From CAFE, welcome to stay tuned. I am preparing people who have technocratic expertise, but who lack human judgment and experience practical wisdom sense of history. They ve gotten us if you, if you just look back at the last term, century. They ve gotten us into some pretty dangerous political circumstance. That's Michael Sandel, he's in esteem philosophy. Profess harvard- and I sat in his classroom many years ago to learn about justice during his four decades of the school here. sport, thousands of others to explore thorny ethical issues. This week, Professor Sandel publishing a new book. The tyranny of merit what's become, of the common good

send Ellen. I talk about the roots of America's obsession with meritocracy and why we might need to retire. The word smart, that's coming up stated Let's get to your questions, this question comes in a tweet from twitter users. Daren T H, who writes dont understand how actions prior to protest his term candy the resources to the deejay to defend hashtag ass pre, thanks to you for your question, on this question a lot over the last twenty four hours privacy referred, the case of each Carol against Donald Trump aging Carl, is a woman who claims that many years, Donald Trump raped her in after she those allegations Donald Trump said in return that she was a liar and was making it up. She since file Defamation suit against the sitting president and the press, lawyers, personal aware,

defending that in your state court and what happened this week is that the Department of Justice itself important department within the gun has essentially intervened and filed of removal, which means, as is sort of a emotion to change the court from your estate court to the southern district of new federal court. a lots of people but asking the question: why is the presence defence now suddenly gonna be paid for by the taxpayer and be defended by the Department of Justice I'll say, as it is in the ordinary course of department, justice responsibility to defend, suits against federal employees, when they have acted within the scope of their official duties so gazing conduct that is being attacked in some In a civil law suit, it is a department of justice. After certificate is made that the conduct within the scope of official duties they take on the responses, that was true when criminally USA's in my office. Pursued by people. Are civil division would take over the defence after certification and there's nothing abnormal about that

the question here through reason. People are raising their eyebrows like this person in the tweet is how can it be that this conduct by the president was part of his official duties? Let me just one response to the tweet which asks how can actions prior to put his term engage the rest this is the dear also. The alleged rape happened before the poses term, but the conduct causes the suit to arise. A lawsuit arise did happen while he was president- and that was the defamation itself, the accusing of the accuser of being a liar. But then answer the question of how that could possibly be within the official scope, but the president's duties. We have a simple declaratory statement by the guy in moving the case to the southern district of New York, which states quote James G to Junior the director of the what's branch within the civil division of the Department of Justice, certify that the defendant Oh you, president Tromp was acting within this but his office or employment at the time of the incident out of the claim arose dishonest.

The claim asserts defamation, based on a written statement issued to the press and to statements the present made an interviews in June, twenty nineteen, in what President vehemently denied accusations made and plaintive then forthcoming book. End quote, aside from the question of whether the present is, in fact a cordon quote: employee of the government, which some academics have raised. A question about The mere fact that the utterance was made while Donald Trump was president, I think most legal experts will say, doesn't qualify it as something done within the scope of official duties and employment. I am not an expert myself, I'm a settled. claims ACT, but there are a lot. Who'd been posting on social media and I'm fighting little support base. On the certification made for the proposition that we taxpayers should be paying for this defence request on stay tuned, Professor Steve logic posted a tweet in which is Dear J is allowed. Indeed, it is required to take over suits against federal officials for towards committed within the scope of their employment. But how is clear

the Carol lied about a decade old rape allegation within the scope of trumps employment. As president question mark exclamation my question: what gets a lot of punctuation for Steve and our friend joys, Vance former ME attorney from Alabama tweeted quote: Deal J gives legal representation to federal employs sued for actions within the scope of their employment, so we are now footing the bill for comes defence basin, the ludicrous but he was acting as poetess when he called each Carol, a liar troublesome she's, not my type, I don't think that's within the scope of his presidential duties either end quote, but just to be certain I can did with a former superstar from the civil division in asking why? Why were put very closely over the years in case. I was missing something because sometimes quick analysis for media doesn't get to the heart of the matter. I asked my former colleague: is this bonkers or arguably legit my former civil division colleague, replied, I'd, say outrageous, see the argument that the federal Tore claims ACT applies if the government official committed the alleged toward while acting within, cover his official duties, and here he committed

let's toward defamation, while he was president, but that can't have been within this of his official duties and the real. Let conduct happened way before he was president, so I'll stick without rageous end quote so there you have it very little support. I dont understand exactly how they're making this argument in good faith. I've seen very little support we'll see other case proceeds in the southern district. This question comes in an email from David who writes quote with the possibility he statehood bubbling up in political conversations. Lately Little wonder about the effect it could have on blue slip, procedures for the District of Columbia and Dc Circuit courts. And I realize I didn't know how to send it handles those courts now and I haven't Then he answers to some version of the blue slip, nor apply to these courts and what implications might statehood pose for judicial appointments? Thank you will actually email David, so the boy

Flip policy and norm is something that was familiar with during the time of those working in United set it on the Judiciary committee. Not enshrined in any statute or regulation, its basically a Senate tradition of respect for homestead senators, so it has been for a long time. In the past, the practice of the Judiciary Committee, led by chairman, Democrat or Republican, that any appointment of a district court judge and appeals court judge are used, turning or U S, Marshall from a particular district must have the ascent to go forward by the homesick. Editors and there's a slip. It actually colored blue that the senators and upon receiving a nomination of one of those times that I mentioned, and this you can either check the box. That says, I approve check box, it says I don't approve or just not submit They blew slept at all for many many years. If both the United States, senators from a particular state did not check the approved box, the nomination wouldn't go forward. There would be no hearing. There would be. No

in recent years during the trouble administration that policy with Witherspoon blue slips and the courtesy has not been accorded for circuit Court Nominees- appeals court nominees at one level below the Supreme Court. That has been some country. Sure, but they had proceeded without necessarily requiring the consent of all the homestead centres and recall it all appeals court judges come from circuits that encompass more than one state. So if you haven't appeals court judge there might be three or four or five states implicated and you would have to have blue slips from all those states and lately republic, not now during the bracelet perspective those seats, I believe there have been some exceptions to the honouring of loosely four district court judges, but by a large, it's my understanding. After having consulted with a lawyer in the committee, that in most cases they happen you to be honoured with a respected district court judges and use attorneys and newest marshals Azra DC you're, absolutely correct. There is nobler slow process, because there's no United States senator from DC, because it's not a state. There has been some time it

