October 10, 2024 • 41 mins
In this episode of "The Fourscore Project," Roger Clark continues his conversation with Professor Dan Schnur, a renowned expert in political communications and leadership. The discussion delves into the challenges of modern leadership in an increasingly fragmented society, where the ability to reach and unite a diverse audience is more difficult than ever. Schnur explores the decline of traditional, centralized communication channels and the rise of social media's influence, which has significantly altered the way leaders connect with the public. The episode also examines the concept of leadership as a team sport, emphasizing the importance of humility and collaboration in effective leadership. As they reflect on historical examples and current political dynamics, Schnur and Clark provide insights into what it takes to lead in today's complex and polarized environment.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:21):
Hi. Myname is Roger Clark, and I'm your host
for today's episode of the Fourscoreand Seven Project.
Today, our discussion is about leadershipand communications
in the United States of Americawith a focus on politics and leadership.
We're fortunateto have with us for a visit
(00:41):
Professor Dan Schnur,who is with us on an earlier episode.
And just to remind you that ProfessorsNora is a professor
at the Annenberg School of Communicationsat the University of Southern California.
Also professor at Pepperdine.
It's a graduate school of public Policy.
Graduate schooland an also a professor at the University
of California, Berkeley, where you teachcommunications, leadership and politics.
(01:06):
Exactly right.And you're also well published as well.
I think isyour materials appeared in the L.A.
Times, The San Francisco Chronicle,Wall Street Journal,
New York Times and The Washington Post.
We have all the big papers coveredfor the most part.
Well, I appreciate you having me.
And I loved our first conversation.
Roger, I'm really excited about thisone. Well, so am I.
(01:26):
And I want to follow up on that becausewhen when we ended our first conversation,
we were talking about the challenge
that modern communication technologypresents.
Meaning specificallythat because of the algorithms
that the big tech uses,that we recycle the same issues.
(01:46):
If you say, for example, I'm interestedin a particular point of view,
big tech knows thatand it just feeds me more of the same.
And it's a steady diet.
I don't get any conflicting
or contradictory postthat represents a different point of view,
and the net resultis that we are separated as a people
and we questionhow people who don't agree with us,
(02:08):
they how they could possibly thinkthat way.
So that raises the questionabout communications.
You are a professor of communications.
What let's start this off.
How can we overcomesomething that is creating tremendous
division in this countrybecause of that type of high tech dilemma?
I think one of the things we have found
(02:30):
that's changed not just in politics,
but in the private sectorin every aspect of society
is how much more difficultit is to communicate with a large audience
when different members of that audience
are getting their informationfrom different places.
The era of three television newscastersdelivering the news
(02:51):
to the rest of the countryhas been gone for some time now,
and in its absence,in the absence of that more centralized
communications mechanism,we now have such a fractured environment
that communicating just simply being heard
by most of the population, let aloneconvincing them, is harder than ever.
(03:12):
And I will tell you,I think the private sector was ahead
of the political world on this.
Although campaigns are catching up
and the private sector,private sector marketing,
they use a term called viral marketing.
And while the private companiessee other companies selling
cars and toothpaste and cereal and so on,
they still run ads
(03:34):
that they hopeeveryone will will see or hear.
More and more, they rely onthe term of art as influencers.
They rely on their customersto carry their message for them
to their own circles.
And so instead of everyone
seeing the same TV commercialat the same time,
(03:56):
that message gets delivered in dozens,if not hundreds,
if not thousands of different waysby my products users.
When they deliver that messageto their friends
and their neighbors,their coworkers, to their social circles.
And we're beginning emphasize beginning
to see the same type of evolutiontake place in campaign politics.
(04:17):
Also, the idea of a candidate,even in the last weeks
of a presidential election,
giving a speech in which the country comestogether to hear.
That doesn't happen very often anymore.
So rather that messagehas to be transmitted from many,
many different platforms by through many,many different messengers,
(04:38):
each to their own cohort,each to their own audience.
It is more fracturedand I'd argue that it's messier,
but we're learning little by little
that centralized communicationhas both advantages and disadvantages
in trying to communicate,as Franklin Roosevelt or Walter
Cronkite might have in a social mediaworld isn't going to work.
(05:00):
So little by little, we're learningwhat those new tools and techniques are.
Yeah, well,it certainly was a simpler world,
and I think I can even rememberI lived in communities,
small communities, growing up where
there were only two television stations.
I think ABC was the last one to go.That's right.
I actually lived overseas on an islandas a teenager, and we had one television
(05:23):
that wouldcome on maybe at 5:00 in the afternoon
if the wind blew out of the southeastand the power wasn't down.
And anything that was on the television
was about four or five weeks oldbecause it had
the tapes had to actually be flown outto the island in the western Pacific.
But my point is that
when you had two or three sources primary,
everybody knew WalterCronkite or Huntley and Brinkley.
(05:46):
And I think even President Johnson
once upon a time said that when WalterCronkite came back from his visit
to Vietnam, I think it was maybe postTet in 68, maybe it was pretty dead.
I think it was Supposedly.
LBJ said, if I've lost Cronkite,I've lost the country.
Yes. Exactly.
During the days of WalterCronkite or Huntley Brinkley,
(06:06):
you had a singularity,a point of reference where
there was a lot of trustin a single voice.
And I think you mentionedor about President LBJ
after Walter Cronkite came back
from a visit to Southeast Asia, Vietnam,during the height of the Vietnam War
and made some comments about were eitherwinning or losing at best, stalemate.
(06:30):
In Johnson'sreflection to his advisers was,
If we've lost Cronkite,we've lost the country.
So trusted was Walter Cronkite's voice.
And you're absolutely right.
That type of voice just simply doesn'texist in society anymore.
It can't.
And and therefore,that's unfortunate to me.
It's unfortunate.
Maybe, you know,I'm a resistant to change here, but
(06:53):
but there certainly is something powerful
about someone who can lead public opinion
to a significantextent where we have social consensus.
So so now we're in a situationwhere the world is so fragmented,
communications are so fragmented,
everybody is getting their informationfrom multiple different sources.
(07:14):
It's even generationalwhere people get their information from.
How do we cohere as a societywhen we don't have a single
or a relatively limited numberof trusted voices that
that we can all rely uponto give us social direction?
Well,except under fairly rare circumstances,
which I'll discuss in a minute, we won't
(07:35):
just because we live in a different erawith different technology
and different tools,just like when you and I were growing up.
We live in a different worldthan our than our grandparents had.
They probably looked at our world
of of two or three television networks
and cable TV
as being just as
(07:56):
challenging a transition for themas people of our generation are facing
from the transition we've undergonefrom broadcast to social media.
But but back to your to your question.
We're not,except under very rare circumstances,
going to have that unifying voice anymore.
And that's unfortunate.
(08:16):
But once again, as we talked aboutin the previous episode,
there's both downsidesand upsides to these changes.
You rememberremember when we first we first talked,
I spoke about the benefitsof communications technology.
And to paraphrase and summarize,
in this world, a lot more voicesget heard than ever before.
(08:39):
So certainly is a more cohesiveconversation
in late 20th century America,but it was very limited conversation.
Also, three anchormen in New York City
in less than a half a dozen newseditors in New York, in Washington,
decided what was newsand what was not for the country.
And one of the things we've learnedsince then
(08:59):
is that while that had somewhatof a unifying effect,
it also excludeda lot of relevant information
that would have been helpfulfor us to learn.
So on one hand, you don't have thatsingular voice of authority.
On the other hand, you have a widerrange of voices and perspectives
and the challenges,as you and I have talked about before,
is how do you get people to listento voices and perspectives
(09:22):
that are different, that are that arethat are different than their own?
The challenge for a leader,
whether it's a political leaderor business leader or a community leader,
and this I think isthe core of your question is
how does an individual lead
without that platform,without that megaphone?
Well, one of the things I teachmy students in a leadership class,
(09:46):
they teach them that I teach themthat leadership is a team sport.
I think what we're learningis whether it's a corporation
or a presidentor any other type of leader,
they're going to be forced to rely moreand more
on the people around themto help them carry out that message.
