« The Weeds

Is gun violence fixable?

2021-03-24

Matt and Dara are joined by Vox Politics and Policy Fellow Jerusalem Demsas to talk about gun violence and mass shootings in America. They discuss the recent shootings in Atlanta and Boulder, talk through the difference between real policy solutions and more superficial ones, and discuss several non-productive but entrenched aspects of the media landscape surrounding mass shootings, gun violence, and progressive reforms. Then, they take on some new research on the correlation between political polarization in a society and the presence of a "charismatic leader."

Resources:

"The long history of anti-Asian hate in America, explained" by Li Zhou, Vox (updated Mar. 5, 2021)

"The history of tensions — and solidarity — between Black and Asian American communities, explained" by Jerusalem Demsas and Rachel Ramirez, Vox (Mar. 16, 2021)

"America's gun problem, explained" by German Lopez, Vox (updated Mar. 23, 2021)

"Here's What's Actually Being Done To Address Anti-Asian Racism" by Lydia Wang, Refinery29 (updated Mar. 19, 2021)

White paper

Hosts:

Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias), Slowboring.com

Dara Lind (@DLind), Immigration Reporter, ProPublica

Jerusalem Demsas (@JerusalemDemsas), Politics and Policy Fellow, Vox

Credits:

Erikk Geannikis, Editor and Producer

As the Biden administration gears up, we'll help you understand this unprecedented burst of policymaking. Sign up for The Weeds newsletter each Friday: vox.com/weeds-newsletter.

The Weeds is a Vox Media Podcast Network production.

Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a contribution to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts

About Vox

Vox is a news network that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines.

