October 10, 2024 • 41 mins
In this episode of "The Fourscore Project," Roger Clark engages in a thought-provoking conversation with Professor Dan Schnur, a prominent political communications expert, about the unique dynamics of California politics and its implications for the rest of the United States. The discussion explores whether California's demographic and political trends serve as a harbinger for the nation or if the state is an outlier in American politics. Schnur delves into the complexities of identity politics, the challenges of political polarization, and the impact of social media on public discourse. The episode also touches on the evolving nature of voter behavior, the decline in political compromise, and the broader societal implications of these trends. As they examine the future of American politics through the lens of California, Schnur provides valuable insights into the potential paths forward for the nation.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:21):
Hello.
My name is Roger Clark, and I'm your hosttoday for this episode of the Fourscore
and Seven Project.
Today, we're discussingthe unique dynamics of California
politics, a very unique placein the United States of America.
The question is, is it
the forerunner of the rest of the countryor is it a one off?
We have with ussomeone, a distinguished professor
(00:41):
to talk to us about this issue,Professor Dan Schnur.
Roger, thank you so much for having me.
I really appreciate it.
we're so happy to have you here.
It's going to be a great discussion today.
And let me give youa little bit of background.
Dan is a very busy man.
He's a professor at Annenberg Schoolof Communications at USC, or
(01:02):
that's not the Universityof South Carolina.
That's the Universityof Southern California.
For those who might be confused by that.
He's also a professor School
of Governmental affairs,I believe, at Pepperdine University. And
because he doesn't have enoughto keep him busy otherwise.
He also is a professor at the Universityof California at Berkeley.
(01:23):
The the Bears, who has nowabandoned the PAC 12,
along with some other schools and CalArts.
Tell us what now the member next year of.
The improbably university of Californiais going to be a member
of the Atlantic Coast Atlantic.
Coast Conference. Who? Go figure. Yeah.
What's left behind isthe PAC two is near, as I can tell.
(01:46):
Well, maybe we'll get into that discussiona little bit as well.
But but, Dan,thank you so much for being here.
California politics, you teach this.
You've taught it for years.
And my stats might be a little bit off,but let me just kind of kick this off
and you
just put some statistical demographicson it.
(02:08):
California, I think 35% of Californians
are demographically categorized as white.
About 40% there or about are identified
as Hispanic, 15% Asian, and only 5%African American.
A few percentage, I think they're four,
(02:30):
possibly Pacific Islandersand things of that nature.
So so whites are notis not even a plurality.
non-Hispanic whites are not doingin a plurality in the states.
So it's a very unique demographic makeupwhen it's compared
to most of the rest of the United States.
(02:51):
Is that,do you think, a harbinger of the future
of the entire country,or is California a one off?
Well, when you talk about the statesdemographics,
no question that it has been
a unique mixand a unique level of diversity,
as you mentioned, Roger.
But we are beginning to seethe same trends emerging
(03:13):
in other parts of the country.
First, in some of the other Sunbelt statesand Florida
and Texas and Georgia and Arizona,most notably.
But now we're seeing thisacross the country that given the level
of migration into the US overthe years, we're seeing perhaps
not quite this level of diversity,but a much greater demographic mix
(03:35):
in most of the United Statesthan we've seen in the past.
So at least in that sense,the demography in California
really is a forerunnerto what we'll see across most of the U.S.
in the years ahead.
Of course, the question iswhether the political trends that emerge
as a result of those shifts will follownationally, the way along the lines
(03:56):
of the way the political landscapehas changed here in California.
Well, let me ask you about that,because to an untrained mind like mine,
well, I thanks, but
politics are probably a lot simplerwhen you're dealing with a homogeneous
population.
And so when you have peoplefrom different cultures,
(04:19):
different racial and ethnic backgrounds,it strikes me that that complicates
politics in a certain sense, too.
To borrow an old saying that,you know, it's kind of corralling cats.
How does California deal with such unique
racial and ethnic mix up
(04:39):
politically?
Well, it's been a real challenge.
In the times, it's been a real struggle.
We live in the most demographicallydiverse place in the history,
the planet Earth.
And there are timeswhen that diversity brings great strength.
It brings a multiple range of perspectivesand experiences
that can fuel a statesor a communities growth.