Now, if you think about it,this is not unique in human history.
(10:06):
In fact, the way in fact,that's the way that leaders lead
for most of human history.
Until radio was invented
for most
of humanhistory, there was no way for president
or a king or an emperor to communicatewith all their subjects.
So they relied on othersto carry the message out for them.
This is a
obviously the communications toolsmake it a much faster process,
(10:30):
but it's a similar it'sa similar type of challenge.
And I'd like to addone other thing, though, because I think
while a lot of it's technology, there areother things that are going on here.
One thing that can unify a society
more than anything elseis an external threat.
Call it the Mars AttacksSchool of Politics.
What can get all the countries of Earthto walk together?
(10:51):
Well, and Martians and then the Russians?We're here to help you.
Yes, exactly. Yes.
You like to think like this?
I think you and I like thesame movies. I think we do
have the same boxers.
But just to be clear,are you on my father's side on that?
Or because my father like JoeLouis? no. No, you're right about this.
You're absolutely right.
I'm glad to have the support. Okay.
(11:13):
But this is what savvypolitical leaders do.
Even absent outer space invasions,
the way a savvy leader unifiestheir constituency
is by pointing to an external threatand saying we must all come together
to defeat that threat.
And we're seeing that right at this momentin Russia and Ukraine.
(11:33):
In Israel and Taiwan and plentyof other places around the world
where leaders are able toor in the recent past have been able to
elevate themselves by pointing to a threatthat forces people to come together.
So we're
talking about Cronkite, 1980and Brinkley earlier,
there was a study done in the 1950s
(11:56):
by the American Associationof Political Scientists.
And, yes, the actually the organizationactually exists, and they have no offense.
The least interesting conventionsI've ever attended in my entire life.
But the studies show in the 1950s,the biggest concern among
political scientists, the best thinkerson these topics in the country,
their biggest concern wasthat there wasn't enough
(12:17):
difference between the two parties.
And in fact, Americanswere being deprived of choices.
Now, here in 2024, that seems likesort of a ridiculous concern to have.
But let's go back to that conceptabout external threats.
The study was taken less than a decadeafter the end of World War Two.
It wastaken at the height of the Cold War.
(12:37):
And so at that point in time,an Eisenhower
Republican and Truman Democrat weren'tthat far away from each other,
because even if they disagreed onany number of other issues,
they recognized the Naziand the Soviet threats
and came together against them
at this particular moment in time.
Our country at least does not facethat kind of existential threat.
(13:02):
And I suspect that if we did,
you would see our leaders
commanding the attention
of a broader
range of the publicthan is currently the case.
But absent that type of calamity,
the best leaders are going to bethe ones who realize
(13:23):
just the way
Caesar
and Noah and George Washington and AbrahamLincoln realized,
If I want my message to be heardby everyone who needs to hear it,
I can't rely just on my own voice.
I have to employ a range of other voiceson my behalf.
Well, leadership.
(13:43):
Let's talk a little bit about you.
You know, you're a professor, scholaron the subject of leadership and
I'm one what I think of classical leaders.
AbrahamLincoln was always at the top of my list.
And as far as I know, he hadno ghostwriters, he had no speechwriters.
He did his own writing
(14:04):
and he understood the difference betweenthe spoken word and the written word.
I think even with the Gettysburg Address,
there were differences onhow he delivered it there in person.
And then when he redrafted itfor public consumption in the written word
and and again, it wasthere was no television, no radio,
not nothing, no mass communicationsother than to the extent that you can
consider, you know, the newspapers toto be some type of mass communication.
(14:27):
And but yet he spokeand at least for some part of the country
at that time,he identified what the war was about.
And for another part of the country,
he was not only extremely unpopular,he was hated, he was vilified.
And yet now,
in retrospect, he's viewed as a right.
(14:49):
He was viewed as the right man.
We are part of the American genius,as we have traditionally been able
to elect the right man at the right time.
But it is always a historical perspective
because in 1862, I'm sure thathalf the country didn't agree with that.
And maybe four decadesafter a good part of the country
(15:09):
didn't agreewith the election of Abraham Lincoln.
But now we do
leadership.
So when we live in a fragmented world
that we live in today,
again, you have someone with a facility
with language speech and the written word.
(15:29):
Doesn't it make with today's technologyand fragmented world,
make it that much harder for someonelike an Abraham Lincoln or a Ronald Reagan
or someone FDR, who has a facilitywith language to get the message out?
It certainly does, at least to get
that message out to the entire audiencethat you're trying to reach.
(15:51):
But once again, at the risk of soundinglike a broken record, it's trade offs.
On one hand, it's much more difficultfor a 21st century leader to command
the attention of their entire audiencecompared to Reagan or Roosevelt and so on.
On the other hand,
technologically, it's much easier
(16:12):
for citizens to access
information than ever, than ever before.
I mean, think aboutlet's go back to the 19th century.
You were talking earlierabout how occasionally
when you were living on the island,you had Newsweek's slate. Yes.
This was the Pony Express did it deliverednews from weeks and weeks earlier
(16:33):
because that was the fastest wayto get it to the populace.
So the downside is more people can ignorethat news than ever before.
But if they want it, it's there fasterand easier and more convenient than ever.
But once again, it's up to us to decide
to take advantage of that opportunity.
Quick thing on news traveling slowly.
(16:57):
A The Battle of New Orleans
was foughtafter the end of the War of 1812,
but we're just simply hadn't gottenall the way from Washington to Louisiana.
So neither side knew it.
Not particularly relevant, but it was.
Interesting because of the kind of bringsto mind Johnny Horton back and forth.
(17:17):
Yes, exactly.
No longer.
It's always here.
That is Colonel Jackson in the song.
But I maybe I'd misheard that.
I think I think he might have on that one.
But but again, back to your question,and I didn't mean to diverge from it
because it's the right thingto be thinking about.
Is a leader todayor an aspiring leader today
(17:37):
has a different set of tools,
which means they havea different set of challenges,
but also a different set of opportunities.
So in some ways it's harderto collectivize the attention
and the audience.
On the other hand, it'seasier than ever before to reach them.
There's a school of thought.Talk about great leaders.
There's a school of thought that arguesthat in the nation's
(17:59):
entire history that we've only had threetruly great presidents
Washington, Lincoln, FDR.
That's it.
There are those who would make the casefor Reagan, for Teddy Roosevelt,
for Thomas Jefferson.
There's others who enter the conversationfor the school side.
These are the three who, at the timewhen the country most needed them,
stepped forward.
(18:20):
And what I find is that aside
from everything else,they arrived at roughly equidistant times
in American history from each other.
Washington presidency
in the very tail end of the 18th century.
Lincoln'sin the middle of the 19th century.
(18:44):
Roosevelt'sin the early portion of the 20th century.
I mean, these were do.
You took the words right out of my mouthwere just about do.
Which which raises the question again.
Traditionally it's been ayou know, unique American characteristic
to elect the right person in retrospect,the right time.
(19:04):
Do you think we still have that talent?
I think we do.
And I'll believe that until it's
until it's proven wrong and hard linepartizans on both sides will argue
that it already has because someonefrom the party that they don't like
has gotten elected.
But I do believe that that's still in us.
But just because that capabilitystill exists in us, within us,
(19:28):
does it mean we'll necessarilytake advantage of that capability
just because we can do the right thingdoesn't mean we necessarily will.
And to me, that's the challenge.
Less ofthe leader and more of the country.
We talked the first time
we did this program.
We talked about the divisions in society.
(19:51):
And I talk to you about tribalism.
Well, for the first 200 years,roughly of American history,
the most significant tribein the United States of America
was the tribeof the United States of America.
We went to school.
We learned about the nation's history.
And in some wayswe learned it and over idealistic way.
But on the other hand,we learned in an early age
(20:13):
how important it was for us to be maintain
our membershipin this tribe of the United States.
And that's a much bigger challenge now,because on one hand,
you do want to teach both the goodand the bad of history.