I'm respect and courtesy accorded to Eleanor homes. Norton the delegate to the House during your bomb administration in the clinic ministration. She was allowed to put forth recommendations for the court, but there's no blue soup procedure for DC. I would presume fifty sea were to become a state, but were far from that point that, whatever the blues, the practices for New York or California or Texas or Florida, would also apply to DC. This question comes in an email from MAX who writes, big fan of the show and book. You have spoken a lot about it. J memo on federally charging a sitting president with crime, does this? so pertained to state aid jeez, for example, present recently encouraged North Carolina voters to try and vote twice, which is a state crime in North Carolina, could the North Carolina Agee indict. The president was, if in question, was very whether another,

take me to the crime by encouraging voters to fight about twice. I don't think it's quite there. I think you can have been more. That was sending people sort of eagerly suggesting that the president could be charged with a crime, and I don't think that, as a matter of substance, the prosecutor North Carolina when you take that step as your question about whether or not the Deirdre a memo applies report to state agencies while on its face it does not, it only binds people within the Justice Department, United Attorneys and people, and people who work at headquarters in the Department of Justice and also special councils like Robert Mahler, on its face. It does not apply to state agencies we have a system of federalism and policies and rules and standards that apply to the federal government and federal prosecutors, don't apply separate rules apply to each state or fifty states have different rules and procedures. so a North Carolina prosecutor would not be bound by the guidance of the the legal counsel memo, but is, I think I've said before you would expect that the underpinning of after legal counsel memo, whether you like it, and I would be the argument that would be made-

the present and his lawyers. If there was a charge filed against the present, in other words, that the presidency is too important to be interfered with, while the president is sitting in office. Some people think that we claim some people think that the strong claim, the member and apply. But arguably the policy underline the memo. That's been confirmed twice. First after Watergate than after Bill Clinton was impeached. Some people find that principle to be persuasive, and that would be the argument that the presence lorries would make. But again I was seen indictment have with respect to their conduct it's time for a short break. Stay too, when simply save him.

Securities founders, Chad and Eleanor Laurens Design, their first security system in their kitchen. They didn't for a very personal reason. Their friends had just gone through a home breakin. They were struggling to find a security system that was simple to set up and that could help them feel safe again make People feel safe is would simply safe has been doing ever since that moment, fifteen years ago, a passion to protect people- He drives every engineering detail in their products, but it motivates every interaction with their customers. Simply safe has highly trained security experts ready whenever you need them, whether that's during a fire, a burglary, a medical emergency or even when you're just setting up the system. So there's always someone there. Who has your back to keep you safe and to make sure you feel safe. As my listen, you can save twenty percent on your simply saved security system and get

first month free when you sign up for interactive monitoring service. Just visit simply saved our com, slash priest to customize your system and start protecting your home and family today, again that simply saved outcome, slash preach according to Forbes Jim's, nail salons hotels, moment, hops Wars and more are set to go in and epic hiring. three. In the coming months to businesses, expanding to meet the pent up demand for all of these services. The thing is higher has never been more complicated. We do what the world will look like next week, let alone next year you're in charge of hiring for your company. You could probably use a little backup and you can even tries to procure for free at zip, recruiter, dot com, slash preach when you posted job on zip, recruiter they send your job to over one hundred tough job sites, giving you act, to their network of millions of job seekers, zip recruiters matching technology

scans Reza amazed to find qualified candidates for your open roles and proactively presents them to you Now you can try zip recruiter for free at this exclusive web. Address, zip, recruiter, dot com, slash, preach zipper, cougar, dot, com, slash, P, r e t just go to sea, precluded com, slash, pre, zip, recruiter, the smartest way to hire my guess this week is hard philosophy, Professor Michael, send out he's been shifting the conversation around justice for the last forty years sand eels new book, the tyranny of merit what's become of the common. is an intense indictment of America's relationship with achievement. Sandel right the treatment of essential workers, the rhetoric of our politicians and how we valorize college its power,

assessment of our greatest challenges. As we approach the pivotal November elections and beyond, I think it's a must read for everyone. professor Michael J Sandel welcome back to the show great to be with you pretty I'm gonna get you book. Congratulations on yet another book, but first, on a personal note, For those folks who may not remember me not to listen to our special one hundredth episode of stay tuned, where you were the special guest. I wanted to remind folks that not only are you just a college professor, you were my professor. Yes. Some thirty thirty two years ago in a highly regarded class. Called justice, I still remember the course title and the number moral reasoning. Twenty two and I know I told you, before, but I want our very Tens of millions of listeners to also know that you had a profound influence on me and were really important in my formation one. It's I think to teachers have had in my life so for good or ill.

A lot of what I've done after whispered on by you, and so I thank you for that. Israel treaty Well, it means a lot to me prayed it really does. He must get that a lot over the years. Well, is it something special coming from you? your book, the tyranny of merit, what's become of the common good. It is a great red. It is I opening I liked it so much that I offered a blurb for the path for the back of the book, anything something everyone should read in part, because it makes some arguments and bring some perspectives that I think people don't usually have. That it'll be surprising to other folks, and then we'll get into more of it in a moment. Samir theses in a moment, but as you point out in the book Almost every conversation debate, discussion that we have on the issue of merit and meritocracy is about how we make, society or an organization or an institution, more meritocratic does very little second, guessing of the concept, a notion of merit,

Creasy to begin with, which you spend a lot of time, but before we get to that that thesis, I wonder if you could explain folks what you understand to be this or that the traditional definition of meritocracy when people talk about that whether to politician or school principle or a ceo. What is it that they mean by it? What they mean is that, both should be able to rise as far as their effort and talents will take them, and if there is a level playing field, if chances are equal, those who land on top we'll have deserved their success conceded themselves. I earned it. My success was my own doing and therefore I deserve the benefits that go with landing on top. That's the idea, and in me,

ways it's an attractive idea. It is attractive why? Because it gets to the heart of what people think justices. It certainly gets to an aspect of justice that aspect of justice that is about removing barriers to achievement so that people can rise unencumbered by prejudice or the disadvantage of the circumstances of their birth. That's all a good thing. That's all an important part of a just society. The dark side comes when people who are successful inhaled too deeply of theirs. Success when they forget the luck and good fortune that help them on their way,

induces what I call a kind of meritocratic hubris among the successful, and this has become a growing feature of our public culture, especially among those who have flourished in the new economy over the past four decades. The age of illustration meritocracy, and this is corrosive of the common good, because the more the successful believe they did it on their own and deserve what they won. The less hope They are two identifying with those less fortunate than themselves. That's where the dark side comes in,