Follow Us: Vox.com

Facebook group: The Weeds

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Support for this episode comes from one plea: gig, worker or self employed. If so, this is, for you miss of self employed workers, may qualify for up to fifty thousand dollars in one hundred percent forgivable. Ppp loans and warmly can help you access that support. While please over three hundred thousand small businesses get a ppp alone and proudly serves more than six hundred thousand small businesses across Amerika funds are did so apply now wobbly dot com, Slash box and see if you qualify for a ppp alone. That's w oh p l, why dot com, Slash Veo Ex Wobbly is not allowed their terms and programme rules apply. Support for this episode comes from clicker. Illusion which have three hours every day, switching between all our work apps, but you can get them back with click up a flexible platform. The brings
your essential tools into one place where you can prioritize tasks. Collaborate in Docs chat with your team and track goals, so companies like uber and web flow use click up. Is their mission control Center, replacing every other app that we're using before click up? Even guarantees to help you save one day week and get more done. It's completely customizable! It's free forever! So try click up today at click up dot, com, slash the weeds right. We should just just do how absurd and smells like team spirit is just oh, no, I don't think they're using from her, for she was bore in it. Are you know? talking about is a song no we really do, we did you play the song and jellies and objective it's it's, the famous it's it's been gone a song, but you ve heard of you. Ve heard one Gaza gotcha lead.
Busy. I want them to know them suddenly needs on the backs of media has network. I met places here with proper, because Dara, lend and Jerusalem gems us is back with us. Daring I had we really want to do is show just about the lyrics to smells like Jean Spirit and whether its worthy of cancer asian rent respect. But Jerusalem is so young. She does
you know that song, and so instead we are going to talk about some recent mass shootings that have occurred a bolder. We don't, I think, no any details. As of Tuesday morning, when we are recording other than that, there are ten victims, men and seemingly it you know that the use of them you never want to get the technical details were on in the shootings. Were the programme p? get upset at you, but I think, like one of the big guns that liberal yet in my initial reports, indicate didn't air fifteen was used, and I think that, if it turns out do not be correct, then the people who have taken the expertise should go after the people doing the initial report, not us poor, pon, castors, yes, but it means that gun control is possibly back in the
in the discourse of. Although I note the Democrats leading democratic politicians seem to be not doing that, but that, like there are different ways, you can respond, these different kinds of events, and you know, like Joe Biden, who is an advocate of assault weapons ban was. I was a pioneer of that in the early nineties, endorsed it on the campaign, but, like the White House, is not out with a gun regulation forward message today, which I think they think is probably correct. I think we ve seen this discourse around guns and esprit shootings many times before, and it doesn't it. It doesn't. Take us anywhere, like a dozen chief anything that proponents of stronger gun regulation would
want yeah I was. I was really hoping that we are discussing an absurd before last night, thinking mostly about the spring shooting in Atlanta last week that you know It seems to me that the kind of public discourse around spectacularly, horrifying news. Events has really. In the case of mass shootings kind of settled into this very wrote, place where there are activists on the left to demand a regular policy response, there are conservative as you will try to block out the caution of a policy response by saying not the right time were awake. You know said this violence or thoughts and prayers, not gonna, be all that has become a little bit meme. If I and as the weeds I I was looking at the at b variation of this wasn't exactly the same, but detective bear a certain important resemblances in the reaction to this. Than to shootings in going G.
Maybe there- maybe maybe it's time for people to start thinking about what are the particular policy responses that are being put forward and are they are responsive to the nature, the events in, like, conversely, is doing policy pushed by reaction is attacking These events really the right move. Democrats appear to be. You know, at least in the light well hours since the boulder shooting her whatever making the calculation the inner Joe Biden is trying to put together his big infrastructure package. Democrats have unified. But very tenuous, control of the legislature and a whole lot of legislative activities that this might not, the time to drop everything and do a gun control bill quote unquote instead, but that's it. Hurry up when you should, in the words of our annual waste crisis, so to speak. I did, I think, deserves young pact a little bit more,
I also think, though, that a lot of the reason why we see a lot of you know insufficient policy response, or at least policy responses that don't actually deal with the under issue about why America has so many gun. Debts is because it just paralysis on actually getting a done like the reality is that there is only a very few policy response to that one. As they deal with the gun. Pro oh and has to do with either a buyback program. I mean an assault. Weapons ban would do some, but not a lot, Actually what research tells us is that? with more guns have Morgan Debts in America has more private gun ownership than anyone else, and I mean I think, the next highest one. Is Yeah man- and there at like you, know not even a third of what we have in terms of private ownership, so I think there's it problem here where, like we'd, no one is willing to actually do the thing. That would actually stop people from dying, and you know- maybe that's a political calculation that, one should make and that we need to realise that most american are not willing to give up what they ve
as an essential freedom for this, but it seemed a bit. That's never actually explicitly being stated instead were saying things like now. If we had this universal background check program or if we do the other incremental palsy, that's actually get there, and it feels weird to me because what if we actually did pass universal background checks, and then we continue to have like this number or you know I still and insanely high number of gun deaths per year. I mean at that point. We then realize that, like oh, we talk, but how long this has to do with suicide, and a lot of these are actually handgun. Does I think it's like seventy two Percent of all shootings are done with hand guns and not with the salt weapons. So I mean there's a level here which we have to wear it, but people are not being, I think, truly genuine, but I dont actually fully blame them because to be genuine would be political suicide in a lot of cases. So it's really hard to tell what's going on there. Do you actually does back a little bit mergers. Let me like were kind of backing into that. You know the insufficiency of policy responses, but can you may be just talk through a little about the, but these solutions
we'll be ass. You construed, gun dad, says the problem versus it be construed. Mass shootings is the problem yeah I mean if, That's where the problem, the answer would be get as many guns off the street, and the problem is that most people have this sense. That mass shootings are a much larger part of Gun Datsun. They actually are, I think, in in twelve nineteen it was like to. Send a gun debts are more mass shootings, which are, I shootings that have for more people were killed at one time, and you know I don't know people realize I, what I'm Talkin friends of Emily Minor think they're into their understanding of gun debts nightmare. He's at mass shooting, take a much larger proportion of what's going on here, and that has to do with the. Of course. Their tragic and horrible events in the randomness is really shocking for folks, because it feels like it's completely out of control, but when talking of the thirty, nine thousand or so gun. That's happened per year. The actual response here is just that unless you're gonna take these guns off the street, nothing's really going to change about that and then there's secondary question you're too, like
people actually only interested in shopping. Mass shootings is that the only thing people are actually really traumatized by and that their willing to allow, like that, of suicides to continue the level of you, no individual debts to continue their at the hands of of people who are too shooting individuals or who are escalating. I'm conflict that may not have been lethal, but just violent. So I think, there's there so many questions that are never actually address, because no one wants to really delve into the details, but we still take on the early Democrats and Republicans still take on the political costs of having this conversation without actually getting any action. Not at the end of the day, which is to me just a really strange cycle, and maybe this time Democrats are just like not going to engage on this, but then they fall into the trap again of all their supporters, getting mad them for saying things like thoughts and prayers. So it's like deal audio supporters and tell them universal background. Checks are gonna work or due to say thoughts and prayers, like it's, a distance, just calculation that no one's going to really truly standby, but you know I mean I think that is all completely correct and began. I think it becomes
I should like how do you construct the problem? Right and so Democrats had I gave a long era of political success from two thousand and six through twenty twelve all of construing deaths by gunfire as a big problem right and then like a big problem that they were not going to solve by like draining the swamp of firearms, and so then different aspects of the problem could be addressed in different kinds of ways. Rightly, there are a lot of different things that lead to fewer people, shooting each other, some of which relates to the availability of guns and somewhat relates to other things than politicians who were from more progressive areas could like also say. Oh, I think it's bad- that we have all these guns after sandy right see, you hope was so spectacular.
It was so a most we compelling. To relatively privileged people who feel isolated from violence and social problems, and it came at a time when violent crime- I am as a whole, was at its lowest level in generation sway. It punctured the gun politics for Democrats to make them say we need to do something not about like the quantity of people who are shot in America, which were still large even at a historic low point, but about like this specific risk that affluent suburban schoolchildren could be gun down for absolutely no reason, but it turns out that it's really hard