But what we've also done is we made itwe made it harder
for the youngest generationsto identify themselves
as part of a national tribeand more likely to identify themselves
(20:37):
as a small as part of a smallerand more distinct one.
And again,
everyone deserves
the benefits of their heritageand heritage and their identity.
But you also want a societywhere people can
not honor each other's differences,
but when necessary, put them asidein order to work together as one.
In one hour,tribes are smaller than they once were.
(21:01):
That's more individually empowering.
But it's a lot harder to work togethercollectively.
So this is something I worry about andthat we haven't been put to this test yet.
So while I do think answer your question,that we do have
the capability to continueto select that right, man or woman
at the right time,that doesn't mean we are.
(21:22):
Just because we have that capabilitydoesn't mean we'll always
correctly exercise it.
Well,which is a profound question, isn't it?
Because if we have lost that talent,
I, for one,
don't want to look down the roadto see what that foretells.
Because if we have lost the ability toelect the right person at the right time,
(21:44):
then it doesn't bodewell for the future of the country.
Agreed.
And then the question becomes, ratherthan simply throwing up our hands.
So how do we get that back?
You know, most doors are two way doors.
And if you walk through them,you can walk back through.
And if somewhere along the waywe have lost or if we do lose our way
(22:06):
and lose that sacrifice, that capability.
My initial instinct isn't woe is us.
My question, my my first thought iswe know how to do this.
We've done it before.
How can we get back to it?
Well, it raises the question,You know, to me, there's a difference
between leaders and leaders ship.
(22:26):
A lot of peopleend up in positions of leadership
who aren't naturallyleaders or good at it.
And history is
repletewith, you know, all sorts of examples.
And we've elected leaders, you know,
in the pastthat weren't particularly good.
And then we've had somethat have been superb.
(22:46):
You've mentioned three today.
But leadership in my mind is different,just being a leader.
To me, leadership is someone that can lead
by power, persuasion and in ideals.
And in and and bring those with them.
(23:06):
As opposed to someone who's just checkingthe latest polls this morning.
Okay.
52% of the people believe so.
Therefore, I agree with X2.
That's a follower, not a leader.
Or of all the good leaders gone.
Or are they just hiding in plain sight?
I'll tell you where.
They're not as much as they used to be.
While I think there are stillsome really good and decent and admirable
(23:29):
men and women in politics,I think fewer and fewer.
And this is something I see in the
in that on the campuses where I teachfewer and fewer of those young people
with truly exceptional leadershipskills and capabilities.
Choose public service
as the foundation
from which to exercise that leadership.
Could you define public service?
(23:50):
Politics, government, etc.?
Fewer. Fewer. Fewer.
Because the best of these young people,those who might have run for office
in the future because of their leadershipskills and capabilities.
Because we will politicsin such low regard these days.
I think if I have the potentialto make a difference, maybe I'd rather
make it in the private sector or thenonprofit sector than the public sector.
(24:13):
So there's leadership there.
But we are seeing more and more of them
choosing pathsother than politics and elective office.
And that's and that is a real challenge.
And that's somethingthat deeply concerns me.
Well, in a very real sense, you don't blame them because it's such a blood sport.
But then
politics really has been a blood sportand kind of limited a little bit
(24:36):
of a foundation for my question,because even in George Washington's day,
the opposition pressed to theI don't know, they call it opposition
press, but a lot of stuff that ThomasJefferson was secretly supporting
that was very antagonistic to Washington'sadministration or point of view was
it was very hostile.
my gosh.
The type of things
that John Adams and ThomasJefferson were saying about each other.
(24:57):
Would make Bernie Sanders and Donald Trumpblush with embarrassment.
So you're right.
This has been part of politicsfor as long as there's been politics.
But yet we still produce
these very talented peoplethat would get into the Senate, run,
you know, run for the White Houseand so forth.
And now people are not willing to do thatto the same extent.
So in terms of the being the blood sport,it's always been a blood sport.
(25:18):
But is there something differentabout the nature of the blood sport now
that is intimidating
as a frightening good leaders awayfrom ever getting into the fight?
Well, the partizanship and polarizationhas always led
to that kind of really fiercepolitical fighting.
You're exactly right. That's nothing new.
But because
(25:38):
as wetalked about in our first conversation,
because that Partizanship has gottenso intense,
the polarization has gottenso much greater.
It's been so much harderto get anything done.
And so what that aspiring leader thinksis I'm willing
to deal with the slings and arrows.
I want to deal with the cursesand the anger.
(25:59):
If I can get something doneby overcoming that.
But why in the worldwould I deal with all that invective
if we're still not going to get anythingdone?
So, you know,I would making politics more civil help,
maybe a little bit,but would help a lot more
is making politics more productive.
(26:20):
So that those leaders would say,I can handle the insults,
I can handle the onslaught, because I knowif I persevering to get something done.
And fewer and feweryoung people have the confidence
that the public square iswhere that can happen anymore.
I read somewhere that
the slur against George Washington
(26:40):
that upset him beyond all others
was that someone called hima horse Whipper
not a whisperer, but a horse Whipper.
And and, of course,Washington was famously, arguably
the best horseman in theand the in the in the country at the time.
And supposedly two or three days later,he was still so upset
(27:01):
he couldn'tcalm down and his staff had to say, Mr.
President, you got you got to settle down.We've got business to do here.
But he was still upsetand I still know what horse Whipper means.
I thought it
maybe it had some type of metaphoricalreference more than just whipping up
whipping a horse.But I've always wondered about that.
But so
those
insults, that uglinesshas always been a part of politics.
(27:23):
But our best leaders have been willing
to withstand it in the interestsof accomplishing important goals.
And now the questionthat a young person asks is, even I will,
even if I withstand all those attacks,can I still accomplish these goals?
And more and more,
not just young people, but what we seein congressional retirements.
Right. Members saying they've had enough.
(27:43):
Not because it's mean spirited, butbecause we're not going to get anything
done. Right.
Right.
Well, but we have beenthrough this before, have we not?
Because you look at the politicsof the 1840s, 1850s,
we couldn't even agree on whereto put the Transcontinental railroad
because of the Southern bloc.
The Northern Bloc.And it was only when the
southern states
(28:04):
succeededthat suddenly the majority decide
that the transcontinental railroadwould be the northern. What?
Not the real northern route,but the central route.
So we had that.
We can't do stuff before.
And unfortunately this is the scary part
is that had we get through that,it causes a civil war.
And so that raises the question,are we heading that way?
(28:26):
A lot of people talk about this.
I mean, are we getting our selfpolitically where we can't
get anything done or are we pushing itselfunder the threat of a civil war
that's going to resolve itone way or the other?
So that we can be productivein the future?
Well, the 1840 and 1850s were one example
of that kind of divisiveness and hatred.
(28:46):
But it's not the only one.
In the 19 tens, just after World War One,
there were she's right before WorldWar One excuse me,
there were 75 members of the U.S.
House of Representatives who were publiclydeclared members of the Ku Klux Klan.
75 House members weren't just members,
(29:08):
but who felt comfortable in public.
They declared it themselves. Yes, exactly.
And this is the timewhen the movie Birth of a Nation came out.
Right. It's sort of a.
It was like President Wilson's favorite.
Movie, Precisely.
The 1960s
of, you know, we talk abouthow there might be protests in Chicago
(29:29):
this summer against Bidenbecause of the war in Gaza.
Well, I've read thatsome of the protesters in Chicago
in 1968 were prepared to put LSDin the city's water supply.
They were so determinedto stop the proceedings.
So there's a wonderful book
by the historianJohn Meacham called The Soul of America.
(29:52):
And before Bidenappropriated the the term.
And this is the basic premise of his book,which is we have had
we have faced these types of divisions
throughout our country's entire history,even before we were a country.
And we've gotten through them before.
Now, when I first heard about the book,I thought, okay,
I should probably read thisbecause it's good, it's evil.
(30:15):
Luke Meade Stars.
It's the circle of life.I should read this.
The book's better than that,because what it demonstrates,
including the post Civil War era,
is it demonstrates how we overcamethose divisions in the past.
