overwhelming
fact surpassing everything else we are discussing
and its largely because of these actions that
are being taken udner the cover of Trump's
antics. It's a good game, it plays very well
but its extremely dangerous and its leading
to rage, anger, irrationality, and sometimes
support for the charismatic figures, that
claim to represent it, while in fact they
work for their own interests.
Rana Mitter [00:39:51] Let me put that to
the other panelists Deidre McCloskey. Would
you say that in a sense we shouldn't be distracted
by the idea of charismatic leadership figures
it's sort of something that people come straight
on the distraction to the real issue.
Deirdre McCloskey [00:40:03] We shouldn't
be distracted and we wouldn't be distracted
if the leaders weren't so important in it
look at that. Let's take that. That's seven
and a half percent national income in 1913
spent whereas now it's over 32 percent. In
France it's 54 percent. The government spends
54 percent of everything that's that's produced
in France. Henry Kissinger who I don't entirely
admire is a war criminal but still he said
correctly France is the only successful communist
country and there's a lot to do that if if
you look in in 1938 to Massachusetts I there
were appalling urban politics in places like
Boston where I grew up or Chicago where I
now live extremely corrupt extremely interested
in this in the sense that if a certain Chomsky
is speaking of and it didn't matter very much
it didn't affect most people in the United
States because the government was confined
it was small it didn't matter. Now we have
this gigantic government and we're arguing
about how this gigantic power is to be used
and I wish I wish we would focus more on trying
to bring the gigantic power under control.
Rana Mitter [00:41:34] So Mark - Where would
you come in on this do leaders matter in the
end or not.
Mark Lilla [00:41:38] Well they do but it's
possible to be met mesmerize them and I think
misunderstand how certain kinds of democracies
work. Let me give you an example. Had Hillary
Clinton become president she won the popular
vote had she become president. And had she
not won Congress. Very little of her agenda
would have been passed. And a lot of it would
have been blocked at the state and local government.
For example a few weeks ago the state of Iowa
passed a law saying that abortion would now
be illegal. From the moment the heartbeat
of the fetus could be heard which is about
six weeks which is normally before most women
know they're pregnant now there's a constitutional
right to abortion in America. But the way
the federalist federal system works you have
to go and you have to win elections in all
these states. And the huge problem the Democratic
Party because it's become a cultural elite
party at the top because of identity politics
where it's focused it's not able to develop
a large message or put its concerns about
minorities in a larger vision. They're incapable
of going to a place like Iowa and convincing
Iowans if you want to defend women it's not
enough to elect Hillary Clinton or need a
hat. You've got to go to Iowa. Win elections
in an overwhelmingly white state of people
who are very religious and that is the challenge
for the Democratic Party. It's not looking
for a charismatic figure. It's working through
the party from the ground.
Rana Mitter [00:43:21] But it's worth pointing
out just on that Mark as you just said at
the beginning of comment there. If you're
looking at in terms of getting people to vote
for you. More people voted for Hillary Clinton
than vote for Donald Trump. The electoral
college meant that in fact she didn't get
to win but it didn't mean that people wouldn't
vote for Hillary Clinton or the Dem or didn't
you just say yes.
Mark Lilla [00:43:39] Oh no no but not at
the state level in a federal system. We live
in a geographically very polarized country.
So the two coasts are democratic and blue
the vast center is dominated by Republicans
but given our system one has to be able to
go to protect women minorities LGBT people
in Mississippi and Alabama and in Missouri
where you know it's a crime to drive while
black and many city.
Rana Mitter [00:44:07] But forgive me if you're
having a little less accident. Some people
say the reason that those states in the Deep
South is a Republican is the fact that a previous
generation of Democrats and some up Republicans
to be fair passed civil rights acts that changed
the nature of the voting in those particular
states. Lots of people that didn't like the
changes who were Democrats became Republicans.
Mark Lilla [00:44:26] It's true and that's
the hit we had to take and Lyndon Johnson
knew that.