(04:59):
But there's timesyou suggest when it creates or intensifies
some divisions and makes it muchmore difficult to to move forward.
Interesting, though,when you talk about those divisions,
city types of things that divide us,not just here in California,
but nationally to a large degree,they've changed over the years.
Gallup did some polling on thisnot too long ago and they asked Americans,
(05:23):
would you be comfortable
with your son or your daughter marryingsomeone of a different race or religion?
And the overwhelming majorityof Californians,
the overwhelmingmajority of Americans said
they'd be completely comfortablewith that.
Those numbers were at an all time high.
It's a questionthey've been asking for years.
Then they asked, Would you be comfortableif your son or daughter married
someone from the opposite political partyin the numbers were an all time low.
(05:47):
On one hand, we are becoming more tolerantand more respectful
of our differences in terms of demographyand heritage under the banner
of becoming less tolerant and more divided
when it comes to how we think.
And do politics.
Well, that's just fascinating.
So if my my son is a Democrat,
(06:10):
the Galluppolling says that most parents would say,
I don't want him to marry a Republicanand or vice versa.
Exactly right.
But again, I think it's importantto mark the progress.
Asking the same question20, 30, 5000 years ago
about someone from a different racialor religious background.
Americans would have beenmuch more uncomfortable with it.
(06:32):
Today,we're learning to recognize the benefits
of that type of diversity.
Again, we're just becoming a little bit
less tolerant to ideological diversity,and that runs in both directions, too.
Well. Let's kind of focus then.
I mean, California's a great test casesince it's
the forerunner of what is coming inthe rest of the United States.
(06:53):
Put it into politics,
because here the hot topic and has been
for a long time is identity politics.
And identity politics meansyou identify people from visible marks,
whether it's gender or race, too,traditionally.
And it raises the question then,
(07:15):
if we're dealing with identity politics,how can we.
And some people may not even like thisterm anymore.
But traditionally, the United Stateswas deemed to be the, quote, melting pot.
A lot of people don'teven like that term anymore.
But but how do we meld ourselves if if
we have certain types of identity politicswhen there's a strong allegiance
(07:36):
with certain identity groups,
with certain political partiesand they're not intermarrying?
Well, a couple of things.
I mean, you raise several good points.
One, in fact, the rate of intermarriage
between people of different racialand ethnic and religious backgrounds
is increasing,not decreasing, decreased, not decreasing
even an erain an era of identity politics.
(07:57):
But even the verb meld, believe itor not, can be a highly charged one.
Yes, because you correctly pointed out to
how for most of the United States history,we looked at the idea
of a melting potas something for which to strive.
Well, in in recent years,you have, as you correctly pointed out,
we have seen a challenge to thatand the metaphor that you and I hear
(08:19):
more frequently than a meltingpot is a fruit salad.
The idea that you have these differentingredients that mix together
and cohabitate but still maintaintheir initial distinct identity.
Now, when you get to questionsof identity politics and this is
something I talk aboutin all of my classes at great length
(08:39):
because it's of tremendous importto Generation Z.
And I tell them that identity politics,as you've defined it,
I said there's a real positivethat comes along with it.
But there's a real challengeand a potential negative
that comes along as well.
So let me go through both.
The first,as I said, your identity, your heritage
(09:01):
is definitionally who you are.
The art of that wasn't important to you.
It'd be odd if it wascompletely irrelevant to your politics.
I said.
That said, when you beginto define identity in an exclusionary way,
that people who aren't from my racial or
ethnic or religious heritage are peoplewho I don't have
(09:23):
anything to talk to about.
I said, That's where we run into trouble.
And an example I give quite frequently is
I will pointto one of my teaching assistants,
someone who had known before the semesterstarted.
I'll say, okay,
this is a young Latina woman.
(09:43):
I am an old white man.
If we practice identity politicsthe way it's
currently defined,we have nothing to say to each other.
We have nothing to gain.
We have nothing to learnbecause we come from different places.
That said,once we take the time to start talking,
once we take the timeto start listening to each other,
we realize that we might not sharethe most obvious invisible identities,
(10:08):
but there's a lot of other identitiesthat we do share.
None of us contains a single identity.