Sometimes it required war.
Sometimes it required depression.
Sometimes it required some other typeof upheaval or external external threat.
(30:39):
But his main point is we have overcome.
This is not as a unique timeas we think it is,
and we have overcomethese kind of challenges before.
A variation on what we discussed earlier.
Just because we have overcome them
when we faced them beforedoesn't guarantee that we will this time.
But it means that we can.
And maybe to our earlier point,
(31:00):
maybe we need to relearn some lessonsthat we've forgotten.
But we have demonstrated in the pastas a country
our ability to overcomethese types of divisions in the past,
which makes me believe that while, again,there's no guarantee
that we're perfectly capableof doing so again in the in the future.
Well, I'm glad you mention that because
(31:22):
we've done
we've recoveredfrom these episodes in the past.
But to know how we recovered
from those episodesand overcame them requires education.
And we live in an era of cancel culture.
And my wife and I were in Parisabout a year ago,
and the Parisianwe were talking to very interested.
(31:43):
And I asked him,
Have you heard about the cancel cultureenvironment in United States?
And he said, No, no,I haven't heard about that.
And that's why I explain a little bitabout what it was.
And he looked at me and said,
Well, every countryhas something to be embarrassed about.
Why do you want to erase it from memory?
You know, it's kind of like,who's the Egyptian pharaoh as.
As Walter or Chuck Heston was marching outsays Erase from all the obelisk.
(32:06):
So let it be written. So let it be done.
I guess thatmaybe that's the first example.
Cancel culture.
The challenge, though, if that were noteducating ourselves about our past
and so that we don't learn how ourancestors overcame similar challenges,
are we basically at a pointwhere we are destroying ourselves
(32:27):
if we don't admit our past, our mistakesin our past, and live up to them?
Those who fail to learn the lessons ofthe past are condemned to repeat it.
Absolutely.
I'm part of a group called the Coalition
for Civics Education in California.
And to me, the workwe try to have tried to do
speaks directlyto the points that that you're raising.
(32:48):
Most California
public schools require their studentsto take one single semester
of civics educationbefore they graduate from high school.
And it's actually most of the time, it'sone single semester of civics
in government and geography, all crammedtogether in 11 through 12th grade.
And if you think about it, the lessonwe're teaching our young people
(33:08):
unintentionallyis that this government stuff,
this politics stuff,this democracy stuff is so unimportant,
we're not going to botherteaching it to you.
And I can bother talking to you it at all.
For your first ten years of education.
Then we're going to give you this 115 weekcrash course, and then we want you
to turn around 18 months laterand magically be responsible citizens
and regular voters.
(33:29):
And toward your point,that's not enough education,
whether it's history,whether it's government,
whether it's civics, it's not enough timeand effort to make sure
our young people understandin what's expected of them
and availableto them as members of a community.
The original reason,the original rationale
for public education in this countrywas not reading or writing arithmetic.
(33:52):
The original rationale for public schoolswas civics education.
And the fact that we've lost that.
I think more than anything else has driventhe kind of divisions
and misunderstandingsthat you and I have been talking about.
Well, it also seemsthat it's even more important.
Let's let's talk about California again,
as an example,where it's an extremely diverse community.
(34:14):
But yet
if we have limited education in civics,all those individuals
who are recent arrivals,how do they assimilate
our sense of democracy,the sense of the Republican government
that has served us so wellfor 240, 250 years now?
Well, and I would argue that bothfor new arrivals and for children
(34:36):
and grandchildren and great grandchildrenof Americans, of American citizens,
the knowledge is critically important
because if you don't understand
your place in this country,
you're much more likelyto look for a smaller
and a less representative tribe.
(34:57):
Right?
The betteryou understand the American tribe,
the more likelyyou are to want to try to be part of it.
And there's always going to be those whoreject it, and that's their prerogative.
But you're a lot less likelyto reject something if you understand it.
Well, I want to circle
back to to a point that
(35:17):
where, of all the good leaders gone,
or are they just hiding in plain sight?
I think the Ventura
observation on behalf of our listenersand maybe a broad swath
of of the Americansas a whole is that we're questioning
the quality of the leadersthat we have representing us.
(35:38):
I think you've already made a commenta few moments ago.
Well, maybe they they'rethey're just hiding in plain sight.
They just don't want to get into the game
B because of the viciousnessassociated with it.
And maybe more important, as you said,because what's the point?
I can't do anythingbecause nothing gets done.
(35:58):
Isn't that an extension of the threat,existential threat to this country
that we're not producing the peoplethat can lead us to a better future?
I think that's a criticallyimportant challenge.
And I wouldI would define it a little bit different.
Did define itjust a little bit differently.
I think we are producing as people.
(36:21):
We're simply not giving them the platform
from which they can leadin fixing a broken politics.
Making it less polarizing, making society
less divisive is going to give
those young people with the leadershipskills and capability this
a realistic chanceof accomplishing those leadership goals.
John Boehner, when he was speaker ofthe House, had a great line.
(36:44):
He said a leader without followersis just a guy out for a walk.
And so we can train theseyoung men and women to become leaders.
But I think we also have to understandas a society,
the benefits of working together
under and
as part of as part of a leadership effort.
And the more dividedwe are definitionally,
(37:07):
therefore, the harderit becomes for a leader to unify us.
But we have to be willing towe have to be willing to be led.
We have to be willing to unify in orderfor an effective leader
to take us forward.
Well, Professor,we're almost out of time for this episode,
but we'd love to have you backfor another time.
But let me ask you for the final question.
(37:28):
The recipe
in order.
This is a broad question.
Feel free to attack it from any angleyou would like to attack.
But how do we get all those talentedleaders who don't want to be in the game
back into the game?
Well, it's a great question.
And I think to
(37:50):
I think there's two different waysto look at this, both of equal importance.
One is, quote, The game itself
has to be improved.
In other words,we have to begin as a society
to be willing to try to bridgethese divisions in politics or elsewhere
in order for those potential leadersto be able to step forward.
(38:11):
So some of that responsibility is on us.
I also think
that the best way to prepare an individual
for leadership is counter intuitive,as it may sound,
is to teach them humility.
One of the things I spend more timethan any other talking to students
(38:32):
about, particularly those who have reallyimpressive leadership potential,
they said You've learned throughout
15, 16
years of school, elementary school,secondary school, no college.
You've learned that it's importantto be good at everything.
That's exactly wrong.
Now, in high school,that's what we want from them.
(38:53):
When they apply to college,
they need to get the grades,They need to play an instrument,
they need to play a sport,They need to volunteer.
I said,
We're going to change the rules on youas soon as you graduate from college.
Instead of trying to be goodat everything.
We only allow you to be really,really good at one thing.
I have a heart surgeon.
I don't care if he plays the tuba.
I want a really good heart surgeon.
It doesn't really matter anymore.
(39:13):
And so this goes back to a pointI made earlier,
is to help them understandthat leadership is a team sport.
And no individual, no matter howbrilliant, no matter how devoted,
no matter how impassioned, can leadeffectively themselves.
And the best leaders are the best teambuilders,
the best leadersand the best coalition builders.
And in order to do that,
(39:34):
a leader needs to have humility.
A leader needs to understandboth what they're good at
and what they're not good at,and have the self-awareness to say.
There are certain things I'm not good at.
My job isn't to get good at them.
My job is to put together
a team full of peoplewho are good at things that I'm not.
It's a great quote.
I wish I could remember who said it.
(39:55):
As a leader,I just don't remember who it was.
I'm embarrassed.
Said I never want to be thesmartest person in any room that I'm in
and the best leaders are thosewho understand that if they're going to
succeed, they have to recruit peoplewho are as good or better than them.
If things in a highlyindividualistic society, I'm not sure that
the lessons that's the lesson that we'reteaching our prospective young leaders.
(40:17):
Well, those are words of wisdomfor the ages, Professor.
And well said.
We would love to have you backfor another episode.
I would really enjoy it.Thank you. Well, wonderful.
Once again, my name is Roger Clarke.