and that's where meritocracy has fuelled, I think, the resentment of those who feel that a leads to look down on them before we talk more about that dark side. What what are the origins historically and in particular in this country of this aspiration? meritocracy. The term meritocracy was coined relatively recently only in the late fifty's, british sociologist named Michael Young, who was violated with the Labour Party and was simple thing is when he climbed the term meritocracy. He sighed not as an ideal to aim not as the definition of a just society, but is it this topic because he thought well. It was a good thing that the class system in the hierarchy of birth was breaking down. In Britain he saw

that once chances were truly equal or perceived to be equal, there would be a widening gulf between the winners and losers that would generate resentment. But what happened after he wrote in quaint that term is that merit talk receive, came to be regarded as an ideal by politicians in public discourse. Precisely because, as we were just discussing prayed, it seems to describe the project of bringing about a more a society with equal opportunity where chances are equal, where everyone can rise. Regardless of the circumstances of their birth or their background, eraser their ethnicity, and so this was in alluring part of the meritocratic project and people forgot or overlooked. The dark side

and so it almost became this idea of rising based on your effort and talents. It almost became a troop, a slogan, a mantra of our politics across the political spectrum, that the main political project was to create a society where everyone could rise based on his or her own talents and efforts, and we lost sight of the dark side which Michael Young, back in the late nineteenth fifties had been alive to when he coined the term. So you write about the particular emphasis on the nose meritocracy, the United States. Obviously, the idea and the principle is not unique to the: U S. but I was startled to see you cite the following statistics: you right book asked what factors are very important to getting ahead in life, a marriage overwhelmingly by seventy three percent put hard work. First,

and you going to say in Germany, barely half consider hard work very important to getting ahead in France only One in four does: maybe that's why a vacation in France. What what accounts for this disparity among western countries? It is fascinating and stark discrepancy. I think it has to do with the tradition of America, individualism, the long standing face and belief that freedom concern in individual mobility, whereas the social democracies of Europe have always seen freedom as more a feature of a community of a certain kind. They ve always concede the individual as embedded or situated in a community

that shapes our destiny, and this may explain to why the welfare states of Europe have generally been more generous than that of the United States. because we are deeply wedded to this idea of individual initiative, individual responsibility and individual mobility. In fact, we ve, always wit Reblong, said that we don't really need to worry so much about inequality of income and wealth, because, unlike those Europeans in America, it's always possible to rise from the condition of your birth. So we ve always comforted ourselves with the thought that mobility, individual mobility, To rise is our alternative to equality As things have turned out, we

Actually now in the? U S, had less mobility, one generation to the then many european countries do it's harder to rise from being born into a poor family to into affluence in the? U S, then it is in Europe. So today that comforting thought it. We don't need to worry about inequality because people are not can signed to the fate of their parents or their family background. We may need now to think more directly to contain more directly within equality because actually having a more equal, society, creates a more mobile society rather the other way around, so import your thing meritocracy not only has a dark side. It's all Miss. It is a myth in practice it doesn't fit the facts on the ground, it more likely that a child born in

who are poor family will rise to the top say top twenty percent of income earners as an adult, that's more likely to happen in Canada or Germany or Denmark, then in the United States. So one might say that the American Dream alive and well in and living in Copenhagen. so there is amiss there that there is a kind of a man. Then this ideal of rising doesn't fit the facts on the ground and I think one of the reasons that we hear it here here they the slogan from politicians, both parties. Everyone should have a chance to read As far as their efforts and talents will take him, the rhetoric of rising as our colleague, one of the reasons we ve heard this so repeatedly

really trust in the last four decades that, when it came in to american public discourse, is it these were precisely the decades when it actually ceased to be the case that it was easy to rise in America by contrast with the condition in other democracies. Well, it's finally happening the world is opening up again and were hearing the word normal being tossed around a lot more. But after the year we ve had truly feeling normal is going to take some time and a little bit of work if you're one of the many people who might be feeling overwhelmed and anxious or if you find yourself having more bad days than you care to talk, space might be for you now, more than ever, It's important for us to be patient with ourselves and seek out the supply

We might need, after all, half of american struggle with mental health tax base is here to help tax base is secure, affordable and easy to use your mental health matters and whether your apparent student or even part of a couple, that's looking for more support talks base, has the right sort of professionals to meet your needs. Why wait leaks for an appointment when you can match with a licensed therapist today with the tax base up set goals with your therapist on your schedule, chat any time and conduct live video sessions from anywhere all part of my talk space is the but one online therapy platform to help you sort through any issue match with the license therapist when you gonna talk space, dot com and get one hundred dollars off your first month with a promo code priest, that's hundred dollars off when you use code preach a talk, space, dot com and when, as you more questions about this rhetoric of rising, you have a whole chapter or were sexual

book dedicated to that, and I've been thinking about. Not only politicians, use that terminology and that rhetoric. I've used it on a number of occasions. When I talk about America being special and talk about the fact that my parents, in their both- Special and also common immigrant story came to the United States and by dint of hard work, my father, who came here with nothing, became a success. Successful doktor had two kids and you know it's an inspiring story and immigrants- tell those stories all the time and not just emigrants, thoughts. Folks, because our lots of particular examples notwithstanding the overall statistic, you mentioned, there are a lot of particular. I still think ensue. Examples of people being mobile, from the bottom rung to the top wrong how should those people talk about those things? In other words, with respect to particular stories? Is it counter productive to stories that may inspire some to rise. Depends on how the story is told.

and whether the story carries with it and whether the experience encourages those who do rise, and these are deeply moving stories up Actually, the one that you're describing pray about immigrant families, those are deeply moving stories, but looking at those stories more closely, we often find in those who tell them often recognise a sense of responsibility and obligation for those who

make it up the wrong said the latter, so immigrant communities very often have, in addition to a faith in rising persisting sense of solidarity with the members of the that their community did didn't succeed in climbing the wrongs of the ladder, and so that's the concern. What makes those stories inspiring is that those who make it to the top Not only take pride in their achievements and not only have gratitude to their parents and grandparents who may have endured hardship to enable that assent, but who also recognise the good fortune associated with that assent. The luck and good

fortune, the support of family and community that help them on their way and therefore have a claim on them. So what makes the story, the emigrant story of upward mobility, most resonant and satisfying morally, is when its accompanied by an appreciation of what a gift. This is, and also that the folks who did not necessarily make that journey should not be denigrate.