We all contain dozens, if not hundreds.
So when this young woman and I talk
about the experience that her parentshad coming here from Latin America,
an experience that my grandparentshad coming here from Eastern Europe,
realized in that sense,our identities aren't as different
(10:30):
as they seemed at the outset.
So nothing. There's nothing wrong at all
with being proud of who you areand where you're from.
As long as you recognizethat your identities
are much more complicated than that.
And while it takes more timeand more effort to look beyond
those of most obviousidentifying characteristics,
(10:52):
it's usually worth the effort.
That's a great point.
I know a lot of our listeners
are wondering
where did this whole concept of identitypolitics originate?
Maybe it's always been around.
Maybe it's the fact
that it's just got a new buzzwordassociated with it to define what it is.
(11:13):
But the whole concept of identitypolitics strikes so many of the people
who watch the program as being a divider,
not a uniter, a part of it.
And as we were talking about a moment ago,it can be in the easier
route is to let your demographic identitybe a divider.
But again, the pointI try to make to these young people
(11:35):
is it's worththe extra effort to talk with someone
with whom it might not immediatelyseem that you share an identity.
If you dig a little bit deeperand listen a little bit more carefully,
you realize that while you don't sharethat most visible identity,
you share a lot of other identitiesthat are worth talking about.
But to your question,where did this come from?
(11:55):
Where did it?
So this concept,as you correctly pointed out,
Roger, it's as old as humanity.
It did get a
it's.
Been labeled.
It got a clever new namein the relatively recent past.
But we are we are a tribal species
and you can go back to prehistoric areas
(12:16):
and what our earliest ancestry,our earliest human ancestors
would go out hunting and gathering.
They learned very quicklythat they were much more likely
to catch a saber tooth tiger for dinnerif they banded together.
And they learned very quicklythat he'd be much better,
better prepared to protect themselves
(12:36):
against an other band of humans
if they worked together and cooperated.
So this over the millennia,this isn't cultural.
This isn't social at this point.
This is hardwired in us.
We is a biological, chemical track.
And there've been studiesdone on this that show that people
(12:56):
are so intent
on preserving, on maintaining their roleas part of their define tribe,
They're willing to make decisions,they're willing to take actions
that they disagree withand that actively work
against their own best interestin order to stay part of the group.
And whenever any of my studentsdoubts me on that last point,
(13:17):
I asked them, Is anybody in this roomever pledged a fraternity or sorority?
Remember the things they madeyou do in your pledging.
But you were willing to do thembecause is that important
to become part of the tribewith those Greek letters on your chest?
So that's who we are as human beings.
And that tribalismhas become much more apparent in politics
(13:37):
in the modern era than.
Well,it strikes me it's been weaponized. Yes.
I mean, so what, you label something?
You define it. Yeah.
And so it's identity.
And then we get intoissues. Once upon a time,
peoplewould assume assimilation is a good thing.
You know, I'm Friday night, I eat pizza.
I don't It never occurred to methat I'm not an Italian.
(13:57):
Right. But.
But we've assimilated, you know,part of the Italian culture, you know.
But. But now the counterpoint to thatis it's it's
it's a appropriating a culture.
And that's bad.
And so so for political purposes,it seems like this whole concept
of identity politics has been weaponizedfor the purpose of political gain.
(14:20):
I mean, it is that a correct observation.
Is a very correct observation,and it leads directly from a major change
that's taken place in our politicsover the last generation or so,
for most of not just American history,but for most of history of democracies
in in human history,
(14:41):
generally,when voters supported a candidate,
they voted for that candidatebecause they admired that person,
because they like them,because they believed in them.
What we've seen happen in recent yearsis the overwhelming majority of voters,
not just here in the U.S.
but elsewhere
now cast their ballots not basedon the candidate to their liking, admire,
(15:01):
but they cast their ballotsagainst the candidate
of the party who they dislikeor they disdain.
And so at that point,once you begin to look at that person
across the aisle as the other,
then that identity, instead ofbeing a potential bridge, becomes a wall.
Well, it's a negative.
(15:21):
Negative vote in the term in politicalscience is negative partizanship.
And what we've seen overthe last few election cycles
is that more and more Americanssay to themselves and to each other,
I don't really like either of them,but I like that one.