By esteemed guest today is ProfessorDan Schnur, professor at Pepperdine USC,
and also at the University of Californiain Berkeley.
(40:39):
If you've like the episode today, be sure.
And like us, we appreciate any commentsand observations that you might have.
Please stay tuned.
We will be back with Professor Schnurfor another episode.
Once again, the four Gordonseven Project. I'm Roger Clarke.
Thank you for listening.
Hi. Myname is Roger Clark, and I'm your host
for today's episode of the Fourscoreand Seven Project.
Today, our discussion is about leadershipand communications
in the United States of Americawith a focus on politics and leadership.
We're fortunateto have with us for a visit
(00:41):
Professor Dan Schnur,who is with us on an earlier episode.
And just to remind you that ProfessorsNora is a professor
at the Annenberg School of Communicationsat the University of Southern California.
Also professor at Pepperdine.
It's a graduate school of public Policy.
Graduate schooland an also a professor at the University
of California, Berkeley, where you teachcommunications, leadership and politics.
(01:06):
Exactly right.And you're also well published as well.
I think isyour materials appeared in the L.A.
Times, The San Francisco Chronicle,Wall Street Journal,
New York Times and The Washington Post.
We have all the big papers coveredfor the most part.
Well, I appreciate you having me.
And I loved our first conversation.
Roger, I'm really excited about thisone. Well, so am I.
(01:26):
And I want to follow up on that becausewhen when we ended our first conversation,
we were talking about the challenge
that modern communication technologypresents.
Meaning specificallythat because of the algorithms
that the big tech uses,that we recycle the same issues.
(01:46):
If you say, for example, I'm interestedin a particular point of view,
big tech knows thatand it just feeds me more of the same.
And it's a steady diet.
I don't get any conflicting
or contradictory postthat represents a different point of view,
and the net resultis that we are separated as a people
and we questionhow people who don't agree with us,
(02:08):
they how they could possibly thinkthat way.
So that raises the questionabout communications.
You are a professor of communications.
What let's start this off.
How can we overcomesomething that is creating tremendous
division in this countrybecause of that type of high tech dilemma?
I think one of the things we have found
(02:30):
that's changed not just in politics,
but in the private sectorin every aspect of society
is how much more difficultit is to communicate with a large audience
when different members of that audience
are getting their informationfrom different places.
The era of three television newscastersdelivering the news
(02:51):
to the rest of the countryhas been gone for some time now,
and in its absence,in the absence of that more centralized
communications mechanism,we now have such a fractured environment
that communicating just simply being heard
by most of the population, let aloneconvincing them, is harder than ever.
(03:12):
And I will tell you,I think the private sector was ahead
of the political world on this.
Although campaigns are catching up
and the private sector,private sector marketing,
they use a term called viral marketing.
And while the private companiessee other companies selling
cars and toothpaste and cereal and so on,
they still run ads
(03:34):
that they hopeeveryone will will see or hear.
More and more, they rely onthe term of art as influencers.
They rely on their customersto carry their message for them
to their own circles.
And so instead of everyone
seeing the same TV commercialat the same time,
(03:56):
that message gets delivered in dozens,if not hundreds,
if not thousands of different waysby my products users.
When they deliver that messageto their friends
and their neighbors,their coworkers, to their social circles.
And we're beginning emphasize beginning
to see the same type of evolutiontake place in campaign politics.
(04:17):
Also, the idea of a candidate,even in the last weeks
of a presidential election,
giving a speech in which the country comestogether to hear.
That doesn't happen very often anymore.
So rather that messagehas to be transmitted from many,
many different platforms by through many,many different messengers,
(04:38):
each to their own cohort,each to their own audience.
It is more fracturedand I'd argue that it's messier,
but we're learning little by little
that centralized communicationhas both advantages and disadvantages
in trying to communicate,as Franklin Roosevelt or Walter
Cronkite might have in a social mediaworld isn't going to work.
(05:00):
So little by little, we're learningwhat those new tools and techniques are.
Yeah, well,it certainly was a simpler world,
and I think I can even rememberI lived in communities,
small communities, growing up where
there were only two television stations.
I think ABC was the last one to go.That's right.
I actually lived overseas on an islandas a teenager, and we had one television
(05:23):
that wouldcome on maybe at 5:00 in the afternoon
if the wind blew out of the southeastand the power wasn't down.
And anything that was on the television
was about four or five weeks oldbecause it had
the tapes had to actually be flown outto the island in the western Pacific.
But my point is that
when you had two or three sources primary,
everybody knew WalterCronkite or Huntley and Brinkley.
(05:46):
And I think even President Johnson
once upon a time said that when WalterCronkite came back from his visit
to Vietnam, I think it was maybe postTet in 68, maybe it was pretty dead.
I think it was Supposedly.
LBJ said, if I've lost Cronkite,I've lost the country.
Yes. Exactly.
During the days of WalterCronkite or Huntley Brinkley,
(06:06):
you had a singularity,a point of reference where
there was a lot of trustin a single voice.
And I think you mentionedor about President LBJ
after Walter Cronkite came back
from a visit to Southeast Asia, Vietnam,during the height of the Vietnam War
and made some comments about were eitherwinning or losing at best, stalemate.
(06:30):
In Johnson'sreflection to his advisers was,
If we've lost Cronkite,we've lost the country.
So trusted was Walter Cronkite's voice.
And you're absolutely right.
That type of voice just simply doesn'texist in society anymore.
It can't.
And and therefore,that's unfortunate to me.
It's unfortunate.
Maybe, you know,I'm a resistant to change here, but
(06:53):
but there certainly is something powerful
about someone who can lead public opinion
to a significantextent where we have social consensus.
So so now we're in a situationwhere the world is so fragmented,
communications are so fragmented,
everybody is getting their informationfrom multiple different sources.
(07:14):
It's even generationalwhere people get their information from.
How do we cohere as a societywhen we don't have a single
or a relatively limited numberof trusted voices that
that we can all rely uponto give us social direction?
Well,except under fairly rare circumstances,
which I'll discuss in a minute, we won't
(07:35):
just because we live in a different erawith different technology
and different tools,just like when you and I were growing up.
We live in a different worldthan our than our grandparents had.
They probably looked at our world
of of two or three television networks
and cable TV
as being just as
(07:56):
challenging a transition for themas people of our generation are facing
from the transition we've undergonefrom broadcast to social media.
But but back to your to your question.
We're not,except under very rare circumstances,
going to have that unifying voice anymore.
And that's unfortunate.
(08:16):
But once again, as we talked aboutin the previous episode,
there's both downsidesand upsides to these changes.
You rememberremember when we first we first talked,
I spoke about the benefitsof communications technology.
And to paraphrase and summarize,
in this world, a lot more voicesget heard than ever before.
(08:39):
So certainly is a more cohesiveconversation
in late 20th century America,but it was very limited conversation.
Also, three anchormen in New York City
in less than a half a dozen newseditors in New York, in Washington,
decided what was newsand what was not for the country.
And one of the things we've learnedsince then
(08:59):
is that while that had somewhatof a unifying effect,
it also excludeda lot of relevant information
that would have been helpfulfor us to learn.
So on one hand, you don't have thatsingular voice of authority.
On the other hand, you have a widerrange of voices and perspectives
and the challenges,as you and I have talked about before,
is how do you get people to listento voices and perspectives
(09:22):
that are different, that are that arethat are different than their own?
The challenge for a leader,
whether it's a political leaderor business leader or a community leader,
and this I think isthe core of your question is
how does an individual lead
without that platform,without that megaphone?
Well, one of the things I teachmy students in a leadership class,
(09:46):
they teach them that I teach themthat leadership is a team sport.
I think what we're learningis whether it's a corporation
or a presidentor any other type of leader,
they're going to be forced to rely moreand more
on the people around themto help them carry out that message.
Now, if you think about it,this is not unique in human history.
(10:06):
In fact, the way in fact,that's the way that leaders lead
for most of human history.
Until radio was invented
for most
of humanhistory, there was no way for president
or a king or an emperor to communicatewith all their subjects.
So they relied on othersto carry the message out for them.