Rana Mitter [00:44:30] But that is not that
is contemporary identity politics too that
you have to take some of those hits as well
for what you might think is right.
Mark Lilla [00:44:36] If you can win but we
are not winning in the center in the center
of the country and we cannot protect our own
people. That's the problem.
Rana Mitter [00:44:47] We're talking here
about ways in which authority and leadership
come together particularly United States but
also in Western Europe. But it's worth remembering
that from first principles that have always
been proposals of societies that didn't have
leaders. Anarchy in the truest sense of the
word not in the sense of being chaos or necessarily
kind of turbulent conflict but operating without
those kind of top down structures. I mean
did McCloskey you would be I think frank in
saying that you're a libertarian your someone
he once is.
Deirdre McCloskey [00:45:17] But actually
I want to take back the word libera I think
is the correct word. And I'm willing to give
to to give to my friends on the left. Noam
Chomsky and so on the word progressive. I'm
a liberal.
Rana Mitter [00:45:31] Okay. So you're a liberal
but you're a liberal who wants as little government
as possible. You're back. Could you therefore
take that thought to its ultimate conclusion.
Could we have a society really without leadership
and would that function.
Deirdre McCloskey [00:45:42] No I don't think
so. And here I certainly agree agree with
Mark Mark a small government with with authority
and it's that where you can put bad people
in jail but only the bad people and the good
people where where the where the government
can can defend you and the channel against
the French or always thinking of an invading
Britain and and and our problem is Canada
which is an extremely dangerous country. And
so so a small government that does those jobs
effectively I'm all for it. But but I I want
to go back to something I said earlier and
ask Noam Chomsky if he doesn't agree that
language is a self organizing evolution language
is your own great scientific work on language
is is very much to the point here. And either
and so much of what we do and are is not about
people ordering us around. Now I agree you
have to learn. I completely agree with your
ear your speech about education so that the
schools can apply to children but once you're
free adults. There there should be is there.
There should be an encouragement to spontaneous
orders such as language and large parts of
the economy. I think you greatly existing
gathered.
Rana Mitter [00:47:12] We put those two points
together and put them to Noam Chomsky. Should
we be looking to a society in which leadership
authority and that top down this should give
way to something that's smaller more spontaneous
and bottom up and if so what in practice would
that look like.
Noam Chomsky [00:47:30] Well I think it would
be being both with the entire left and the
classical liberal, which are very close incidentally.
I would agree with that, and I think we are
making a mistake by focusing solely on the
political side of the major structures of
authority in our society. The major structures
of authority in our society are in the economy.
Its run by concentrated private power, to
which people can essentially at the very bottom
level rent themselves in a way that was condemned
by classical liberals. Furthermore that concentrated
private power has an overwheling effect on
the political system, in a maner which I briefly
indicated, and a self-organised society would
begin with economic institutions. It would
go back to what JS Mill and American and other
workers talked about, and Abraham Lincol talked
about in the late 19TH century. Self-organiesd
economic institutions. Institutions in which,
capital doesn't hire labour but labour hires
capital. So that would be the basic unit institutions
controlled by their own participants That
would lead I think we should look forward
could lead to a system in which power is generally
dissolved both in the political and economic
systems which are closely linked, and placed
increasingly in the hands of popular self-governed
organisations who accept delegation of authority,
but only in a highly conditional way with
constant supervsion by operative groups and
so on. And I think thats a direction in which
society can move, but we have to face the
reality of whats happening. So take what Mark
Lilla correctly says about the power of states.
We should remember, however, how low voting
participation is. There is an important study
by major political scientists, Walter Dean
Burnham and Thomas Ferguson, looking at 2014
election that's legislative states. Turns
out that voting participation is about at
the level it was in the 1820s when there were
property restructions, of course women couldn't
vote others couldn't vote - and we're back
to a situation like that. That is a reflection
of somIs it possible that all those things
I would agree with.
[00:47:40] Well I think we're making a mistake.
[00:47:42] What I would say solely on the
political side.