Even less likely vote for this one.
Is that.
Well, I bet there's a lot of peopleout there that will hear this and say
(15:45):
that is not healthy, that that's not ahealthy way to elect our representatives.
I would broaden their concern.
It's not not is itnot a healthy way to elect politicians?
I don't know if it's a healthyway to go through life.
If you're I'm sure there'sa lot of medical specialties out there.
Specialists will say, that's terrible.
It's going to drive up your blood pressureand everything else.
(16:06):
Well, and it do it in.
And of course, what we have as a resultis not just a divided politics,
but we've divided communitiesand divided society
of people who cling to their tribeso closely
that you talk to someonewho disagrees with them.
It's seen as an abdication.
It's seen as a forfeitingof some aspect of their identity.
(16:29):
Think about it.
If you and I are negotiating in business,
we both know thatneither of us can get everything we want,
and so we negotiate out a dealthat's as good as possible for both sides.
That's the way politics has workedfor most of our history.
I'm not going to get everything you want.You're not going to get it.
You're not going to everything you want.
We'll do it. We'll figure this out.
(16:50):
But if you beginto take your political positions,
not based onwhat's in your material interest,
but based on what it says about youas a person.
Compromisemeans you're not just compromising
on an issue, you'recompromising a matter of your identity.
You're forfeiting a part of who you are.
And so voterswho've learned to hate those people
(17:11):
over on the other side,I can't compromise with them.
They're evil.
And so the two sidesretreat further and further apart.
That's that's very troubling
because we used to pride ourselves in thiscountry on our power of assimilation.
And itraises the question, California, once
again, is a great test casefor powers of assimilation.
(17:34):
And of course, now we have so many,you know, subtext going on that
a lot of people believe that this countryis inherently evil based upon.
So what? Good to assimilate.
And we don't want to assimilate anything.
We want to cancel itand we want to form something new.
And then there's another group of peoplewho say
we want to preserve the traditional valuesthey're worth being to,
to assimilate them.
(17:54):
But yet we've now gotten ourselvesinto these walled off
communitieswhere people don't want to talk.
I mean, who who's responsible for that?
I mean, we all want to know this didthis is just have is it organic
or is there some something in the lawthat kind of drove this or
the change in politicsthat got us to this point?
Well,we are all somewhat responsible for it.
(18:16):
But first
of all, before we go on,I just want to clarify a point that I made
a moment ago when I was talking abouthow much more polarized we are.
I don't want toI don't want to over idealize the past.
When you and I were coming backor coming up,
the two parties argued very vociferously.
The difference is, one, they had to
they found the ability to put asidetheir differences for the common good.
(18:40):
So when you look at the personon the other side
as your opponent tonight,your enemy could say, okay,
I don't agree with him on everything,but we have to work this out.
The country needs it.
And that'swhat's become harder. And harder.
I tell my students about Ronald Reaganand Tip O'Neill working together.
The same seltzer. Tip O'Neillwas speaker of the House during the.
In the Reagan administration.
(19:00):
All a.
Republicanpresident, a Democratic speaker.
And I don't sugarcoat it.
I said most of the
a lot of the time most of the timethey went at each other pretty hard.
But together, they combined
they teamed up to save Social Securityfrom bankruptcy.
A decade later.
Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrichand Democratic President Bill Clinton,
(19:24):
who fought fiercely in the political wars,
put aside, albeit temporarily,their differences to balance the budget
and enact other policy reforms.
And Roger, it's interesting.
My students, these Genz years,they don't doubt me.
They don't think I'm making this up,
but I might as well be telling themabout the butter churn and the eight track
(19:47):
tape player.There's just nothing in modern
society today to which they can associate.
It's all historical to them. So.
So if I hear what you're saying isand that's a beautiful thing about
being a professor,
is that you hang around with
young people all the timeand it keeps you fresh.
What's current new ideas, new
(20:08):
perspectives, a lot of energy,Ambition keeps you young.
I suspect that keeps me optimistic.
And but.
But yet here, here you're talking to these18 to 23, 24 year olds,
and you're telling them somethingthat's really profound,
but they're not relating to. It insomething that's unfamiliar to them.
And I think to a large degree explains
(20:32):
why the rates of voting participationamong these young people is so much lower.