This is a
obviously the communications toolsmake it a much faster process,
(10:30):
but it's a similar it'sa similar type of challenge.
And I'd like to addone other thing, though, because I think
while a lot of it's technology, there areother things that are going on here.
One thing that can unify a society
more than anything elseis an external threat.
Call it the Mars AttacksSchool of Politics.
What can get all the countries of Earthto walk together?
(10:51):
Well, and Martians and then the Russians?We're here to help you.
Yes, exactly. Yes.
You like to think like this?
I think you and I like thesame movies. I think we do
have the same boxers.
But just to be clear,are you on my father's side on that?
Or because my father like JoeLouis? no. No, you're right about this.
You're absolutely right.
I'm glad to have the support. Okay.
(11:13):
But this is what savvypolitical leaders do.
Even absent outer space invasions,
the way a savvy leader unifiestheir constituency
is by pointing to an external threatand saying we must all come together
to defeat that threat.
And we're seeing that right at this momentin Russia and Ukraine.
(11:33):
In Israel and Taiwan and plentyof other places around the world
where leaders are able toor in the recent past have been able to
elevate themselves by pointing to a threatthat forces people to come together.
So we're
talking about Cronkite, 1980and Brinkley earlier,
there was a study done in the 1950s
(11:56):
by the American Associationof Political Scientists.
And, yes, the actually the organizationactually exists, and they have no offense.
The least interesting conventionsI've ever attended in my entire life.
But the studies show in the 1950s,the biggest concern among
political scientists, the best thinkerson these topics in the country,
their biggest concern wasthat there wasn't enough
(12:17):
difference between the two parties.
And in fact, Americanswere being deprived of choices.
Now, here in 2024, that seems likesort of a ridiculous concern to have.
But let's go back to that conceptabout external threats.
The study was taken less than a decadeafter the end of World War Two.
It wastaken at the height of the Cold War.
(12:37):
And so at that point in time,an Eisenhower
Republican and Truman Democrat weren'tthat far away from each other,
because even if they disagreed onany number of other issues,
they recognized the Naziand the Soviet threats
and came together against them
at this particular moment in time.
Our country at least does not facethat kind of existential threat.
(13:02):
And I suspect that if we did,
you would see our leaders
commanding the attention
of a broader
range of the publicthan is currently the case.
But absent that type of calamity,
the best leaders are going to bethe ones who realize
(13:23):
just the way
Caesar
and Noah and George Washington and AbrahamLincoln realized,
If I want my message to be heardby everyone who needs to hear it,
I can't rely just on my own voice.
I have to employ a range of other voiceson my behalf.
Well, leadership.
(13:43):
Let's talk a little bit about you.
You know, you're a professor, scholaron the subject of leadership and
I'm one what I think of classical leaders.
AbrahamLincoln was always at the top of my list.
And as far as I know, he hadno ghostwriters, he had no speechwriters.
He did his own writing
(14:04):
and he understood the difference betweenthe spoken word and the written word.
I think even with the Gettysburg Address,
there were differences onhow he delivered it there in person.
And then when he redrafted itfor public consumption in the written word
and and again, it wasthere was no television, no radio,
not nothing, no mass communicationsother than to the extent that you can
consider, you know, the newspapers toto be some type of mass communication.
(14:27):
And but yet he spokeand at least for some part of the country
at that time,he identified what the war was about.
And for another part of the country,
he was not only extremely unpopular,he was hated, he was vilified.
And yet now,
in retrospect, he's viewed as a right.
(14:49):
He was viewed as the right man.
We are part of the American genius,as we have traditionally been able
to elect the right man at the right time.
But it is always a historical perspective
because in 1862, I'm sure thathalf the country didn't agree with that.
And maybe four decadesafter a good part of the country
(15:09):
didn't agreewith the election of Abraham Lincoln.
But now we do
leadership.
So when we live in a fragmented world
that we live in today,
again, you have someone with a facility
with language speech and the written word.
(15:29):
Doesn't it make with today's technologyand fragmented world,
make it that much harder for someonelike an Abraham Lincoln or a Ronald Reagan
or someone FDR, who has a facilitywith language to get the message out?
It certainly does, at least to get
that message out to the entire audiencethat you're trying to reach.
(15:51):
But once again, at the risk of soundinglike a broken record, it's trade offs.
On one hand, it's much more difficultfor a 21st century leader to command
the attention of their entire audiencecompared to Reagan or Roosevelt and so on.
On the other hand,
technologically, it's much easier
(16:12):
for citizens to access
information than ever, than ever before.
I mean, think aboutlet's go back to the 19th century.
You were talking earlierabout how occasionally
when you were living on the island,you had Newsweek's slate. Yes.
This was the Pony Express did it deliverednews from weeks and weeks earlier
(16:33):
because that was the fastest wayto get it to the populace.
So the downside is more people can ignorethat news than ever before.
But if they want it, it's there fasterand easier and more convenient than ever.
But once again, it's up to us to decide
to take advantage of that opportunity.
Quick thing on news traveling slowly.
(16:57):
A The Battle of New Orleans
was foughtafter the end of the War of 1812,
but we're just simply hadn't gottenall the way from Washington to Louisiana.
So neither side knew it.
Not particularly relevant, but it was.
Interesting because of the kind of bringsto mind Johnny Horton back and forth.
(17:17):
Yes, exactly.
No longer.
It's always here.
That is Colonel Jackson in the song.
But I maybe I'd misheard that.
I think I think he might have on that one.
But but again, back to your question,and I didn't mean to diverge from it
because it's the right thingto be thinking about.
Is a leader todayor an aspiring leader today
(17:37):
has a different set of tools,
which means they havea different set of challenges,
but also a different set of opportunities.
So in some ways it's harderto collectivize the attention
and the audience.
On the other hand, it'seasier than ever before to reach them.
There's a school of thought.Talk about great leaders.
There's a school of thought that arguesthat in the nation's
(17:59):
entire history that we've only had threetruly great presidents
Washington, Lincoln, FDR.
That's it.
There are those who would make the casefor Reagan, for Teddy Roosevelt,
for Thomas Jefferson.
There's others who enter the conversationfor the school side.
These are the three who, at the timewhen the country most needed them,
stepped forward.
(18:20):
And what I find is that aside
from everything else,they arrived at roughly equidistant times
in American history from each other.
Washington presidency
in the very tail end of the 18th century.
Lincoln'sin the middle of the 19th century.
(18:44):
Roosevelt'sin the early portion of the 20th century.
I mean, these were do.
You took the words right out of my mouthwere just about do.
Which which raises the question again.
Traditionally it's been ayou know, unique American characteristic
to elect the right person in retrospect,the right time.
(19:04):
Do you think we still have that talent?
I think we do.
And I'll believe that until it's
until it's proven wrong and hard linepartizans on both sides will argue
that it already has because someonefrom the party that they don't like
has gotten elected.
But I do believe that that's still in us.
But just because that capabilitystill exists in us, within us,
(19:28):
does it mean we'll necessarilytake advantage of that capability
just because we can do the right thingdoesn't mean we necessarily will.
And to me, that's the challenge.
Less ofthe leader and more of the country.
We talked the first time
we did this program.
We talked about the divisions in society.
(19:51):
And I talk to you about tribalism.
Well, for the first 200 years,roughly of American history,
the most significant tribein the United States of America
was the tribeof the United States of America.
We went to school.
We learned about the nation's history.
And in some wayswe learned it and over idealistic way.
But on the other hand,we learned in an early age
(20:13):
how important it was for us to be maintain
our membershipin this tribe of the United States.
And that's a much bigger challenge now,because on one hand,
you do want to teach both the goodand the bad of history.
But what we've also done is we made itwe made it harder
for the youngest generationsto identify themselves
as part of a national tribeand more likely to identify themselves
(20:37):
as a small as part of a smallerand more distinct one.
And again,
everyone deserves
the benefits of their heritageand heritage and their identity.
But you also want a societywhere people can
not honor each other's differences,
but when necessary, put them asidein order to work together as one.
In one hour,tribes are smaller than they once were.