to address that problem without like totally eradicating gun ownership. Because you get these measures, the pole well read like background checks, etc, etc. But it's not like the famous ones. The famous three killings are almost never carried out by someone who would have flunked background check exactly what makes you think so terrifying to people is that they, like don't involve career criminals beefing with each other over various things right, but like there's, no background checks system that adjudicate spur like the formerly law abiding person who hasn't been in the system, doing something cortical crazy. I mean I do want to prejudge the mental health factors, but something so unexpected read like that's not something that these measures would prevent
but then you get into this politically toxic terrain where you would have you know, on the one hand, and Obama saying, but we need this mentioned to me bill and background checks, but like the people who is a minority of the like the people who, like own in use, long firearms and are enthusiastic about them, but they know a lot about guns and gun regulation, and they know perfectly well that these measures won't stop the problem that they're supposed to stop and that if they perceive there is being political momentum to create a situation which is not possible for a person to obtain a long gun and shoot up a school that that doesn't threaten their legitimate hobby right, whereas other kinds of things right, like some kind of like law enforcement crackdown on cheap, easily Conseil had guns actually doesn't threaten gun hop
best interests in the same kind of way. If you can come up with a way to do it, otherwise, fishing is progressing, have been moving in the opposite direction. You know like there was, I read a new republic article that publish January twenty twenty. It was about how late Craster was gonna like really saw gun violence in Philadelphia by not prosecuting gun possession charges as felonies. I think that has now worked out, Farewell for Philadelphia, I mean it's interesting right I mean I mean progressives, have gotten hesitant about like very punitive law enforcement type solutions, but obviously, like that's, how you would get guns out of people's herons is with some kind of like you would. To take them somehow. Sorry, I just want to say one thing on what Matt said about mental health is just that there's a twenty fifteen study that shows that, like I think they look at a database of like two,
where thirty five killers neighbour, only only twenty percent of them were anyway added, but having a mental health issues alike, I mean I know, that's what you were saying about, but just to be clear. I think a lot of people think that mental health is like another way, an avenue to get at this problem. But there's just like no evidence that that's actually the case, and it's just more evidence that people are your to find a politically salient solution to a problem that the solutions are not politically salient politically salient right, minority that I've Ezra I do want to make sure ambiguous wording policy solutions that would reduce the supply of guns front, like me, proactive, censoring me, making it more difficult to obtain a sense from policy solutions that would have retrospectively increase penalty these four ownership or use of illegal guns, because the efficacy questions there are different equities their different? I think that something that is also in it. Like did. I think we're gonna be talking about a little bit more and in a slightly different context, are focusing more on it lit up that. You know why,
That was saying about the politics of sandy hook, really did kind of unlocked something for me, like theirs. Twitter mean that a mirror It decided that it wasn't going to do anything about gun violence when Sandy hook happened in the Senate. Didn't act that late. That was the point at which it became clear, that even the most horrifying thing wouldn't motivate action, and you know in retrospect. With the narrative that met was giving. I think that method did it's worth kind of reforming, extending, was the moment at which Democrats in the democratic coalition decided that the biggest spurs to act were active, spectacular and not obviously predicted violence and that Republicans, decided that that was it necessarily sufficient cause for them to compromise. On principle, like that's definitely the moment where the current politics of guns originated. If that was a path rigging limits for Democrats as much as it were,
four publicans ancient strewing, the mass shooting as the kind of thing that they can control measures were supposed to prevent, and I think, a lot and have been doing a lot for a while, because of maybe on the politics of the poet the fear and when politicized fears interact with how people actually are going about living their daily lives- and this is a tricky thing to talk about, because you want to in general, not overly validate things that are objectively irrational, were paranoid. But on the other hand you don't want to he'll, be using kind of relative risks status. X to invalidate lived experiences and like that you know it's. It's worth just being very up front that, like that's hard, but it has been in.
First thing for me to see the- and this has gotten- I think, a little bit more muted over the last several years as for unrelated- mostly unrelated reasons, wait, progressive, have become a little more circumspect about at least publicly stating that there that they, feel that they are the ones most at risk in any given situation, but for a while he did seem like there was a population of people who were feeling themselves personally like they had trouble, go about their daily lives or we're going of their daily lives, with the understanding that they were at a seer, ailing worth considering rest of beer. Gun down in a mass shooting and that's the kind and of scenario where politicians, and certainly other kind is politically enfranchise delete such as media have to think a little bit about. Are we making
your where the problem where the biggest problem is, are we making clear who the most likely groups are to be targeted to it to be targeted to be affected by this? or are we creating a situation in which we are allowing the unusual nest, of a mass shooting to dictate our coverage in a way is going to make it appear more usual than it is, and actually you know make people worry about something that. In terms of objective rest might not be the thing that they would choose to worry about, and even though the device you don't like the freeze, mass shootings, where it has always been challenging to operational eyes, because people Well, that's what makes a mass and we'll get some number they want a mass if you shoot for people say, but then, when go statistically like the bulk of incidents. In which for more people are shot turn out to not be,
media narrative, compact, mass shootings. They are instead, quantum quote ordinary crime. There would be a local story right like A guy drugs by he shoots it for people cause he's trying to kill somebody's in a feud with industry bullet kills the child. That would be a really big local news story right, but, like the nest in all quarters quote. Mass shooting script is buried like Ray Julie and class sort of bound concept right there becomes challenging us like a policy writer together as a person who uses the english language participates in society like I know what people mean by mass shooting verses, ordinary crime, but it's like difficult as a policy rider to even operational, Is that unlike say what the? What the difference is exactly and there's up this
you might have been down, and I know from my old fashion vocs writing was like we, He had a brand new media organization, so we did decide like. How would we react to events, and there was a mesh shooting playbook right here is like, and it was like. Certain events would trigger us scrambling the jets in a particular kind of way with gun content, but it wasn't that every time a person was shot and killed in America. We did that right. It's I got a call, but then we are like ourselves were fairly influential media organisation and a critical part of the mass shooting new cycle is specifically national media news outlets decision to scramble the jets and decide that these murders and bolder Colorado are national rather than local, new swayed in its very I have very mixed feelings about the whole thing. I don't know what can be done to stop it, but I just feel like we know
Proof positive that, like whatever that exercise of media agenda setting is supposed to achieve like it's, not achieving that, like we're, not making policy progress were not making people feel better. I dont think were really context realising the proverb, even though they will say it's important to catch exercise. This problem, like the fact of the jets scrambling like Deacon stabilizes you I do want to make this. You met a media. I think it's fair to say that that there is a second of people and democratic coalition, Hugh were not informed about guns tat way, it, wasn't a salient to their political identity is like a decade or have a decade ago, but it seems like that gap is pretty well closed. The other factor here is frankly given that new salience of gun violence in a world Where is he kind? Is archetypal the big local story that doesn't make national news actually
is a big local story. It might very well be that some national outlets, c and entrepreneurial advantage in saying why isn't media talking about dizzily actually making those internationally stores? The problem is that we don't have a local newsy, system. It is well equipped to cover. Even events with any kind of like serious ground covered rum beating much last having the ability to themselves kind of covered in a sensitive and can actual way that may be seen as worth lifting up died. You know progressively affiliated news outlets, so it's just it's. There is a kind of black hole into which a lot of them- stuff is disappearing where in theory, if you asked for are you concerned about you know, weekends n
the cargo or New Orleans where, as many people die as die and esprit shooting, they will say yes, but in practice they just or having that information surface for them. I also think there's this question here of Do people actually understand that not just the risk if there are actually out, but also what the policy response would be and mean for them in order to stop that from being a for, often being afraid, because I think that parliament has made the calculation and there's no point in like actually making the real argument, which is like hey if you want to stop it would mean, died massive got gun by that programme. That drawing that link for people. It is the only viable solution to the problem that you are scared of is not something that I've ever seen, democratic or public and politicians actually do, and I think, if that The situation there were end like. I don't actually think that you can fully even black.
People who are like telling their kids to learn about likes, hiding under your destined school or like all this kind of stuff, because there's no many kind of clear policy linked drawn for the average person. But how to stop the things that you're scared of and were repeatedly telling people again and again that there are these smaller nipples that we can make out the best, with its closing the Charleston loophole that would have stopped in Charleston several years ago from happening, and then that could have stopped that I'm having a Tubby bought his gun or other or other loopholes, and it feels really weird because at the same time all these politicians seem to recognise that even these small nibbles at the edges of gun policy are not actually going to happen to them. Able to say to me. It's not super radical, not something of sticking to cause any kind of real harms their political prospects at the same time there actually using the entirety of their base. Who really truly believes that you could actually stop these problems? These small changes, which then leads me to see like a tons of tweets like Instagram posts for my friends, are just like one can't. We just passed a small thing. We all know how to make it happen and the reality