These young people, obviously,they vote in much smaller numbers
than any other generation,but they also volunteer
their time back into their communitiesin very high levels.
So they're still looking for thatcohesive,
collegial actionon behalf of their communities.
(20:54):
They just don't see itcoming from traditional politics.
They see it coming from their volunteeractivity.
And our challenge is to explain to themthat it can't be one or the other.
It has to be both.
So are you saying we no longer
have the art of compromisethat we once had?
Not in the slightest.
(21:15):
Certainly not in politics, but moreand more in other facets of life also,
Yes, we see it in our communities.
We see it in our neighborhoods.
Unable to compromise. Precisely.
And we become more and more divided,not just in terms of partizan politics,
but as a society.
One you asked earlier whose faultit was that ultimately it's all of ours.
(21:38):
But let'smaybe that was a bad choice of word.
Make the cause and talk about the causeas opposed to attributing fault.
All right.
So first, there are many causes,but I will point to just one.
And that is the incredible influence
of digital media and social media.
Now, I'm not a druid.
(21:59):
I believe that the benefits
of communicationstechnology far outweigh the downsides.
But what online
media and in particular social mediaallows us to do
it allows us to self-select
who we talk to, who we listen to, what
we read, what we learn,and ultimately what we think.
(22:22):
Look, when I grew up,
my fatherand I disagreed profoundly on politics.
But that wasn't the first timethat's ever happened.
Probably not.
But we watched the evening news togetherand we might come
to extremely different conclusionsabout what we saw,
but at least were drinkingfrom the same pool of information.
(22:43):
Well, if one person is watching Foxand the other is watching MSNBC,
see if one's on a conservative websiteand the other is on a liberal website,
if one to listen to a Democratic podcast,those listen to a Republican podcast.
We're not just disagreeing.
We're experiencing two entirelydifferent versions of reality.
And this doesn't happen by accident.
(23:03):
And I am not like I said,I'm not a technophobe.
I think the benefits of technologyfar outweigh the downsides.
But the social mediaand social media companies in particular
exacerbate this trend.
Most of
your audience is educated enoughto have read about or heard about
the algorithms that are used to determinesocial media exposure.
(23:26):
And what that meansis that when you read or watch
or listen to something on a particulartopic
matter
or Snapchat or Tik-Tok or whoever it is,they're going to bring you more of that.
So let's say that you like videosabout puppies.
Well, they all just keep sending you
(23:48):
videos of puppies and never, ever showyou want of a kitten.
Whereas if you have a friendwho likes kitten videos,
they only see the kitten videosand everything is puppies.
Now, if it's pets, no big deal.
But it's not because they're evil.
Because they're not.
It's not because they'relooking to divide us. Because they're not.
But they're businessesand they know that if they keep showing
you puppy videos,you'll stay on their site.
(24:11):
So if instead of puppies and kittens,
it's videos and information and opinion
about liberal and conservative politics
and policy,
one audience member
is going to get a steady dietand a steady stream of it.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warrenand Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez think
(24:33):
another audience member is going to get
just a steady streamof what Donald Trump thinks.
A third audience memberis going to just get
what a light on a mitt Romney thinks.
But instead of watching the same newscast
and coming to different conclusionsabout it,
each one of us
has the potential at least to live in
(24:55):
almost an ideological igloo, if you will.
And we're never challenged,
we're never disagreed with.
Rather, our opinions are just reinforced
and we're congratulated for having them.
So I'll just finish this up real quick.
So this is human nature.
Human nature, if I want to
(25:16):
I want to listento the smartest people in the world
who are the smartest people in the worldare the people who agree with me.
So what we have to do, our responsibility
is as well-informed individuals,
is to stepbeyond our natural instincts and say,
even if I don't agree with it,I'm going to make an effort to read
or listen to or be exposed to opinionsthat are different than mine,
(25:39):
because they're going to change my mind.
But just because they're going to better
equipped me to participatein a broader range of conversations.
You're talking about your disagreementsthat you had with your father growing up.
My big disagreement with my fatheris that I could he all the way
was convinced that the best heavyweightboxer of all time was Joe Louis.
And I was obviouslya different generation.