(21:01):
That's more individually empowering.
But it's a lot harder to work togethercollectively.
So this is something I worry about andthat we haven't been put to this test yet.
So while I do think answer your question,that we do have
the capability to continueto select that right, man or woman
at the right time,that doesn't mean we are.
(21:22):
Just because we have that capabilitydoesn't mean we'll always
correctly exercise it.
Well,which is a profound question, isn't it?
Because if we have lost that talent,
I, for one,
don't want to look down the roadto see what that foretells.
Because if we have lost the ability toelect the right person at the right time,
(21:44):
then it doesn't bodewell for the future of the country.
Agreed.
And then the question becomes, ratherthan simply throwing up our hands.
So how do we get that back?
You know, most doors are two way doors.
And if you walk through them,you can walk back through.
And if somewhere along the waywe have lost or if we do lose our way
(22:06):
and lose that sacrifice, that capability.
My initial instinct isn't woe is us.
My question, my my first thought iswe know how to do this.
We've done it before.
How can we get back to it?
Well, it raises the question,You know, to me, there's a difference
between leaders and leaders ship.
(22:26):
A lot of peopleend up in positions of leadership
who aren't naturallyleaders or good at it.
And history is
repletewith, you know, all sorts of examples.
And we've elected leaders, you know,
in the pastthat weren't particularly good.
And then we've had somethat have been superb.
(22:46):
You've mentioned three today.
But leadership in my mind is different,just being a leader.
To me, leadership is someone that can lead
by power, persuasion and in ideals.
And in and and bring those with them.
(23:06):
As opposed to someone who's just checkingthe latest polls this morning.
Okay.
52% of the people believe so.
Therefore, I agree with X2.
That's a follower, not a leader.
Or of all the good leaders gone.
Or are they just hiding in plain sight?
I'll tell you where.
They're not as much as they used to be.
While I think there are stillsome really good and decent and admirable
(23:29):
men and women in politics,I think fewer and fewer.
And this is something I see in the
in that on the campuses where I teachfewer and fewer of those young people
with truly exceptional leadershipskills and capabilities.
Choose public service
as the foundation
from which to exercise that leadership.
Could you define public service?
(23:50):
Politics, government, etc.?
Fewer. Fewer. Fewer.
Because the best of these young people,those who might have run for office
in the future because of their leadershipskills and capabilities.
Because we will politicsin such low regard these days.
I think if I have the potentialto make a difference, maybe I'd rather
make it in the private sector or thenonprofit sector than the public sector.
(24:13):
So there's leadership there.
But we are seeing more and more of them
choosing pathsother than politics and elective office.
And that's and that is a real challenge.
And that's somethingthat deeply concerns me.
Well, in a very real sense, you don't blame them because it's such a blood sport.
But then
politics really has been a blood sportand kind of limited a little bit
(24:36):
of a foundation for my question,because even in George Washington's day,
the opposition pressed to theI don't know, they call it opposition
press, but a lot of stuff that ThomasJefferson was secretly supporting
that was very antagonistic to Washington'sadministration or point of view was
it was very hostile.
my gosh.
The type of things
that John Adams and ThomasJefferson were saying about each other.
(24:57):
Would make Bernie Sanders and Donald Trumpblush with embarrassment.
So you're right.
This has been part of politicsfor as long as there's been politics.
But yet we still produce
these very talented peoplethat would get into the Senate, run,
you know, run for the White Houseand so forth.
And now people are not willing to do thatto the same extent.
So in terms of the being the blood sport,it's always been a blood sport.
(25:18):
But is there something differentabout the nature of the blood sport now
that is intimidating
as a frightening good leaders awayfrom ever getting into the fight?
Well, the partizanship and polarizationhas always led
to that kind of really fiercepolitical fighting.
You're exactly right. That's nothing new.
But because
(25:38):
as wetalked about in our first conversation,
because that Partizanship has gottenso intense,
the polarization has gottenso much greater.
It's been so much harderto get anything done.
And so what that aspiring leader thinksis I'm willing
to deal with the slings and arrows.
I want to deal with the cursesand the anger.
(25:59):
If I can get something doneby overcoming that.
But why in the worldwould I deal with all that invective
if we're still not going to get anythingdone?
So, you know,I would making politics more civil help,
maybe a little bit,but would help a lot more
is making politics more productive.
(26:20):
So that those leaders would say,I can handle the insults,
I can handle the onslaught, because I knowif I persevering to get something done.
And fewer and feweryoung people have the confidence
that the public square iswhere that can happen anymore.
I read somewhere that
the slur against George Washington
(26:40):
that upset him beyond all others
was that someone called hima horse Whipper
not a whisperer, but a horse Whipper.
And and, of course,Washington was famously, arguably
the best horseman in theand the in the in the country at the time.
And supposedly two or three days later,he was still so upset
(27:01):
he couldn'tcalm down and his staff had to say, Mr.
President, you got you got to settle down.We've got business to do here.
But he was still upsetand I still know what horse Whipper means.
I thought it
maybe it had some type of metaphoricalreference more than just whipping up
whipping a horse.But I've always wondered about that.
But so
those
insults, that uglinesshas always been a part of politics.
(27:23):
But our best leaders have been willing
to withstand it in the interestsof accomplishing important goals.
And now the questionthat a young person asks is, even I will,
even if I withstand all those attacks,can I still accomplish these goals?
And more and more,
not just young people, but what we seein congressional retirements.
Right. Members saying they've had enough.
(27:43):
Not because it's mean spirited, butbecause we're not going to get anything
done. Right.
Right.
Well, but we have beenthrough this before, have we not?
Because you look at the politicsof the 1840s, 1850s,
we couldn't even agree on whereto put the Transcontinental railroad
because of the Southern bloc.
The Northern Bloc.And it was only when the
southern states
(28:04):
succeededthat suddenly the majority decide
that the transcontinental railroadwould be the northern. What?
Not the real northern route,but the central route.
So we had that.
We can't do stuff before.
And unfortunately this is the scary part
is that had we get through that,it causes a civil war.
And so that raises the question,are we heading that way?
(28:26):
A lot of people talk about this.
I mean, are we getting our selfpolitically where we can't
get anything done or are we pushing itselfunder the threat of a civil war
that's going to resolve itone way or the other?
So that we can be productivein the future?
Well, the 1840 and 1850s were one example
of that kind of divisiveness and hatred.
(28:46):
But it's not the only one.
In the 19 tens, just after World War One,
there were she's right before WorldWar One excuse me,
there were 75 members of the U.S.
House of Representatives who were publiclydeclared members of the Ku Klux Klan.
75 House members weren't just members,
(29:08):
but who felt comfortable in public.
They declared it themselves. Yes, exactly.
And this is the timewhen the movie Birth of a Nation came out.
Right. It's sort of a.
It was like President Wilson's favorite.
Movie, Precisely.
The 1960s
of, you know, we talk abouthow there might be protests in Chicago
(29:29):
this summer against Bidenbecause of the war in Gaza.
Well, I've read thatsome of the protesters in Chicago
in 1968 were prepared to put LSDin the city's water supply.
They were so determinedto stop the proceedings.
So there's a wonderful book
by the historianJohn Meacham called The Soul of America.
(29:52):
And before Bidenappropriated the the term.
And this is the basic premise of his book,which is we have had
we have faced these types of divisions
throughout our country's entire history,even before we were a country.
And we've gotten through them before.
Now, when I first heard about the book,I thought, okay,
I should probably read thisbecause it's good, it's evil.
(30:15):
Luke Meade Stars.
It's the circle of life.I should read this.
The book's better than that,because what it demonstrates,
including the post Civil War era,
is it demonstrates how we overcamethose divisions in the past.
Sometimes it required war.
Sometimes it required depression.
Sometimes it required some other typeof upheaval or external external threat.
(30:39):
But his main point is we have overcome.
This is not as a unique timeas we think it is,
and we have overcomethese kind of challenges before.
A variation on what we discussed earlier.
Just because we have overcome them
when we faced them beforedoesn't guarantee that we will this time.