this is not going to do anything to solve the major problem here and I think it's really imported drill down. Do you know are also others in areas. I think we're we're talking about risk assessment, a lot this year with covert where people have, I think, somewhat of a better understanding of risk assessments this year, when it to like you know I can wear mask masks out, not gonna her other people are always kind of stuff, but at the very beginning it was kind of for all, because people had no idea how to actually keep themselves safe. So you know I had friends of mine who wouldn't go anywhere without wearing gloves all the time, and you know you would take off her clothes when you got into the hallway of your apartment or whatever. It is a question here of if you're gonna give people actual risk mitigation strategies, you have to be honest with them. Both that actually is or you want to lead to completely irrational behaviors that are going to become then part people's political entities. Are they think it's gonna, stop kids from dying and that's just like not true, and then of the entire comes issues river reality. Ok, I think it's where we're overdue for break than I
Try to pivot this conversation in a controversial way to Atlanta supported episode comes from the new Yorker in both print an online. The new Yorker features the best riders in America today. There really is something for everyone in Europe. Weekly print issues at daily online articles cover everything from politics: news fiction, culture, humor and more right now for just six dollars. You can get twelve weeks of access to profiles with great writers and artists to vital coverage of environmental challenges. Ahead of us to the shifting landscape of global politics. I go in depth. One of the most influential publications in the world with the New York there I didn't know is amazing. They ve just got like great articles on my weird stuff when my favorite things ever written Senor article about a guy China, like turn around eight, distilleries
in Scotland, had only drink scotch. I'm not interested, but just like an amazing article, and when you subscribe, you don't just get the magazine: a court top bag us get exclusive online, only stories everyday access to their online archive, getting all the way back to ninety twenty five and more for in a time you can get twelve weeks of the New York or for just six dollars. That's fifty percent saving and listeners of the WEEE is worse, even exclusive toe bag free. If you go to New York our complex weeds and he's promo code reads a check out. That's any w. Why o r k e r dot com slash weeds from about weeds to get twelve weeks of the New York over just six dollars and a free toe bag? New Yorker, dot com, slash weeds, promote God. Weeds support for this episode comes from visa, helping you rethink how you drink It is a web based program that works by helping you notice the negative thought patterns you might experience in your relationship to alcohol, and then it gets you, the tools, you need to break those patterns rooted in
hundreds of behavioral therapy for veto, is designed to help you prepare for the future by arming you with techniques, to help you during class, it's totally private ones, percent web based. So you can occur it from anywhere. You can try Bermuda risk free with sixty day money back guarantee. Now, at U S, dot for visa dot com. So we will judge around about Nirvana Before- and I wasn't I remember from that- ninety is: is there there was a lot of violent crime in the United States at that time, the murder rate was very high, You we talked about the sandy hook era and then the sort of like the pre sandy hook like lull and gun politics, but the era in which the? U S, government, was in fact passing laws to restrict firearms ownership.
Was the early ninetys end. It was part of a general tough on crime, politics right and so, like Joe Biden was both a leading proponent of assault, weapons ban and also a leading proponent of longer jail sentences for people right there's. This was the infamous one thousand ninety ninety four crime Bell, like did all these things, and it was understood at the time- a measure backed by progressive Democrats. This was their big package to but more cops on the street to find more construction of jail, sounds like spending money, like liberals, do, and also banning gun on their ship. Like liberals do- and it was popular at the time because people are really really upset about crime in general. Sandy hook happened at a time when people work
upset about crime in general, so it became this sort of me she gun topic, and then we had this shooting in Atlanta which prompted this, I think, if you like came down from Mars, you would be confused as to why there was this fishes debate as to whether or not we should construe this as an anti asian, biased crime in which nobody, like quite states like like what are the stakes of characterizing this as a hate crime like what what happens, if it's a hate crime who does that help? What's what's going on right and I think did that dispute is tied in with the fact that we see in an increase in lethal violence across the board
when you twenty and their sort of issues about how that's gonna be process politically with one concern that was happening was that an asian american communities in the Bay area. Would you know getting into top on crime politics as a result of seeing people victimized in Chinatown in in Oakland in San Francisco, and an increase in concern about anti asian hate crimes was part of a sort of progressive counter mobilization to the idea of tough on crime politics in in asian neighborhoods. Please that's! That's how I read it. I don't know if you guys agree with that, Just take a step back here. I think a lot of times. People actually are not really aware of what he crimes actually are, so he crime is not just someone. You know. Maybe the slur or sanctioning offensive or horrible or targeted about you about your race. But it is someone committing a crime while, with the intense,
of harming someone because of protected class they belong to. So these are obviously increase. The hard things to track. It is really difficult to know whether or not someone is committed to hate crime, because frequently someone's not gonna, say hi, I'm about to like beat you because you are part of american community or whatever of frequently it just kind of happens at you, commit a crime. If people are like not actually tell you why they're doing it- and you don't actually have an understanding of why happen and also there are a lot of people who are victimize. You don't actually want to report. So what we ve seen this year is there's been a massive last year, the jaw a massive increase in reporting of not just anti asian. He comes specifically, but also harassment. Stop a p. I hate, as an organisation has been doing a lot of the tracking here, and all of it is on. Sulphur
Where did in its anonymous at least I am not sure if their collecting the data on the back and for themselves, but its anonymize to the public. The data and a lot of these things are things that likely would not rise to the level of being a hate crime. There are things that are horrible, an offensive, and there should, they may be, could be policy responses to reduce anti asian sentiment, but aren't actually criminal activity, as defined by you know, statesman and the federal government, but there's an this questions in your question. People of and bring up like a wild, losing an increasing crimes who, like all the stuff clearly is just about. You know increasing crime in like we don't actually know whether not asian Americans are still leaving targeted. I think this is probably like taking leave of yours.
Entirely to believe something like this. I think we have clear data from across the world that Antichina sentiment has been on the rise over the last three years. This is not an american only the phenomena on this, something we're seeing Australia we're seeing it in Sweden we're seeing it in Canada we're seeing in all these places around the world. You know, I think part of it is inevitable. A pandemic happen that originated in a country and has greeked economic devastation, and irrationally or rationally, people are going to blame that country for the place that they find themselves in, but there's
second airily. You know and a different thing in the: U S, contacts in another context around the world where people have also been I'm. You know we such administration of blaming China a frequently we saw Trump utilizing things calling of China virus or or or are you no kind of stigmatizing people? From that background, and we also know that you know frequently. People who are angry in this way do not differentiate between Chinese Americans or Japanese Americans when they're looking for someone to blame or anger that they have- and I think there's enough anecdotal evidence this point- that the burden of proof ought to be on people to say that like to prove their isn't an increase in anti asian sentiment. That is feeling some hay crimes. But then there's just like you know, should have like. Why is this actually so important and yo? I pull out of my colleague, MRS, like work that her Lopez has done for vocs are definitely red read his stuff, but you know one thing that
in point, you was that he crimes actually also provide a weaker position, also provides funding to police departments for liaison two communities like the algae betake you community or other groups of people. Please can actually work with them and make sure there actually hearing about these crimes to begin with and know at what is actually going on. It's unlikely that hey crime laws by themselves. Ruptured do anything outside of that to curb hey crimes. A lot of them are just enhancements, so you add like five or ten or whatever so many years under some one sentence if their convicted of a hate crime- and we know from the data that, like the length of the cry of the sentence, does very little to deter crime, it's only but the certainty of whether not your and get caught, but there is a benefit. Their and there's. Also, I think the secondary benefit as well about asian american communities are scared. There is reality here that people are terrified about about this, and you know I've seen a lot of people
oh, I know doesn't like babies, are fully rational by only go to asian grocery stores. Now and that's a fear that has to be addressed, and I think that that something that's important and it's important that Joe Biden get out there and says you know you know we're not stand for this asian american people belong here. It's important that other leaders are getting up and saying that from across the country, but I think the problem happens when that stops there. When we stop at this question of like like telling people, they belong and don't move onto like what is the policy response to both a reduce hate and be reduce hate crimes, and I think that's kind of where in in limbo here, because lot, the responses may not be pivotal. Talk that crime rate framing the concept of a crime as a concept invented by and for law enforcement, for the purpose of asking for more harsh punishment for things that are over theoretically going to be prosecuted, is really important to kind of understanding the relationship between discourse in policy here right because in the cut the couple of decades,