(25:59):
I said, No, no, no, no, it's Muhammad Ali.
And we never saw eye to eye on that.
So I understand the dilemmayou had with your father on politics.
And of course, the generational divideis a perfect example.
There's an old joke.
They say the one thing everyone can,if all ages can agree on, is we all know
absolutely with absolute confidencethat the best music ever written came out
(26:21):
when we were in high school.
A good point.
Is the words for their own window.
Well, let let me challengeyou, though, on the statement that you
and let me kind of make a hypothetical,which may
or may not be entirely accurate, maybecompletely off, maybe it is accurate.
But you but you said that the benefit,the benefits
(26:41):
of the technology, communicationtechnology be far away the detriment.
But yet I just heard you describevery negative outcomes of this
because if the technology
contributesin the communication technologies,
so they contribute in a material wayto dividing us to the point where
(27:02):
we're not listening to each other
and we're not listening to other,it seems to me,
and I probably got a lot to our listenerstoo, to a dysfunctional nation
and democracy,which could be self-destructive.
So what's what's the positive?
I the communication technologythat outweighs the threat that it may
in the point at the endpoint,
(27:24):
destroy us as a nation, as a communityor a culture?
my goodness.
Maybe we should have startedwith the positive communication technology
then got to this.
I think there's many, but I'll offer onein particular, particularly,
especially as it relatesto political discourse.
The average voter todayin 2024 is more empowered to participate
in the political conversationthan at any other time in human history.
(27:47):
The toolsof digital media and social media
not only give us the opportunityto talk back to power vertically
in a way that never existedin human history before,
but I'd sayjust as if not even more importantly,
it allows us to communicate and coordinatehorizontally.
We can organize as citizensin a much more effective and efficient
(28:10):
and impactful way because of these tools
than were ever available available before.
If you and I wanted to organize a protestrally
50 years ago, well, we'd have gotten out
of mimeograph machineand we would handed out fliers on corners.
It would've made phone callsand you'd have hope for the best.
Right.
Well, the tools of technologyallow us to reach a much greater
(28:33):
audience and organizemuch more effectively than ever before.
And I do think that that empowersthe voice of the average citizen
in a really important, sometimes annoying
but unbalanced, really beneficial way.
So the technology, on one hand,it can divide us.
When it has and. Has. Has.
But it can also empower us.
(28:55):
The other distinction I would draw
is the tablet analogy can divide us,but we are entirely capable
as sentient human beings of overcomingthat should we so choose to.
At the end of every semester,last day of class, every December
and every May tell my students said, I'mgoing to give you one last assignment.
(29:15):
It's the last day of class.
I can't even so, I can't grade this one.
But it's the most important assignment.
I'm going to give you all semester long.
I said.
I want every principal conservativein this class
to watch Rachel MADDOW once a week.
And I want every
principled, progressive,every principled liberal in this room
to read George Will
or Ross Douthator Bret Stephens once a week.
(29:39):
I'm not trying to change your mind.
I'm not even trying to open it.
Ross Trying to remind youthat there's really smart people
over there on the other side, too, whoyou might not happen to agree with, but
just because you don't agree with them,does it make them evil or stupid?
Ben Sasse, the former Republican senatorfrom Nebraska, who's now the president
of the University of Florida,he is a great term that he likes to use.
(30:02):
He calls it nut picking.
He's opposed in the picking.
And what he means by nit pickingis you pick out the weirdest,
loudest, most obnoxious, most unreasonablevoice over on the other side
and use them as a reasonwhy you can't work with those people.
I can't work with Democrats.
Look at that ridiculous Ilhan Omar.
I can't work with Republicans.
Marjorie Taylor GREENE is out of her mind.
(30:25):
And I think we
while those divisionsthat we were talking about earlier
can be intensified by social media.
We have it in our power to overcome them
as long as we're willing
to resist the impulse
to retreatinto that ideological comfort zone.
I've always found that the peoplewho I admire most intellectually,
(30:49):
the smartest people,the most impressive thinkers,
are those who are willing to havetheir ideas challenged
in the public squarein order to have your ideas challenged
and you step outside that comfort zone.
So it is a downside, the division.
But I think the empowering aspectof communications technology outweighs it
and I think outweighs it even morewhen we have enough confidence
(31:11):
in ourselves and our ideasto allow them to be challenged.