But it means that we can.
And maybe to our earlier point,
(31:00):
maybe we need to relearn some lessonsthat we've forgotten.
But we have demonstrated in the pastas a country
our ability to overcomethese types of divisions in the past,
which makes me believe that while, again,there's no guarantee
that we're perfectly capableof doing so again in the in the future.
Well, I'm glad you mention that because
(31:22):
we've done
we've recoveredfrom these episodes in the past.
But to know how we recovered
from those episodesand overcame them requires education.
And we live in an era of cancel culture.
And my wife and I were in Parisabout a year ago,
and the Parisianwe were talking to very interested.
(31:43):
And I asked him,
Have you heard about the cancel cultureenvironment in United States?
And he said, No, no,I haven't heard about that.
And that's why I explain a little bitabout what it was.
And he looked at me and said,
Well, every countryhas something to be embarrassed about.
Why do you want to erase it from memory?
You know, it's kind of like,who's the Egyptian pharaoh as.
As Walter or Chuck Heston was marching outsays Erase from all the obelisk.
(32:06):
So let it be written. So let it be done.
I guess thatmaybe that's the first example.
Cancel culture.
The challenge, though, if that were noteducating ourselves about our past
and so that we don't learn how ourancestors overcame similar challenges,
are we basically at a pointwhere we are destroying ourselves
(32:27):
if we don't admit our past, our mistakesin our past, and live up to them?
Those who fail to learn the lessons ofthe past are condemned to repeat it.
Absolutely.
I'm part of a group called the Coalition
for Civics Education in California.
And to me, the workwe try to have tried to do
speaks directlyto the points that that you're raising.
(32:48):
Most California
public schools require their studentsto take one single semester
of civics educationbefore they graduate from high school.
And it's actually most of the time, it'sone single semester of civics
in government and geography, all crammedtogether in 11 through 12th grade.
And if you think about it, the lessonwe're teaching our young people
(33:08):
unintentionallyis that this government stuff,
this politics stuff,this democracy stuff is so unimportant,
we're not going to botherteaching it to you.
And I can bother talking to you it at all.
For your first ten years of education.
Then we're going to give you this 115 weekcrash course, and then we want you
to turn around 18 months laterand magically be responsible citizens
and regular voters.
(33:29):
And toward your point,that's not enough education,
whether it's history,whether it's government,
whether it's civics, it's not enough timeand effort to make sure
our young people understandin what's expected of them
and availableto them as members of a community.
The original reason,the original rationale
for public education in this countrywas not reading or writing arithmetic.
(33:52):
The original rationale for public schoolswas civics education.
And the fact that we've lost that.
I think more than anything else has driventhe kind of divisions
and misunderstandingsthat you and I have been talking about.
Well, it also seemsthat it's even more important.
Let's let's talk about California again,
as an example,where it's an extremely diverse community.
(34:14):
But yet
if we have limited education in civics,all those individuals
who are recent arrivals,how do they assimilate
our sense of democracy,the sense of the Republican government
that has served us so wellfor 240, 250 years now?
Well, and I would argue that bothfor new arrivals and for children
(34:36):
and grandchildren and great grandchildrenof Americans, of American citizens,
the knowledge is critically important
because if you don't understand
your place in this country,
you're much more likelyto look for a smaller
and a less representative tribe.
(34:57):
Right?
The betteryou understand the American tribe,
the more likelyyou are to want to try to be part of it.
And there's always going to be those whoreject it, and that's their prerogative.
But you're a lot less likelyto reject something if you understand it.
Well, I want to circle
back to to a point that
(35:17):
where, of all the good leaders gone,
or are they just hiding in plain sight?
I think the Ventura
observation on behalf of our listenersand maybe a broad swath
of of the Americansas a whole is that we're questioning
the quality of the leadersthat we have representing us.
(35:38):
I think you've already made a commenta few moments ago.
Well, maybe they they'rethey're just hiding in plain sight.
They just don't want to get into the game
B because of the viciousnessassociated with it.
And maybe more important, as you said,because what's the point?
I can't do anythingbecause nothing gets done.
(35:58):
Isn't that an extension of the threat,existential threat to this country
that we're not producing the peoplethat can lead us to a better future?
I think that's a criticallyimportant challenge.
And I wouldI would define it a little bit different.
Did define itjust a little bit differently.
I think we are producing as people.
(36:21):
We're simply not giving them the platform
from which they can leadin fixing a broken politics.
Making it less polarizing, making society
less divisive is going to give
those young people with the leadershipskills and capability this
a realistic chanceof accomplishing those leadership goals.
John Boehner, when he was speaker ofthe House, had a great line.
(36:44):
He said a leader without followersis just a guy out for a walk.
And so we can train theseyoung men and women to become leaders.
But I think we also have to understandas a society,
the benefits of working together
under and
as part of as part of a leadership effort.
And the more dividedwe are definitionally,
(37:07):
therefore, the harderit becomes for a leader to unify us.
But we have to be willing towe have to be willing to be led.
We have to be willing to unify in orderfor an effective leader
to take us forward.
Well, Professor,we're almost out of time for this episode,
but we'd love to have you backfor another time.
But let me ask you for the final question.
(37:28):
The recipe
in order.
This is a broad question.
Feel free to attack it from any angleyou would like to attack.
But how do we get all those talentedleaders who don't want to be in the game
back into the game?
Well, it's a great question.
And I think to
(37:50):
I think there's two different waysto look at this, both of equal importance.
One is, quote, The game itself
has to be improved.
In other words,we have to begin as a society
to be willing to try to bridgethese divisions in politics or elsewhere
in order for those potential leadersto be able to step forward.
(38:11):
So some of that responsibility is on us.
I also think
that the best way to prepare an individual
for leadership is counter intuitive,as it may sound,
is to teach them humility.
One of the things I spend more timethan any other talking to students
(38:32):
about, particularly those who have reallyimpressive leadership potential,
they said You've learned throughout
15, 16
years of school, elementary school,secondary school, no college.
You've learned that it's importantto be good at everything.
That's exactly wrong.
Now, in high school,that's what we want from them.
(38:53):
When they apply to college,
they need to get the grades,They need to play an instrument,
they need to play a sport,They need to volunteer.
I said,
We're going to change the rules on youas soon as you graduate from college.
Instead of trying to be goodat everything.
We only allow you to be really,really good at one thing.
I have a heart surgeon.
I don't care if he plays the tuba.
I want a really good heart surgeon.
It doesn't really matter anymore.
(39:13):
And so this goes back to a pointI made earlier,
is to help them understandthat leadership is a team sport.
And no individual, no matter howbrilliant, no matter how devoted,
no matter how impassioned, can leadeffectively themselves.
And the best leaders are the best teambuilders,
the best leadersand the best coalition builders.
And in order to do that,
(39:34):
a leader needs to have humility.
A leader needs to understandboth what they're good at
and what they're not good at,and have the self-awareness to say.
There are certain things I'm not good at.
My job isn't to get good at them.
My job is to put together
a team full of peoplewho are good at things that I'm not.
It's a great quote.
I wish I could remember who said it.
(39:55):
As a leader,I just don't remember who it was.
I'm embarrassed.
Said I never want to be thesmartest person in any room that I'm in
and the best leaders are thosewho understand that if they're going to
succeed, they have to recruit peoplewho are as good or better than them.
If things in a highlyindividualistic society, I'm not sure that
the lessons that's the lesson that we'reteaching our prospective young leaders.
(40:17):
Well, those are words of wisdomfor the ages, Professor.
And well said.
We would love to have you backfor another episode.
I would really enjoy it.Thank you. Well, wonderful.
Once again, my name is Roger Clarke.
By esteemed guest today is ProfessorDan Schnur, professor at Pepperdine USC,
and also at the University of Californiain Berkeley.
(40:39):
If you've like the episode today, be sure.
And like us, we appreciate any commentsand observations that you might have.
Please stay tuned.
We will be back with Professor Schnurfor another episode.
Once again, the four Gordonseven Project. I'm Roger Clarke.
Thank you for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.