since the Ninetys there has been increasing awareness of the empirical trends the Jerusalem was talking about. I certainly like among people in the centre. And to the left that that lake sentencing enhancements aren't necessarily aren't, aren't a deterrent that they're not that. If your goal these two or you know to reduce crime or to kind of optimize. Your Paul, your crime policy for crime rates that that's not where you should be looking eyes generally felt it you just construe criminal justice policy in that way, you're going to end up making people feel a little bit lacking because there a feeling among most people that there are things that deserve punitive responses from moral purposes or for expressive like we, the community are seen as bad purposes, and so did if you don't allow that to be part of the discourse people willing,
find other ways to kind of Sarah those things in and that's all a bit of what we're seeing right now, where it eyes people have become a little bit more aware of these tools are everything they are cracked up to be and as people in the democratic coalition have become much more sceptical of law enforcement, establishment to be able to protect in particular vulnerable unity is in the rubric of of Rachel, just as an increasing, interest in calling out racism. Using explicit terms to do so and this also a little bit paradoxical cause it's coming at a time when more and more people are flu, in concepts like structural racism and aware that you don't necessarily have to hide racial animosity, individual level to participate in systems that perpetuate racial inequity. At that, time there is an increasing interest in calling how things that are racist and
a sense that if you are unwilling to use terms like racism or targeting that that is an act of You know cowardice masquerading as nuance, and so in this kind of twin for forty eight hours after the Atlanta shooting there was an interest in you, you could find of sea discursive leaders motion toward the best way stand with a API Americans and with the victims of this is to use words like enough to say things like. Obviously, these people were being in this was deliberate. This was targeting. This was a hate crime which play he's into and is has origins in this law enforcement tool that then, when it became explicit people were very sceptical of right. The idea: that, of course, we shouldn't be trusting the police. We shouldn't be trusting prosecutors to give us an accurate sense of what motivated this person when that's real the only minor certainly be.
We pause euro purpose, arguably the only purpose of Colin Something a hate crime in particular, and it is why considering, I think the ways in which people have already The tools to do this a little bit, maybe differently and arguably better too, to think about it's not like he prayed labels. Are the only discursive tools that we have to talk about Rachel inequities. It's not me! That's the only tool we have to talk about the history of, he's in women in sex work in sex work. Adjacent industry is to talk about labour exploitation. To talk about the other things that didn't need to know anything about the circumstances of this too be able to talk about. You know a broader story of inequality by you, for because of the desire for old language and clear denunciation. Very, is an interest using the rhetorical tools available to us, which happened to be in this case line for
sentencing- enhancement tools that were less popular. Ninety nine, decent thousands, and I will say to that- I don't act. I think the focus on discourse is one that comes out of, and a customer policy area like people, I think if there was a very clear actions to be taken, a people would have taken them already and never be public easier, politically selling to which talk about it, but people who actually know how to just reduce. I mean it majorities instance artist, harassment and since there are terrible it make, you feel unsafe that make you feel worried. But you know you can't prosecute someone for like saying a slur like that she's, not to mean that that you know when you can, but you probably gonna, lose and add. There are very few laws or authors police officers that are going to do that, and so. We don't know how to react to these situations, and so instead, theirs is massive vote. As on making people are saying the right things- and I dont actually think frequently the expansive policy debate. It is following the lack of a clear policy debate that you get. This focus on discourse
I will also say it just because it's like it would. I would be remiss in not winning us out that I think APL writers over last week have done a lot of real work to model a much more substantive way of talking about this, whether that's kind of new Discussions of you know the relation between paranoia and feeling legitimately targeted over the last year. You know whether that's talking about you know the there was a excellent refinery. Twenty nine essay that put forward a very specific political agenda in the service of saying you know this is what a real racial justice agenda would look like. That, at least is you know putting a poet He framework into a debate that feels serious enough to be about policy that doesn't always have that substance to it and if you can just as a media thing like, I feel like it's a shame that, like it
weeks or it seemed to take something like a spree killing in Atlanta to generate like leaves those article about the history of anti asian racism in the United States. There was published on vocs Is it like it's a really wonderful article and hanging out there? That way, though, makes it appear more dependent for its relevance on specific still really known facts about a particular case right into something. I had no idea until this past week that subsequent investigation decades, that the pulse nightclub shooting that happened years and years ago was now in any way, motivated by anti I'll diabetes sentiment that that was just a misunderstanding and he actually picked a club. Random without any knowledge that it was a gay club, and it's like I had no idea whatever gestures of solid,
already I made with the algae BT community at that time- are still completely valid. The right like it doesn't like the one thing actually has nothing to do with the other. But it's challenging in a social media era like as a journalist like I am now trying to do a better job than I did in the pulse era of like withholding judgment and what actually happened in Atlanta. But I don't want that to be read as like in a lack of solidarity, but that's what it that's what it is. You know and lots of people like most people saying things on social media are not journalists, and so it's like yeah like if you are a state representative in Texas, I mean you shouldn't lie to people but, like your first obligation, probably is to just demonstrate solidarity.
With people feeling alarmed and then to think of, do you have any constructive policy ideas, but it's like now. I feel both torrent between the desire to like pump the brakes on. You know over a description of motive, but also appreciated that a lot of api journalists have written good articles I feel, like. Maybe people have had something on there, that they like Canada. To say without stepping on George Floyd related narratives, but like about themselves our cultures and and and their communities, and now this is an opportunity to give voice to that. But I also want to see it all like collapse, like a house of cards, if some more specific information comes out and it turns out it, it's not that I also know I mean I follow on Twitter, Ella who is like, like a sex work in full answer, or something and like she's, been really upset at the like lack of solidarity toward sex workers as such during this
kind of thing- and it's like I totally see where she's coming from, like, I think I think, like her red of it, is a very natural read of this specific set of events. If you come to it with her particular set of concerns and identities rather than the ones that are occurring predominating- and I think if you read the article that the Jerusalem wrote with Rachel Ramirez about like asian Solidarity, they came out, I think, before the Atlanta shooting, but like knowledge, that that work was happening and that this was a thing the people were concerned about, helps understand why there has been so much emphasis on like one particular angle here, where you had a horrific killing of Asians with a white perpetrator. It like it, fits well into certain, the solidarity work that were happening and we just worried having a national argument about sex work in sex workers like the week before this happened. So there's nothing is
something to say about it or or or to do, but it very I don't know it's- a people have a lot of what real feelings bound up in staff, as well as real policy equity is, and I think it's like the more like detached I've become. From needing to participate in the viral media economy like the more uncomfortable I got, constant watching these things. All because I got I want to say to everybody else whose critical these trends, as I look like this- is a golden opportunity till I get good traffic to good articles about history and things that are happening. So what do you want people do like? Why should you plop down story about the history of the asian american experience. At a time when nobody's gonna read it like, of course, you put it out when there's audience interest yeah. This is the thing and lay You know not tied again not to make this too much about the business of media, but, like I think about this, in the context of the constant twenty
fifteen twenty, two thousand two hundred and twenty two like January twenty twenty one genres. It was right up the trunk seat because that is known to be something that people general really want to read that it was like a popular google trend routine please, unlike midmorning, to MID day of any given weekday during terms presidency and the challenge in that kind of content is to turn it into something that is actually going to give people bill information after the tweet itself is forgotten and that you know that, like that's a skill, the can develop as a journalist. If you have a certain amount of understanding of the subject matter, you can like figure out what the policy substrate is you connect the dots two things that are broader and more important? That wrists of course be idea,
That is that that connection is the only connection that can be drawn or that that is like the motivation of it, which you know. What I think is relevant both to the like white man was hung about with Paul and more recently you know there was a wave of content about the history of justified black distrust of them. Go establishment with the kind of policy hook of a vaccine hesitancy which neither properly stated we A vaccine hesitancy was most concentrated, nor Was it necessarily something that the actual lake blackened Eric and you were. Where are you taking of acceding we're thinking about Lake Edith? I think you may have talked about this on. The package must certainly talk about his newsletter, but like a really good article action going to people who have been working with lacking you and think they don't know the dusky experiment. They have much more contemporary concerns about the way they have been treated as lactation. But it still,