I think you right of the Quote- Smoke conviction of those who land on top that they deserve their fate and those at the bottom deserve. There's also it also it's a failure of empathy is as well. You think, yes, and- and I think that this exactly is- is the question preach. You put your finger on it, so those individuals, those communities that rise, but with a sense of gratitude with a sense of indebtedness intact, a more likely to have a commitment to the community, a sense of responsibility that grows out of gratitude, even a kind of humility.

an appreciation. These moral sentiments are very different from what all too often accompanies the harsh meritocracy we have today, which emphasizes the idea of individuals making it on their own, forgetting the can It is the fortune, the luck, the sense of indebtedness that made it possible for them to flourish for them to succeed, and that I think that that sense of hubris among us successful the tendency to look down on those less credential less fortunate than themselves. This, I think, is what makes calling the divide between winners and losers in our society. That divide has deepened over the past four decades

and it is only a matter of economic inequality that has deepened It's also to do with harsher attitudes towards success. There have accompanied that divide between winners and losers, and this, I think over time, has has poisoned our politics and driven us apart, and it contributes to the polarization that we are experiencing today. because you write the more that people who, when think that they have won because of their effort and virtue or any other positive quality. The more they tend to think that the people who haven't, as we said before, deserve their fate and if you do that persistently decade after decade after decade, at some point those people who haven't been able to be mobile and climb. the wrongs of the latter. They start to feel what humiliation and what else.

Ass humiliation resentment sense that early her looking down on them. The sense that society doesn't value contributions, they make there's one other ingredient to this story, which is the idea that the major political parties mainstream politicians have encouraged and promoted in recent decades that the inequalities created by global Zation can be addressed, if only people will equip themselves to compete and when in a global economy, by getting a cow, large degree, preferably one from a brand name university, do you know of any like I'd hate? I do end up somehow my passion, some of my best friends Deja Harvard, but this as a political project. Now, of course, I am

all in favour of encouraging people to go to college, making it possible for people who can afford it to be able to go increasing access. Those are good hint, noble and precious aspirations. So, of course, I am in favour of that, but what I am I am critical of in the book is the tendency of politicians who have embraced a kind of market driven version of globalization to say

it's true, the median worker has had stagnant wages for four decades. Yes, it's true. There is growing inequality of income and wealth, but the solution is for all workers to get the kind of college degree that will enable them to rise ass. That political project seems to me a kind of cop out because it really says a pure struggling in the new economy. It's because of you. It's because you haven't pulled up your socks and gotten into a bridge.

judges, college or university, because, if you had, then you two could rise but dismisses is that the rooms on the latter are growing further and further apart and politicians and political parties, especially ones that claim to be progressive, need to address that too. Not only to say, if you get a prestigious college degree, then you will probably succeed in scrambling up the wrongs of that latter, more successful than you otherwise would so what I'm against is using college as as a kind of response to inequality. What that forgets breed- And- and this is something it's easy to forget for those of us who spend our days in the company of the wealth credential, what it forgets. Isn't most Americans don't have

here college degree nearly two thirds don't so it's folly to create an economy that sets the precondition of dignified work and a decent life that you have a for your college degree that leaves out the majority of Americans and I think, progressive parties, the Democratic Party in the? U S and social democratic parties in Europe are paying the price of that kind of tendency to ignore the importance of improving the lives of people who haven't been to college, but who do make important contributions to our economy and to our society. Yet you right- and in your book at one point quote one of the most galling features of meritocratic hubris is its credentials them, and you talk about this issue of college versus not college, as

one of the last acceptable prejudices yeah, where there were intuitively. We sense and in many working people feel that credential day leads to look down and those who lack a college degree and dont value. The work do, especially as more and more prestige to say nothing never remuneration has devolved, did those in two elite professionals and and those in the financial industry and so on, but from time to time event bring us up short. Think of the pandemic and away were suddenly applauding for essential workers thanking essential workers, delivery, people, people who work in grocery stores, truckers,

home health care workers, people who are not well paid and who are not widely honoured in our society. Now we're calling them essential workers and its annex, and to reflect on just how we value the and how well we recognise the contributions that people make, regardless of whether they they do work. That requires a college degree so I think we need to. We need to re, read her politics away from arming people for meritocratic combat or competition in putting instead at the Centre of power politics. The question of the dignity, work and ask how we can make life better in accord greater dignity in respect to people from all walks of life

regardless of their educational attainment, who make valuable contributions through the work they do, families they raise in the communities they serve. I wanna go back to this idea of whether not meritocracy itself is a good idea about ideas, as I mentioned at the beginning, most of the debate, as you say in the book, is about how do we get to a meritocracy? And you asked the question- and I, like you too the listeners, what your answer is and what the analysis is. You asked the question: what a perfect meritocracy be just what it No, I don't think it would and I'll tell you I am in a minute, but first it's important to recognize that we fall far short of the meritocratic principles we profess. We ve been talking about universities, to take one example: the highly competitive, selective universities,

at the Ivy League universities, there are more students from the top one percent than there are from the entire bottom half of the country and this is despite generous financial aid policies, so successful and affluent parents had figured out how to pass their advantages, their privileges onto their kids, and it has to do with equipping them, often through a kind of stress, strewn strenuous adolescent period in high school years to compete effectively to get into these two. These selective universities, but even if, even if we could text that, even if we could establish perfectly equal up

Community would that make for a just society where it would be an improvement over a society where people were held back due to being born to poor families who are held back, due to racial and ethnic prejudice or gender based prejudice it would be an improvement over there. But it not be enough to create a just society, because think about who would win the race even in a perfect meritocracy, the fastest runner, the fastest runner. But is it really my doing now- but I am a fast runner, but is it really the doing of the fastest runner to have the gift the endowment, the natural talent due to run his fast is the same bolt or is that his is that our good luck

so even a society that reward that where, where the winners one having started at the same starting point, there are differences of talent and there's a further thing. Let's take a concrete example: Lebron James a great basketball player and he works hard to cultivate his talents Not only is he not him health solely responsible for being as gifted an athlete as he is, but it also, is it really he's doing that he happens to live in a society that loves basketball, or is that his good luck? If he lived back in Renaissance ITALY, where they didn't much care for basketball, they liked Fresco painters more than basketball stars. It wouldn't be at the top of top of the burning

scale as he is now so the other example you give, which I like, when you mention Lebron James, is you're sure. There is someone who can arm wrestle as well as Lebron James Place Basket, but that poor fellow is not making hundreds of millions of dollars, because the market is not configured for the arm, wrestler right, We were not wild about arm wrestling. We dont flock to see it and in by the issue by sneakers and running shoes of the people who are good at it. So, even if you put aside the contingency of having certain to arm wrestle well or to be graded basketball or it science or it whatever. the fact that we happen to live in a society that prizes the qualities we happen to have? That, too, is not our own doing the matter of our good luck and we,