Let me challenge you to challenge you.
You know, you once again,
I hear you loud and clear.
I agree that that's a wonderful solution.
The last assignmentyou give to your students.
Superb. I love it.
But this is my concern.
(31:33):
You'retalking to a limited group of people.
We're talking about hundredsof millions of people
who don't have the benefitof that insight.
And yet we're swimmingagainst the powerful ups
upstream of technology giants that
weaponize.
If I can borrow that term,because they want us to keep coming back
(31:55):
and having the same steady diet ofthe stuff that we saw or read yesterday.
We're going to read today
and we're going to read againtomorrow gets us to the point
where we only hear one side of the story,which leads us to believe that
anybody else who doesn't agree with us,they're just evil or they're idiots
or they're stupid or whatever,you know, we want. So.
So I love your optimism, but maybeI've just become too much of a pessimist.
(32:18):
How do you overcome such powerful economic
inertia against what you preach or teach?
Preach is not the right word, Teach.
Well, I think the question is the exactright one.
And I don't think these problems
get solved from Washington, D.C.,or from Sacramento or from city hall.
I think they have tobe solved in the community.
There's been
(32:39):
plenty of researchdone on questions of trust.
Who do we as citizenstrust to trust politicians?
Not so much journalists?
Not really.
Who do we trust? We trust each other.
We trust our friends.We trust our neighbors.
We trust our coworkers.
And so, to me, the way you model
(33:01):
this behavior is not by having electedofficials or famous journalists say
this is what we do, but this country'sstrength from its beginning.
And de Tocquevillewrote about this in the 19th century,
is the communitybased organization actions
that bring a village, a city,
a state together, those organizations,whether it's
(33:22):
chambers of Commerceor Rotaries or PTA, is
those organizations that decidethat they're going to encourage
that kind of behaviorand that kind of thinking.
I think that's where the change gets made,not because we're told from Washington
or Sacramento.
It has tobecause people like us in a community
(33:43):
turn to our friends and neighborswhen we gather for bowling night and say,
hey, why don't we listen towhat that other person has to say?
Well, on the on the issue of Washington,which is probably the most
unpopular place
to be, atleast in the eyes of most Americans, now,
we all have lost faith in what Washington
(34:06):
can do or fails to do or what it does do.
But is there any legislation, anything
from a political standpoint,through a law that could be done?
And I realize we're butting upagainst the First Amendment here
where we can pare back
the social media giants, you know,
(34:28):
algorithms that give us a constant diet.
The feeding is on the same thingover and over again.
Is there anything legislativelythat you can see on the horizon
that might prevent that from occurringinto the foreseeable future?
Well, this is something that Congressis struggling with right now.
I think there's a realizationon both sides of the aisle
(34:48):
that the early years of social media
would have benefited from not edictbut more guidance,
and that many of our elected officials
didn't really understandthe challenge of the technology.
And so therefore, it's allowed to flourishoften in unhealthy ways.
My own opinion is they're going tothey're doing
(35:10):
what politicians do best,which is overcorrect.
And now that artificial intelligencehas become our next
great technology, technologybased challenge,
they're going to try to make upfor their lack of attention and action
and social mediaand probably overdo it on the side.
But there's considerable debatethat is going on in Washington.
It's intensifying.
(35:31):
Primarily, we're getting a little bit offtopic here, but it's worth raising
primarily around the topic of children'ssafety online.
I mean, hearings in Washingtonon this and heated hearings.
Two very heated, very heated hearings
and this debate.
One example, back in the 1990s,in the early years of the Internet,
(35:55):
Congress passed a bill calledthe Communications Decency Act.
And in it, there were protections
for technology companiesfor for Internet companies,
from lawsuits based on the content.
As the companies argued, We're not promote
we're not advocating this.
(36:16):
We're just simply a platformon which other people speak.
And the common realization
among Democrats and Republicansthat seems to be emerging
is that's probably letting
the technology companies off the hookjust a little bit too easily.
Because if you put up content
that can be dangerous to a young person,
you're not just a platform,you're an enabler.
(36:38):
And these are difficult questionsAnd about
I think belatedly, we're beginningto see our elected representatives
starting to starting to wrestle with them.