for history and bright and is useful opportunity and not something that you know there is a media equivalent of never waste crisis rate, and it's not. Let's use this to push our political, our preferred political agenda, but let's use still levels and people upon knowledge that they don't otherwise seek out and should be, and now we're going to have the opportunity to carry with them, and I think here at useful to dig down on obligations of different groups without we're all talking about here, because we ve Tuttle the media, but in all items media sometimes is worried about trying to calibrate, like oh, like
You think that the vast majority of your audience or Americans are not are unaware of anti asian racism Ben. You re used as an opportunity to talk about that. If you are really worried about the not understanding about sex work than yours, it's up to you talk about that violence against women. Talk about that and then that ends up being. You know it issue because, like let's say your calibrating incorrectly for your audience or other people are like. Why is everyone talking about racism when this is his other problem units? Important and all of these things are true independently, but that it becomes a massive calibration problem of all the media calibrating one direction, you don't actually get the heterodox. He of many different views, kind of bringing all these issues to the forefront and then there's a secondary. Like what do? Individuals and situation have an obligation to rights, and I think individual actually have been re very, very good like it or have like the political power to pass a law. Eighty like that, but don't you
and we ve seen in the last year have just skyrocketed on go fuck me on I too, but be alarmed groups or to other people. People are using as an opportunity k, Emerson up my money where our mouth is and ascended to groups and at home, going to productively engage with these issues and in overseeing this year too, like people are sending money to different age. To my group that were doing, work on this weather is to a p I dot org or that the actual family members of individuals who are harmed and the loud individuals to actually engaged in a way that is fulfils their obligation. Society also make sure they are expressing solidarity to their friends, and then this is question
What you policymakers, have an obligation to heading here with policymakers and with like ethnic groups, is we're we're seeing the actual real failure here, because having individuals have the obligation to research, the exact, effective policies to like lower hate crimes, like called their senators, I don't get. You can even put that on individual at all, but activist groups are ostensibly saying of their goals are to lower these things from happening. Do have an obligation to hold politicians accountable. If all they're doing is talk- and I think the issue here is that this is a much bigger and products own podcast years like there is obviously a ton of light, capture being done between the Democratic Party and its activist groups in their public imparting. Its activist group like these are people who get to work and in both of these spaces, the time and like a lot of times, people are much more concerned with me caning relationships than holding people to accountability. That's like a structural problem and not like
about any individual person working in this space, but because those incentives exist and no one is really. You know incentivize to ensure that when someone gets out there and says we up asian american violence, that a reporter immediately goes. Ok here are three policies that can be passed immediately. Assumption happening to support any of these and really hold them if each the fire- and I think that leg there- the place where media can download you better here, but I think the real problem here is that- and this is something that beyond even these hey crimes is that we have allowed people for too long to just give. Observers, to the things that they're talking about and not actually discussed what their willing to give up, whether it's their own political capital and one issue or other to actually pass the policies here, and I think that you know there. There's obligation, you're, an activist groups make sure that it's not just policing what people are saying, which is important maker balancing offensive things, but also what they're doing everything that is also possible. That is also working, the possibility that, politically speaking, among not activists but the broader public lip service is
right, like if we frame the problem to be these subjective, lived experience of fear, then Maybe it makes sense that having people in power Express, I know your suffering right now, and it is a matter of concern for me and I'm tracking. This may actually be descriptive Lee a sufficient response, because people might help them feel less vulnerable, less marginalized was ignored by May also be in some cases better than and trying to use a blunt policy instrument to deal with this kind of difficult subjective, relative wrists problem like, I'm not expressing opposition on that one way or the other, but it's possible that while activists have a very strong incentive to turn any lip service commitment into a policy commitment, did that isn't actually the way the broader dynamic is were, I think, that's really smart thing, but I also think that that's a that's a question of you know: do we choose to
Do these things as natural disasters or human caused events, and I think they like you know if there was a gay, you do a flood and there's nothing. You could do about it and it just happened and yeah it's enough to have that happen, and then, hopefully, you get like female resources or whatever it is to help you in the aftermath, but in that moment blaming you for not like stopping a flood from occurring, but that's liking. What's really weird here is that we started a viewing like mass shootings, unlike other things like this is like just now
real disasters that we have no control over. But I think this is an important part of the progressive contention about anti asian violence. Is the claim that specifically Donald trumps, words about the virus are a key causal factor here, or perhaps his lack of words on the other side right that like, but I mean every article that I read from from a progressive perspective about Andy's and hate crimes, references Trump, calling it the China virus right or or Trump saying, come, flew, read so a central implicit.
Is that we would not be having this. If Trump had not said those things are, perhaps if he had gone in solidarity too, I don't know you gotta go onto the Eden Centre in cancer by me and you know stood with with the Vietnamese America, his robe actual republican community out there of of evasion. Americans and he didn't do those things, and so possibly that would have made a difference. I have also seen the claim be made that the sort of specific grossness of the conflicts, but that, like generalised foreign policy rhetoric, suggesting tensions between the United States and the People's Republic of China is a big cards right. So, like I had a friend, I get scolded the other day for praising attracts humor bill. That's about our scientific research, competitiveness with China
Spencer. Ackerman who's got a good book coming out about the war on terror and its domestic consequences. He did. I, I think, a vicious sub treated me saying that you know when you try to say that competence, But China will build solidarity in the United States you're, putting your asian neighbours at risk of those are all. I don't know, like empirical claims, that I have not seen super strong efforts to measure. It seems plausible wish, like I e, that the neck crazy claims, but there also not obviously true- and I think in this case it's not just like well its words rather than policy is a specific claim that the words are the pots right, and then there was in your times article saying that activists, leftwing activists were very upset at Andrews Gangs policy proposals on asian acre
times because those proposals involved like more and why pity patrols in Chinatown? I'm sorry, it was like progressive, saying the opposite of what you often hear. It wasn't like match your words with your actions. It was like no like do more words like we. Don't we don't like these propose actions, because they're not progressive fright like we want you to do, is to take asian Americans fear, give voice to it. Rest solidarity say that racism is bad and be careful in how you characterize criticism. Of the people's Republic of China so as to not like inspire radiation hatred, but it's a progressive actually don't want tangible, concrete
is he changes in regard pattern of that's fair way, ages. It seems to me that the main ones that are on the table are like fairly carcere all in their orientation. I think they have ones they like you know, brought you disagree with like you know, adding to fund the place is clearly a progressive rallying cry here and then funding. Then you know other institutions that they think would provide services. I mean that's clearly been like the progressive in private last year. I think it's been repeated in the wake of this stuff. I mean there's an argument about whether that would actually do the thing we're trying to get it didn't like. Nobody is looking at this land to shooter and saying oh well like, if only we had given him, affordable housing, he wouldn't have done read like it's actually like a strong. I think, like counterpoint to these social services as a substitute for law enforcement. Kind of the right because, like the whole point, is that he is motivated by hatred right not by economic deprivation,
I mean I do think that we too, too strong to steal man. What the argument is here. The argument is that that, if you were to on average make sure that people's economic end we know a social needs were being met, more comprehensive Healthcare. Always kind of things about would foster a situation where there be less hate, but we know that people who are not feed, who are institutions where they had access to education, access to healthcare accessed, always things like the higher income, utter you go, the less likely you are to be committing violent crimes are being a victim of violent crimes like these are all things that we know. What are you so I mean the argument I dont think progresses are making it that you give him affordable. Housing, but he would not have done something, but that there will be fewer incidents of crime if you take care of those social determinants of crime and if anybody- but I mean That'S- not a specific response- I mean there's a specific response- everything right the other.
You met here is obtained, as you Know- and this is a very robust theory of like how change works. I bet you know. It obviously has a lot of lake. Empirical corollary is that to be an art necessarily tat tested, but you know the problem. Is the conjunction of state power and the? U of that power to target our marginalized particular groups right there, You no longer have a state apparatus that is capable of inflicting state violence on asian american Sex workers is, or were you know, I'm more broadly speaking, like now white Americans depending on how to construe state violence and what you're plenty on particular that you are not doing to empower vigilante actors, you feel you know lady, who feels compatible with the aims of the state? That's again, it's like, a very specific argument about how things work, but it is that's kind of the vision there. Now. If word of