should be a little bit. Humble in recognising that, especially those of us who flourish whose talents are for whatever reason high demand. We should be that we should have a little humility in the face of that good fortune, these are the reasons why, even in principle breed a perfect meritocracy Understood is one where there were living level playing field. Then the race began. The winners got their winnings. These questions would still have to be asked about how we distribute those winnings an end to what end right, because in part the idea, meritocracy, I think, is the element. And of not just prejudice and biased, and things are held you back, but the elimination of luck, yeah, right area as equal opportunity and because the nature of talent and how that's given to us, not because we ve done anything to dust

it we don't deserve our talents and a perfect meritocracy by definition, still rewards luck right and not only rewards it economically in material terms with income and wealth But also rewards it in terms of honour and recognition and prestige and socialist and this is the most faithful aspect of the. after the anger that arises against meritocratic elites. People may consider that a system that doesn't pay them all that well compared to others who don't seem to be making a far greater contribution to the economy. People may consider that unfair and-

protest against it. But if you also look around and find that those who reap millions even billions. By making contributions that art obviously connected to contributing to the common good And if you feel the society looks down on your contributions and doesn't really accord dignity to the kind of work, that's less honoured that generates more than his sense of unfairness. It can generate a sense of humiliation and of resentment and anger, and I think that's the kind of resentment. That's animated. The populace backlash against daily set weave

seen well, certainly since two thousand and sixteen somewhat complicated a little bit more and as you do in the book is not so simple as we don't deserve our talents. There's also this other thing called effort and people tend to think. Well, I get it that I was born tall and I was in a maybe endowed with certain letting ability, but that didn't automatically send me a spot in the NBA. So I worked I applied a lot of effort. And I trained, and I trained and train the same as you point out four musicians before they can get to Carnegie Hall. I never get the Carnegie Hall. I will never get the NBA, no matter how much I work, no matter how much I practice, but it still is the case that for people who achieve the most success. There's a play considerable amount of effort does effort, make people worthy. And how do you and you analyze, that, in connection with meritocracy, I think effort striving are admirable

up to a point where we don't admiring shouldn't admire people who were heard indolence our who fail to cultivate their talent, sour, who don't care about contributing to to the economy. to the family or their community. So up to a point initiative, Dr Hard work effort are admirable human traits, their virtues, but it's quite another thing to suggest. That those who land on top of the society reap enormous rewards through the market system that that we have it's quite another thing to say that they deserve the full measure of those winnings, because they worked so hard lots of people work hard and some people who were

hard reap enormous rewards. The way our economy is configured and lots of people who work hard. Don't so I think it's a mistake to not a mistake to admire people who work hard and strive and have initiative. Those are good qualities, but I think it's a mistake to say that this is the basis of superior moral dessert. you trace in the book, something fascinating about the increased use of a particular word, and that word is smart, and I found that to be fascinating that over the last number of decades, the frequency of the use of of or by politicians and in magazines as a positive is something the denotes worth beyond just you know a latent attribute that someone is born with why that happening, and why good or bad. It is a fascinating thing and I went I did word counts

I was thinking how you did that. Did you have research assistants up you without sir? Well, I had a little bit of help, but also so there is, it- was pretty rigorously rigorous accounting of the use of the word smart over years. Yes, and it is now possible, given the search engines that are available to actually stand the scan, the archives of public discourse, including, for example, presidential discourse and as well as looking at the incidence of and the use of terms like smart and dumb in newspapers over time or in books, and it is striking that during the last four,

decades, which had been decades of the deepening inequality and a greater emphasis on meritocracy. The use of the term smart and at the contrast, smart verses, dumb, has skyrocketed over the past four decades in a general public discourse in political discourse and even in newspapers as in evaluating cat. Their lots of evaluative categories that we use, especially when talking about politics and the economy and public policy. We might say that this or that policy is just rather than unjust, that it's right rather than wrong, that it serves the common good rather than individual interests, these her presently moral, normative categories,

but increasingly politicians have been relying LE and invoking less those explicit, normative categories, moral categories and instead being set at instead arguing for their policy on the grounds that this is a smart policy rather than a dumb one, and in a way this reflects a certain kind of technocratic orientation. Smart rather than down. It seems non partisan

seems value neutral. It seems just a matter of efficiency but actually reflects a shift in the public culture. It seems to me taken together with other tendencies, I'd document in the book toward Val arising the smart, not only smart policies, but smart people and denigrating the so called dumb. Those who often Ara referred to as those who who lack the kind of credentials that are prized in America, meritocratic. You make the point further on this college. Non college divide that, unlike in prior times in Today'S- U S, Congress, for example, also true in the UK in their parliament, but in today's Congress, one hundred percent of senators have a college degree anything something like ninety five percent of house members, and you suggest

That may be that's not the greatest thing in the world. My question is with respect to other kinds of representation, whether its black brown members or women. We like to say we want Congress to look like America and for people to have proportional representation by that analysis, sure sure Congress be made up of two thirds of members without caused agrees. I think there should certainly

be far more than they currently are. I wouldn't say there needs to be an exact proportion, but I think it is a dimension of political representation that is remarkably skewed in that we don't even reflect on and, of course, its closely correlated with representation of people from from working class or modest middle class backgrounds, who are largely effectively excluded from from governance from from Congress from state legislatures there only a tiny fraction of members of of cuts, miss or of parliament in Britain or state legislatures in the U S who come from working class background. I get your point, but you know in other areas. It may be that we just think too highly of the difficulty of being a member of Congress, but I want them

I love my airliner to have the proper credentials and that's not valor, rising credential ism, That's why they make sure- and I want my president to be educated- is its so bad to demand certain kinds of credentials and backgrounds for people who have a lot of us already in power in the country we certainly want merit, broadly understood, but that's not equivalent to credentials as we ve been discussing them, so in Prince. Poor wow. We would like the people governing ass to be people of good and sound judgment. Aristotle way back in in ancient Greece spoke of practical wisdom. We want people, and this also goes all the way back to Aristotle and the republican tradition, people who have civic virtue, which means they identify with and care about, people from all walks of life and their society. They care about

common good. So these are the qualities about smart that differ well, it depends how we define smart if smart means, technocratic expertise, Well, we do want technocratic expertise in certain domains, but it has always to be tethered to moral judgment and to the ability to to exercise good judgment about the common good and so I think it's a mistake. So here's another way of putting it may be even more starkly creed. Ideally, we should be governed by the best, for you could say, that's a ringing affirmation, merit in governing and the brightest. Well, this distinction. But this is exactly the distinction that happened.