[00:47:48] Yeah. The nature struck hard at
our society well the media or actually a part
in our society or in the bottom. Well the
economy is basically where I think it's wrong
but wasn't a private power which people can
essentially at the very bottom level rightly
so because no one loves a woman or furthermore
that once a private power has an overwhelming
effect one political system no matter originally
indicated only self organised side would be
in economic usual.
[00:48:39] Let me go back to what. Well Stuart
Mill and Martin Walker what about Abraham
Lincoln book.
[00:48:47] Well it was 19th century self organized
economic news as usual which Apple doesn't
hire labor reporters. Yeah. Or that that would
be the nation. You know it's.
[00:49:05] Oh cool. By their own work isn't
all that good. Well I think you put forward
a system in which power is generally involve.
Both the vertical technology is because in
my opinion the police received money in the
hands of the popular self-governing organizations
which do so delegated more authority.
[00:49:33] Only then why did this.
[00:49:35] What it meant for instance is anybody.
Well here is what we were saying maybe. So
I think I've seen erection. No. Good.
[00:49:50] We have to face the reality of
what's happening. Think what.
[00:49:54] Or will it work our out which you
should not recover. Well a loan will be worthless
and it is so important. Certainly by making
political scientists will burn stories. The
2014 budget. That's what you should say Verizon.
One important speech all about the local.
[00:50:20] It wasn't even one more property
inspection equal being watched over by Rush
Limbaugh.
[00:50:32] That is a collection of the same
kind of visions that are leading authoritarian
general anger towards failure.
[00:50:46] Well this has been exaggerating.
[00:50:48] We're only worse than a moderation
in the global austerity programs. Bear in
mind or wages for American workers or more
workers today are actually at a level one
in 60. That's just not true.
[00:51:07] Immigration policy doesn't want
to work for. That's absolutely not true. Owe
more on their lives than the reaction of any
rational.
[00:51:18] Okay. Promised jobs he thinks that
apart from a little disagreement I did hear
at the end that in some senses what did McCloskey
and Noam Chomsky have said has some areas
of convergence in terms of wanting something
that looks less like than like top down leadership
and more like spontaneous grassroots operation.
They also both engage with the term liberal
which of course is something that you know
very well from Iran. What do you see a liberal
society also meaningfully being one where
leadership is less top down and less organized.
[00:51:48] No not not in the modern world
we live in with the modern economy but these
ideas go hand in hand the idea that authority
is this is the castle and the fantasy of living
without the castle even deeper I have to say
when you you speak the word government. It
sounds like you're talking about some alien
spaceship that comes down right and then sucks
all the energy out of the people and flies
back up and that's and that's not how things
work.
[00:52:17] The whole point in our system is
not to fight authority is to become the authority
and that means participation. I couldn't agree
with Noam Chomsky more about the crisis of
participation and that's why on the other
side I actually think that voting should be
required in Australia for it.
[00:52:37] Oh yeah yeah yeah.
[00:52:38] I think that will be a good healthy
report. So what. I'm into the kind of liberalism
that I'm for is a kind of a kind of you know
what's sometimes called civic republicanism
where there's a sense of public duty public
participation and you know sense of solidarity
among citizens as as citizens and but that
means engaging and trying to become the authority
not have the fantasy of escaping out of a
free.
[00:53:07] That that vision you have would
come out of a freer society in which there's
which we're in which we aren't slaves. That's
the key. It's it's actual slavery not not
not not not not the wage slavery. That that
the norms talking about actual slavery is
okay.
[00:53:27] So we have that different views
I think from our panel. This debate could
go on and on it deserves to. But we are coming
towards time because what do you think. Professor
Noam Chomsky professor Mark Lilla. Well. Professor
did daydream McCloskey as our newly our newly
declared superhero future liberal professor
Mark Miller.
[00:53:56] Thank you all very much.
[00:53:57] As for more debates talks and interviews
Subscribe Today to the Institute of awesome
ideas I TV.