argument about the transformation of society? Is that in any way designed the ball into particular policy proposals, no, and I think that's kind of that's going to be and they were going to have to see as the defined the police me kind of hits the point where it asked you where it would be back to do, move beyond me. Matured in the difficulty of in a revolutionary vision of society coming up with concrete policy aspects, is you know what we're going to talk about the beginning of the episode it as far as guns is concerned, but even more broadly right like if what you actually why is society, where people no longer feel that gun ownership is important to them. It's very to turn that into here specific ways. We can reduce gunfights yeah and I think one, that man, I think, you'll YO, hopefully group. This too, is a yes. It is. It is not. It is the case that, like none of these,
jobs are actually arguing over the policy as much as they are arguing over that. Discursive elements are talking about here, but does it mean that you know? I think that if Andrea come out and then let's go to the police, I gotta think that they would have proposed is opposes policies years. I think it's, it is. I think the Parthenon disagreeing with is not. That is. It is not that they disagree and reinforce policies, but that they dont have any policy aims of their oh when they do that they are obviously a lot of it, a lot of research proving that you do want to have some level of police in German. Nor do I agree with that. But what? What? What I'm saying is that there is a link if you go to the stop API hate website right. And you know you see with Egypt where today are assembling statistics on hate crimes. They have safety tips in your community. They are courage in you to support asian businesses in your community. You know like which is all good stuff and they're, saying that people should condemn
Anti Asian, hey ask your elected officials what they're doing to increase resources for survivors and and their families, and then they say will there should be anti racism, education in schools that there should be ethnic studies curricula, it's a very words based framework look, it's not it's not that it's like birds rather than actions. It's like the actual group is the institution that progressive asian groups have stood up till I be their entry point than problem like they want. You know concerns, grandma in China towns across Amerika to be funneled towards stop a p. I hate to look for solutions and the solutions they are putting on the table or very discourse e oriented. What's like that's their theory of the cakes right that light
You know we need to address the perpetual foreigner stereotyped frames: Asian Americans, a Pacific Islanders as outsiders to this nation, like that's their diagnosis of the the probable right, that there is a sort of a discourse framing of asian American into. Jewels as not really Americans, and we need to challenge that in the context of broad anti racism, education and that that is the root cause of the problem. Rather than offer some more specific, and I think they would think less progressive view like winning or for patrols in the neighborhood yeah. I mean there is clearly a blind spot when it comes to arm. I wanted, by the observed, really tough policy area when it comes to crime in progressive spaces, especially because there is such a disconnect between a lot of the communities that are. Experiencing a lot of the crime and allow the advocacy groups on both sides who are usually not exceed
in some kind of your someone's working policy embassy group in DC or New York City, and I think, there's a disk they are? But I also just think that you know I think it is not fully so I would say that it is only discursive to direct funds to people who are survivors or that there should be changes and how education is done. I mean, for instance, is clearly pace and as someone who attended school in way, Marion's other Virginia, that the way that the civil war has been taught in schools has really affected the way people think about race relations in America and even that from fundamental understanding of american history, and that that has clear implications for few happy perform their politics later in life. You know, I met several people who I genuinely We believe that a robber really did not support slavery in the slightest and Europe is very confusing comes ages. I would have these folks, but I mean I think of that, like not irrelevant to how we talk about things and the fact that you know in many public schools, Asia,
again as a historical part of the american contacts not discuss. The idea there were asian marketeer for hundreds of years is not discussed, and I think that is is that there needs to be more here if you're talking at the literal crimes are being committed against Asian Americans, you need to do something about making sure that people are literally. Tucked it on a day to day basis, but I think it is unfair to say that there is not a structure that there are not structural other issues that can be addressed through things like education policy and funding for survivors of these attacks were deep. To take better taken other break. You paper support for this,
today comes from the economist intelligence unit or ie. I? U. For short at the eye. You examines the economic and political landscape of almost every country in the world than five world leading analytics forecasted data for more than two hundred countries, and they ve been doing it for over seventy years. It's built to help the business financial government sector strategy as globally, with award winning dad and analytics. Tell kinds understand the world today and prepare for the challenges of tomorrow it also looks kind, seize opportunities and we risk effectively and ever changing key sectors. The EU has a broad portfolio world, leading clients who value and depend on their data the quality, a depth of intelligence of powers them to prepare to win their chosen markets the guide firms, investment decisions and assess business risk, an opportunity governments also line that yeah used at an incisive sport. Key policy decisions. Stop your company, understand wild and prosper within it. Is it yeah you, dot, com, slash, weeds, that's yeah, you that Cobb slash weeds.
If you're a gig worker or self employed, there's some good news about PPP loans. You might want to consider millions of self employed workers may qualify for up to fifty thousand dollars in one hundred percent. Forgivable alone you might be one of those millions as the leader and ppp allowance wobbly can help you find out. They ve helped over three hundred thousand small businesses across Amerika, get a ppp loan funds are limited, so apply now wildly dot com, slash, vocs and see if you qualify for a ppp loan, that's w o m p l, why dot com, Slash, Veo ex Wobbly, not a lender terms and programme rules apply. So this week's white paper is called terrorism authority in fractured polities across national analysis by Andrew P, Davis and Louisa Vila Humdinger of these I've North Carolina State University and the EAST
to do seals deeply where Europe, apparently, I apologize my terrible French, its essentially it's an interesting paper, not only its cross national sociology, is not something we usually do on. The podcast did Basically marries and extremely fancy correlation with. You know regression analysis of a data set, did while by asking a bunch of experts to rate their country's politics on various scales, including you know, measures of most silently fruit for this political polarization with The theory of leadership that is was commonly associated with MAX neighbour I, which is why it is this paper because book, because I've been waiting for its use for mountain need to talk about favour in it. But you for context for ages, natures that describes one of the forms of political authority as charismatic very much in the body
of the leader in his individual personality, and for that reason something that is, a little bit more difficult than other forms of authority to turn into a durable political institution, and so this pay marries a pretty robust theoretical, analysis of here are. Some way is that, in a partisan political context, a charismatic leader could ink political polarisation with be descriptive. Finding that over this big crust, national data. That is in fact the case that, when these We are asked to you, you know express how much The leader of their country is seen as the kind of the defence the hero, the Saviour, the more likely they to arduous. To agree with that sentiment, there were likely in subsequent years to agree that their policies it become. Polarized is Certainly I think that there are you know, metal
ethical limitations, and also that laid bare. He themselves or knowledge that the theory could also work? The other way that at a transformational, Leir could also reduce political polarisation, but certainly in the ways that their describing the particular mechanisms of you know how, a charismatic leader could come into conflict with party authorities or, what's of sentiments and moods of discourse? They couldn't higher in their followers in their opponents nearer very ugly, relevant, since certain recent american president's through amazingly, are not mentioned in the paper. I think one of the interesting most getting things part this paper. For me, Is this idea of if someone comes into your organization with all this charisma has the ability to get a lot of buying from the people or fraud the lower masses who have make up your organizations. I'd, say your tromp annexes, the Republican Party that we're talking about, and then its
obviously going to come into conflict inevitably the existing power structures. I don't rely on charisma that rely on things like runs purpose, being the head of the Aral Sea or other individuals who have things their senators or their governors undercutting that from the league authority they get from those rules specifically because it is threatening, because if you see that your people who use most have authority over are turning when other individual, who has no allegiance to the actual structures at uphold your authority, which means that that person's necessary gonna come into conflict with you. I think like an example of this obviously, but I think also is thinking a lot about just other progressive individuals like air, sea and Bernie, who have very
strong attachment to their base and are able to undo come into conflict even when they are aligned with democratic party principles on alive issues with individuals who are much more tied to the existing power structures that give them the authority yeah. I actually needs it might be worth reading a bit like that, just just to make it here that Jerusalem and I are not reading something into this paper that does not exist like there are. Judges in here you know charismatic It is based on the heroic feats of the leader and the loyalty of followers if followers were not dogmatic. This raises doubts about the highroad status of the leader, which threatens the survival of the charismatic leader in this frame either the leader is a hero or is a charlatan like that kind of thing the personal position of politics around these terrorist medic figures in Jerusalem. I think that you know the kind of Any air sea equivalent on that among Democrats is absolutely reject that you know those tensions