I want engine that book. You mention a book in your book as well right, the best in the brightest David. How Halberstam pointed out that L b J came to SAM Rayburn, his mentor from Texas and described the brilliant background,

of all of these people in the Kennedy Cabinet in SAM Rayburn, said to him, while they may or may be off a whole as smart, as you say, Linden, but I'd feel a little bit better if a few of them had run per sheriff. Reverence skeptical comment was pointing to the importance of people who are connected to ordinary citizens and their predicaments and who cultivate the kind of judgment that comes from mixing up with people from various walks of life, and it was oppression observation because the best in the brightest in Halberstam wonderfully ironic book title got us in to the folly of Vietnam that was their achievement and

as I pointed out in the book, the best in the brightest, the economists in this case, but many of them with the Wall Street experience during the Ababa years, a well first in the Clinton and then in the EU about me, others were among those who favoured the deregulation of the financial industry, getting rid of glass, legal deciding not to ban or restrain derivatives Oliver, was a high powered financial engineering techniques and who went when it all went wrong in the two thousand and eight financial crisis encouraged a Wall Street friendly bailout, the did very little to help people who had actually lost their homes and they did not hold those who had brought about to cry

thus to democratic account. These were the best and the brightest among the economists assembled by democratic, as well as republican administrations during the two thousand late nineties and toothless and so they created their own. Disaster not as lethal has the Gatt more, but in a way it cast a cloud over the promise of the Obama presidency generated resentment, the way the Visa Bailey. Was handled and actually I take, it can be argued, paved the way to Donald Trump, so people who have technocratic experts keys, but who lack human judgment and experience practical wisdom, sense of history and they ve gotten us if you, if you just look back at the last term, may have

tree, they ve gotten us into some plead dangerous political circumstance of one of the most fascinating parts of the book. That made me think about certain things differently is is related to what you just said, and that is the I'm I'm in the group of folks who have been concerned that there's an attack on expertise. You get that in lots of different areas, climate change and other issues as well. I'm certainly during the time of this pandemic and say things like leave in science and science should govern. But you make the point, what make as well as you, but just to introduce it, and I want to hear more of what you have to say about it Did the sort of persistent day after day banging of the drum of people who say. Now the only people who have the ability to deal with issue and who should be listened to our people with very, very deep, you might say, technocratic expertise, but that has an off putting effect.

On lots and lots of folks who used to believe and wood It was ok to believe that if you're a person of common sense and good judgment in America, whether your credentials are not, you can follow the debates of the day. You can follow the issues day, and you can participate in the debate at home or at the watercolor, with your neighbours or whatever, and this emphasis on technic, knowledge, which I have always thought to be. A hundred percent good thing has alienated those folks disenfranchised them and made them now deep. suspicious of the thing that you think is good expertise right. I think tat, that's exactly right Now, let me say at the outset, Creed I believe in and Intel she, I trust, found she not travel to bite, but the reason I trust party is partly it's not

Cuz he's smart in some abstract intellectual sense or in the in some in terms of iq or cognitive superiority. He has the relevant knowledge, the medical and public health knowledge about infectious diseases and he's honest. So he brings together a kind of technical expertise of the relevant, desperately relevant kind, with a human quality to do with judgement and asked worthiness. Honesty that shows how the best sources of political judgment, intermingle technical knowledge or a scientific knowledge, in this case medical knowledge with civic virtues, honesty, trustworthiness. In fact, when some in the Trump administration, including some

public health experts other than forty were relying solely on models, quantitative models that they were interpreting overly optimistically found she, according to reporting, he was sceptical of these models. He understood them. Of course, he was kept to call any perception on the phone every evening, calling people in the various cities to ask what they were saying on the ground, the equivalent, I suppose, in a way going back to help her stands. L B chased him Rayburn story. He. It even sort of talking to the sheriffs talking to the people on the ground about what actually was playing out in these communities.

So he has a kite what we admire about faulty- and I take this because the pandemic and in the debate about sciences, is right before us. He combines knowledge, medical knowledge with, kind of honesty and trustworthiness that our moral and political virtues, and so I think, it's important not to lose sight of that. better. To go back to the other aspect of obscure, appoint about this creep. I think that critics have Trump and I'm certainly among them, make a mistake. Simply to say, we Has followed the science wind, Biden cell is asked, you know: should we

down the economy or keep it open and he says I'll just decide. Based on what science tells me. I think that's not a great answer now. He could say any judgment about dad. It's a fateful judgment. It has to be informed by the best medical in public health knowledge. We have recognising that public health and medical experts disagree. So we have to out those disagreements and exercise some judgment about how do way their accounts, but these are political judgments, and so I think that some progressives are, but because of trumps, obvious MA still a tea and and refusal to accept even the most basic advice from medical and public health,

experts, Thurston tendency for democratic and progressive to say well. The problem here is he's against science and wherefore it and we will be guided by science. I think sat overstates it in a way that mrs the importance of political judgment and trustworthiness Honesty. I think, there's some truth in that bid. It seems to me that like Joe Biden, others, as you mentioned, are you that rhetoric, because its politically useful, because they have as an adversary, someone who so seems to disdain expertise in science, but that the people I Biden do appreciate. there, the leaders and they're not in using that rhetoric abdicating in this look in the same way that if you think about the cuban missile crisis in retrospect- and maybe even at the time we wanted a president Who would say, I will listen to the generals and I will take them their views into account. military leaders, but the president now make the call We don't want to leader, which I think part of your point who will say

I'll, do whatever the scientists say I'll do whatever the general say exactly, there's a reason why you have the leader Thracian why the generals writer its original scientists does not the president, and I think that rhetorical flourish is there now and maybe is being taken to an extreme because the adversary in the White House. Is yes, I think that's right and we see in the debate over masks. I mean there's say well, this is just the irrational wearing a mask is what's medically and scientifically mandated, and how can anybody possibly be against wearing a mask? Well, the debate about asks has become a kind of moment in the culture wars precisely because, over roughly four decades a great many people have become resentful of credential, meritocratic elites who have condescended to them.

who have said that you know well we'll figure this out. It's a matter of of technical expertise. Especially visa, be the economy because remember this whole condition this divide between winners and losers, Is this: the growing gap in the deepening inequality arose when experts assured us economic experts, assured us that deregulating the financial industry and pursuing

in over the NEO liberal version of globalization. The market driven version of globalization may create some temporary job losses and imbalances, but the overall gained GDP will be significant enough so that the winners can compensate the losers. That was the the premise of all of this, and that turned out not to happen. It didn't happen and it instead, the median wage her for her can people was stagnant for forty to fifty years. So is not surprising that there is a backlash against the confidence smugglers, shore, answers of credentials,

a leads that trust us where the experts, you may think that the manufacturing towns of the MID West are being hollowed out and jobs are being lost and wig wages are stagnant, but it's all part of a bigger economic picture that we have fully in mind and, furthermore, the financial as it does today, essentially, the economy will also help generate a kind of economic growth man that everyone will benefit practical. That wasn't true, and people know that in and so there are others there are other examples of that. Also on the part of the problem is that these experts or technocrats or whoever they are they happen to be, among other things, people and this extreme validation of of experts in and technical ability in so far as it starts to border on a belief in their infallibility allows critics to

athenais every single mistake that they make. You mentioned the pandemic. I'm old enough to remember, as the phrase goes, that there were expertise, adult were a mask excitedly. I you know I I I Yet what people are coming from when you know we said, listen to the experts, let the science govern we'll one point the expert said we're mask another thing: you must wear masks and there laughing at you and mocking you. If you question that directive now I wear a mask everyone. My family does because I think the near the weight of evidence is in favour of a wearing a mask, but I get em, it's maybe a small example of lots of other larger things like the economy, the you're talking about. If you overemphasize the experts they they can. Got an arrogance in and their supporters can take on an arrogance on their behalf that call

does anytime. They make an error. It causes people to just walk away altogether, so it's counterproductive in the mask just took her to follow up on this point, which is a really important one. Pretty the fact that the experts Chris told us one thing about masks and now tell us another- is an example of how we need to bring judgment, to bear Lake judgment to bear on the advice of experts, but more than that, let's just take it as given the importance of wearing a mask when it comes to deciding how to balance risks to oneself into public health against other aims that involves Certain judgments about public health, but it also involves political judgments and choices. When my son wanted to go out wearing a mask and participate in black lives matter,

arches and he knew tat. He was undertaking a certain risk, because these were not socially distanced marches they couldn't be, and yet he was Are you wearing a mask and exercising precautions. he made a judgement. We had some discussion in the family, but the march to cause was important enough, So they didn't balancing the various risks, taking into account medical judgment, political judgment, civic commitment, he made a choice to March, even though it man he then isolated himself for fourteen days from us, because he knew he had not socially distance. But these are choice. These are civic choices. These are moral choices. These are

political judgments that intermingled with enter an and overlap with questions of expertise, but that cannot be decided by science, but there's only things are fascinating about the book in your observations, but one in particular, as were running out of time, is the particular architecture and embrace of meritocracy in this country led you to observe that it may be helps to cause a willingness to accept inequality, not just on the part of the people who have, but on the part of the people who don't have explained what you, what you mean by that and when you think about it. Well, what's fascinating is how the idea that people deserve, where they land, whether it's on the top or on the bottom, has so entered into our public culture, not only has it led the is successful.

Prudential they lead to look down and those who haven't flourished, but it has also been absorbed to some extent. By those who struggle in the new economy and who may partly believe there is struggling, because the system is unfair, they haven't really had an equal chance. The system is rigged, that's one way of internal, in struggles- but this may be intermingled with- seems to be intermingled with a sense that among some of those who struggle that. Well, maybe I dont have. the talent- maybe I haven't, worked as hard to deserve the success that others have. And had deeply demoralising an incident,

realising thought that a meritocratic society can induce, and so that's where the hubris said, the successful was, along with a certain gnawing sense of doubt, even humiliation among those who who struggle in this economy, because if they to believe dad you can make it. If you try, then there's the tendency to to believe that if they dont rise, they have no one to blame, but themselves This is a message. This is a hard message that data meritocratic society, even a perfect, meritocratic society delivers to those who dont ries, who don't flirt, who struggle to make ends meet and in its demoralising, and we we should be aware of it, because we will

at a time when politics nor elites were stunned, shocked by the triumphal by the election of tramp in the? U S by the by the breaks it vote in Britain. But what they missed was the growing anger and resentment of those who haven't went out in a meritocratic society, and I dont think progressive politics will be able to renew itself and to recover from this backlash and less progressive begin to address the inequalities, and the social at the attitude towards success that have in a way legitimate it. Those inequality is that this policy, its rhetoric, to write rhetoric and the way we understand ourselves and who deserve. what and why and what we owe to our fellow

citizens, including those who are less fortunate than we you and your book with, among other things, a reference to Aaron, one of the greatest hitters in baseball history, and you quote from his biographer Howard. Brine, who writes quote hitting it could be argued, represented. The first meritocracy in Hungarians life and some people talk about sports. This way rights its apparent meritocracy, because the Bali goes over the fence or doesn't go over the fence. It it is what it is based on. Your your ability- and you say This thinking is a mistake, quote them we'll of Henry Aaron story is not that we should love meritocracy, but that we Despisest system of racial injustice that can only be escaped by hitting home runs equality. Opportunity is a morally necessary corrective to injustice, but it is medial principle, not an adequate ideal for a good society. What you mean by that

that we do need equality of opportunity so that no one is held back by prejudice or disadvantage of conditions of birth, but that isn't enough to make for a just society. What makes for a just society is one that makes for good society. Creed is creating circumstances where we really and believe that we are all in this together and where we recognise our mutual dependence, where we ask ourselves as an active part of our political group. What do we owe one another as citizens and if we think that those questions are answered are put to rest simply by saying well Everyone had an equal chance, everyone had it got to the same starting point and then had a choice to run the race to clamour up.

lungs of the ladder. That's all justice requires we're missing something important we're we're missing. The whole idea of the common good of assent, sir, that even those of us who succeed should be able to look upon everyone in our society, including the less fortunate and recognise there, but for the lack of the draw or the grace of God, are the accident of fortune? Go. I And that sentiment in an appreciation of the role of luck in life can prompt a certain humility and humility. It seems to me, is the civic virtue we need now.