the form of turning procedural fights over how delegates are counted over with a party supports in primaries, which generally follow institutional bureaucratic rules into referenda on, oh, You, like this politician than you, must support this side of the fight and if deferring tv stand your bureaucratic logic. It must be because of personal animist toward that politician that that absolutely in that we were seeing that kind of reduced? the aggregate gear institutional power The party has, because it's just so much We're compelling to define yourself is for or against the politician whose kind of coming up against them I also want to know that this is a m. It exists die all of followers ship, at least as much as of leadership, and so like an interesting thing is that when Senate Democratic Moderates and Democrats,
say they won't overruled parliamentarian and force this fifty dollars an hour, a thing into into the stimulus bell, Bernie Sanders, who you know chairs the Budget Committee, who has this kind of charismatic authority he chooses not to wield it rightly he reiterated his support for the fifty dollars an hour minimum wage, but he does not blow it up right. He makes statements that courage, his followers to think of it. As a disagreement. That is like bounded in nature, not worth blowing the legislation over and like onward? We go right, but he doesn't not have the charismatic authority right like he happens, to wield it in a more measured I Donald Trump does is selective. I mean it's not that he doesn't create blow. Ups, sometimes Responsible ones, but he is selective about right in its part of
makes him an important figure right sort of in American, three, because he has a fair amount of sort of like self conscious control how these sluice gates work, though it makes you wonder what a Sanders presidency would be like right. My like optimistic case for four Bernie, when you can look up on the internet was in part exactly about. I, like my view of him, is it as president. He would have wielded this authority in the car. Measured way than we ve seen from him as a senator and it ultimately, whatever that being an institution bolstering. I guess it's a way to get people who die. I am inclined to believe that, like when things don't happen, it's because the structural obstacles are in fact large. Many of the people who love Bernie Sanders are inclined to believe that when things don't happen, it's because it betrayal
as part of a broader Obama, Joe Biden or something else like that Bernie to me, as somebody who can can bring people along and like get them to accept the compromise that led to the american rescue plan at the thesis of this paper. Is that, like that's, not correct, or at least not systematic we correct and when you in power the charismatic leaders, they dont, why my say inevitably, but we like statistically what they do, is sort of like burn the system down aids. Interestingly Joe Biden is the least that I just want to say he's a low charisma politician because he's charming in his way up, but I think in the barbarian, since he is less of a charismatic leader, not just then tromp, but then Obama than George W Bush than Bill Clinton. I'm not a hundred percent sure about the court judgment, but
finally than the other twenty first century leaders. He is not the saviour of the nation he's not the father of his people. She has a lot of supporters, but vague. He gets very little reflexive deference from them. I think that if he tried to heavy democratic party ideology in like a week way he would not succeed in that right, like people like him, because he supports the idea that they like or they don't like him, because he doesn't, but you know which is different from like I, I think, Obama an bush and Trump on their different ways, could like cell people and weird idea, sweat the United States needs to export democracy globally through a series of wars was like a totally out of left field, but George W Bush, idea that dominated american foreign policy for a long time, because, especially
after nine eleven he was like he was America. Right, and he any we'll do that power by night. You can't do that. Does that actually make politics less polarized? I guess like the church, out, but as a March twenty third- I don't see it. So I look into the actual data set that they're getting this from the ice. Cold v damn end. I they have this invariable there that they're trying to track- and it's very subjective this idea, whether not you're giving deference to this chief executive, and so
How are they getting this from? Apparently there gathering data from five experts for each observation, which makes me a little bit skeptical like who are these ex, maybe somewhere in there? I can find a bit who are these experts, like artes all Americans, who are especially attuned to the american context or whatever look where they coming from donors radically? The expert exact reason referred to that end, and on top of that too, like I thought like like, you did Matt that you know there would be some like really large bombed fur. George, W Bush at least especially post nine eleven. I thought that that would be there, but it's not there at all. If you you even have like much larger ratings of charisma for Bush or for Obama, ecologist jumps only get to trump. At least I mean you will have it on a yearly basis. So you can. You can track exactly when they get into office or anything like that. But I that's that
it's very interesting to me. It's a thing about how their actually discussing has begun to them. It seemed a trump is, is massively charismatic leader, but you don't have any kind of of of look at at Obama. Other folks- and you know I don't know I mean clearly, I don't think anyone called Obama, God Emperor of the United States, as they refer Trump, do sometimes on these rightwing forums. But I do think that there are it may be a usage of the word charisma here. That might be confusing the folks like one we're talking, but this does not just like. Oh you have like you like me now here we are engaging to talk to you or you seem smarter than you are it comes from a religious context originally where someone was endow it with this kind of like extraordinary power or extraordinary ability beyond that which is given to average individuals. So
something else going on there, and I also say too that the conflict with the traditional authority figures is not one that is only on the part of the charismatic individual. I think there's a lot of incentive for people in traditional modes authority who lack that charismatic authority to push it. Anyone who might be coming up the ranks with it, so the inevitability of it, but I think they have less to do with me, I'll, potentially other Bernie Sanders and more to do with, like our people, afraid of losing their power to someone who doesn't even need to get their approval to gain to gain power. What are you really seen every day I see I do want to talk about the Obama example, because Obama isn't just a matter of personal charm, but late actually dies fit? the riparian model at you know the D. The reason argue you can make an argument for why Barack Obama, one democratic, nomination and twenty away the is that he was he embodied and expressed a narrative that America could
he redeemed and unified and that he was the person to do it. You know that's the kind of like that they have We, too, that the day, not first expressed by Hilary Camp in their primary that expressed by Republicans during his presidency that he saw himself as the Messiah that he saw himself as a celebrity daddy's. That's absolutely. Critique of a charismatic politics and it's interesting debate doesn't then show up in the data which might very well speak to the fact that experts are likely to talk a bit like us. It may be expressing kind of endogenous bisons to themselves as experts was there probably talking to each other, and they may be investing things that are happening out. The broader polity, but it's also interesting question of if you are, if you presented Health is a unifying leader, but your opponents don't present you that way. Mace ramble the money
of charismatic authority that they're putting forward here is the model there putting forward easy and explicitly us versus damn model of tears, medic Authority and followers ship and that's not necessarily out of the vapor na. So you, if you had a unifying cares, the authority who is seen at least initially by his supporters as a unified but not actually treated universally, is universally. They they bring. For the end of this paper, that the This appears, Matic Authority in newly democratic states suggests the charismatic figures can be fires in their like. Well, we don't we we shouldn't, We are not seeing that that finding is wrong, because there is a big difference between newly democratic states and everything we are talking about by its also. You know it is true that Israel, someone like about it. In a mature democracy, the terrible to be incentives from the parties.
Opposition to reject that merited, and that's then going to scramble. You know that leaders ability to put forth that narrative up themselves. I mean if everything I was talking about, because I think Elsie was such a good example of what Jerusalem was talking right where, like because she's, I well know why not just she's she's, like charismatic, like yours, good speech, bubbles, She has a big social media following people go to her and twitch she's. An independent funds using base up Hirsch stature, totally subverts the logic of house leadership in which your committee assignments are very very important, and your relationship with the DE triple sea is very, very important right. And it's just it's a necessarily conflicts- you all situation if neither she nor Nancy Policy particularly wants to fight the idea of a
bench. Member of Congress, who is extremely well known, is antithetical to the way the house is meant to work right. But it's intimately tied to changes in the media and via tried by labour rights, but for the rise of broadcast mass media and see exists essential after like progress media, as is the dominant form of communication, and I wonder I mean I always wonder how much will look back on Twentyth century politics as DR by the sort of unique, specific role of network television which producers could choose to defer official logic of the system, and you know I am inside dome. Chomsky manufacturing concerned to know about all the bar, like, maybe in a good way right and you now this very unstable environment like we can sit here. Any
number of like wise political journalists can tell you that, like what back bench, members of Congress tweet is not actually important, but if ever body, chooses to follow those tweets and interact with them and listen to the people who are poor, you on Twitter, then light it is what it is see now and we need tat. We need to live in that world of of social media charisma rather than the bureaucratic logic which rifles at the bank. S thence did ok, There was a long line of both the grid discussion. Thank you. So much Jerusalem for joining us is really good thanks, as always to our sponsors, to our producer. Air connections and the rest will be back on Friday.
Transcript generated on 2021-05-03.