And amid a thoroughgoing, meritocratic society militate against that kind of humility can point us beyond the tyranny of merit toward a less rancorous, more generous public life. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your service. Thank you for your participation in the discussion. The book the tyranny of merit. What's become of them in good is excellent and thoughtful. I'll quote from myself advocating for the book you will get. Herself wondering again and again, why have I never thought of it that way, and I leave this to be true. Also, no good faith reader will come away from this book unchanged. It made me about things in many different ways that I had not expected, and I think it's it's a very fruitful contribution to the discussion. Professor thank you again

You create for this conversation and for your very generous words about the book and for really helping bring these questions in this debate. To public attention and really, if such a pleasure and an honour to be with you, quit My conversation with Michael Sandel continues for members of the coffee insider community in a special donors sand Ellen. I discuss the role of our attack receiving the covert nineteen condemning and how politicians use their fancy on the matters as excuses for bad behaviour. Try out the membership free for two weeks, a cafe dot com slashing inside you'll get access to the full archive of exclusive content, including the we. The past I go home would end Milgram cyberspace, pockets with John Carlin, United Security, Podcast CO, hosted by LISA Monaco and can wasting audio essays by Elly honing. In me and, more again, that's cafe. I come slash insider

So. I want to close the show this week by giving you all an update on a project. I started I too teenage sons at the beginning of August so may recall that, as we were getting into the late part the summer and thinking about the upcoming and I made a proposal to my boy, seventeen and fifteen- that maybe we could make some recommendations of Hutu support in the house, especially in battleground districts, to increase the majority of Democrats in the house, my son's on their own independent thinkers, happened to also be Democrats, and the idea would be that the boys on their own research every day in August, would recommend that I tweet about a particular candidate, and I would also put up five dollars of my own money in donation and encourage people to whatever they can worthies, follow the candidate will learn more about the candidate or, if you live in the district, to support the candidate midway through the month. I suggested the boys it may be. They create a website so that people will be able

you all their picks wherein they did. They created a website that you can find at housework, twenty twenty dot org. They even created the mission statement. which they write quote as we're sure you all know. By now, our dad likes to tweet a lot so much people often miss our house where twenty twenty endorsements and the mix of the rest of his feed this website, houses all of our house where candidates under one roof, so you can find and donate to any of them. So every day in August, around dinnertime relevant before dinner time, the boys in I would huddle they would make a proposal for a candidate to support. I would ask them a bunch of questions about the candidate. I would ask everyone to questions about the opponent and if they were making a claim in support of the candidate or in opposition to the opponent. I would ask for proof- sometimes I would good articles and other thing but they had relied upon as they announcing their mission statement. The creature they relied to pick candidates were these quote? We made our choice

based on the competitiveness of the race, the merit of the democratic candidate, the fitness of the republican candidate and the importance of the sea and I will say that overall, over the thirty one days, there are pretty pragmatic, didn't pick longshot, I didn't picture things, they pick people, they thought A little bit more money in the race could move the needle. What was the time over the thirty one days they selected twenty two women versus nine men Seventeen were challengers, nine were running open seats. Five were incumbents. Canada's. They chose came from twenty different states, as you may have seen once in a while. A heavy hitter noticed the boys work on kitchen when they recommended Wendy Davis, whose wanting to flip a seat in Texas Guess who noticed center tat crews to responded Tweet. With reference to the name of the USA, turn attorney character in a television show billions crews, tweeted Chuck roads trying to mess with Texas. They thought that was kind of as we started to near the end of August. We got a lot of input,

suggesting that we also pay some attention or the boys pay some attention to Senate races as well, so we discussed it even though it was a lot of work. Over the course of August, we decided that we would extend hashtag housework, two thousand and twenty to the Senate, have a special Senate edition for the first seven days of September and so through labour day the boy sat down again every day and made a recommendation for who people might support in battleground Senate races. So what was the impact of our little family project on the races that they supported? We'll talk to tell some Canada's actually got in touch and said it was very helpful. Thousands and thousands of dollars were raised. Awareness was raised. Attention was paid to those races it may not have been paid before. In certain areas- gives my twitter following all in all, because so many people gave small amounts of money in alignment with what the boys recommended and I could see their response on Twitter, as the boys could also. I think we likely raised

gather in all thirty eight races that were recommended a few hundred thousand dollars, which is not bad for just sending out a few tweets. What is the impact of the project on the boys? Well, you'll have to ask them, but at least I think it was educational for them. Think they learn more things and they expected to not just how to research candidates not just about what pulling means, but also how difficult it is to run a campaign and to compete in the campaign and even though the project was focused Sake of ease on donating money to candidates. I think they have understood actually how terrible it is that money occupies such a primary role in who gets elected and who doesn't and whether incumbents have an advantage They don't, maybe that's the reason they recommended so many challenges to support. So, even though the project was centred around helping candidates, many them underdogs funny.

Finally, I think really made an impression on my son's that so much money was required, and maybe there is a better way to elect people in this country than to have folks have to grovel for money in cash to compete in race after race after race. What was the impact of the film? project on me. While a couple of things one- and this is the only negative from the whole thirty eight day- enterprise, it turns that when you donate money on act, blue, your email and I think in some cases, even your home address- are really to the campaign. So I am now a wash in spam and email from thirty. Eight campaigns so eclairs my inbox, a bit and also or actual physical fail box, is receiving a lot more incoming didn't has before the more importantly, the impact it has on me was first, I gotta spent a lot more time with my boys. They were kind of required to spend. An hour or two every day with me for thirty eight days which I enjoyed, even though we were talking about substance and more broadly, it really reaffirm my

that change can be made by young people, I think more than ever before young people are focused. Young people are excited about making change and people are spending the time and the energy and the work done and what the issues are. Young people are at the forefront of protests around this country, not just my boys, but hundreds of thousands millions of young people in high school in college in the early twenties. are sick and tired of the mess that some of us older people have made of the world. I think that today's young people are more sophisticated than we think I think they're more smart, more savvy. At the same time, more idealistic and also more pragmatic, though we may think- and that gives me a lot of hope to one final point when I percent that tweet with the hashtag housework, twenty two- it made clear I wasn't talking about chores but I was taken, but has representatives some people responded, saying. Well, your housework, actual housework chores are good to rest assured. My points do that also, and they will continue

and we're gonna find other ways to try to promote voting in voter turnout and access to the ballot as a family and as individuals and hopefully, as a community If you're curious to learn more about the project, even gonna housework, twenty twenty dot, Org will that's it this episode of stay tuned thanks again to my guest, Michael Sandel, If you like, what we do, rate and review the show an apple pie casts or wherever you listen. Every positively you helped new listeners find the show send me your questions about news, politics and justice tweet them to me. Please, Moreover, the hashtag asked brief or you can only me a message at six nine to four seven. haven't three three: eight that six, six nine to four preach:

or you can send an email to stay tuned. Cafe. Dotcom stay tuned is presented by CAFE the executive producer is tomorrow, supper. The senior producer is Adam Waller. The senior audio producer is David TAT ashore in a cafe team, his Matthew Billy. That way. SAM, overstate David Kerr, Lander, Noah, Ally, Jake, Kaplan, Calvin, Lord Jeff Eyes, him and precise boiling Sean Walsh and Marvel Malik. Our music is by him dust, I'm prepared era, statehood.