But it's it's a confoundingset of challenges.
I would offer you thisfor just a little bit of solace.
One of my favorite quotes is her,Mark Twain.
He said history doesn't repeat itself,but it rhymes.
(37:01):
And that I love Mark Twain. Absolutely.
If you look back at every otheradvancement in communications
technology throughout human history,we had exactly
the same kind of difficultycoming to terms with it.
Television.
Radio.
There was a story in The New York Timesin the mid-19th century
(37:22):
warning about the societal damagethat would be wrought by the telephone
that once telephones become commonplace,people retreated to their homes.
They would no longer socializewith each other.
This is going to be absolutely horrible.
I go back even further.
You're not goingto go back to the printing press, are you?
After the Gutenberg Bible?
Actually, after after.
After the printing press was invented,Protestants and Catholics
(37:45):
went to war for hundreds of yearsacross Europe.
When you democratize information,
it divides peoplebecause people develop stronger feelings.
And it takes some time
for us to learnhow to use these new communications tools,
whether it's
(38:05):
Instagram or television
or the telephone and the printing press.
We haven't been here before,
but we've been here before. It's rhymed.
We're rhyming. Yes.
So I love your optimism, Professor.
Well, let me ask you, we'realmost out of time for today's episode.
But but let melet me ask you to give us a litmus test.
(38:26):
I love your optimism.
You're saying that the positivesfrom the current
telecommunicationstechnology outweighs the detriment.
What would you
have to experience for youto change your mind
and conclude that the negatives doindeed outweigh the positives?
(38:46):
So what you're asking me is,what would it take to turn my optimism
into pessimism?
So some day in the future
you're sitting in a class and you lookat your students and say, I was wrong.
What would have to happen for youto make that comment to your students?
Boy, that's a it's a great question.
And I have to admit,
first of all,I should say just say more broadly,
(39:08):
I refer to myself as a born againengineer.
I started out in life as an optimist.
I became very cynicaland I would come back around full circle.
And one of the reasons I'm so optimistic
is because even though it'sa self-selected group, as you pointed out,
I get to spend most of my week every week
with some of the most impressiveyoung people on the planet.
(39:29):
And so I can't helpbut to believe that they're going to take
that they're going to takeon these challenges successfully.
What would it take to change my mind?
I have to say,I don't want to sound naive.
I can't I can't bear the thought.
If I had to wake up in the morning
and just say, it's all hopeless,there's no point.
(39:50):
That's just sounds excruciating.
So I'm not saying thatI would be oblivious
to the information you presented to me.
And it might alterthe way I look at things,
but I simply could not admit
as a human being that we as a species
can find a way to overcome the challengesthat we've created for ourselves.
(40:14):
Well, Professor Dan Schnur,
I hope we can have you back for parttwo of this interview.
And this has beena fascinating conversation.
I look forward to continuingthis conversation with you on our next
next episode. Professor Dan Schnur.
Ladies and gentlemen,I hope you enjoyed this program today
discussing California politicsand that it's a harbinger
(40:34):
of the rest of the United Statesand all the fascinating issues
that a very diverse populationpresents to politics, complicated
with our very unique telecommunicationstechnology that we're facing today.
If you've enjoyed this program, pleaselike and share.
And also, we're very interestedin having your comments posted
(40:56):
if you have the time.Thank you very much. And have a good day.
Hello.
My name is Roger Clark, and I'm your hosttoday for this episode of the Fourscore
and Seven Project.
Today, we're discussingthe unique dynamics of California
politics, a very unique placein the United States of America.
The question is, is it
the forerunner of the rest of the countryor is it a one off?
We have with ussomeone, a distinguished professor
(00:41):
to talk to us about this issue,Professor Dan Schnur.
Roger, thank you so much for having me.
I really appreciate it.
we're so happy to have you here.
It's going to be a great discussion today.
And let me give youa little bit of background.
Dan is a very busy man.
He's a professor at Annenberg Schoolof Communications at USC, or
(01:02):
that's not the Universityof South Carolina.
That's the Universityof Southern California.
For those who might be confused by that.
He's also a professor School
of Governmental affairs,I believe, at Pepperdine University. And
because he doesn't have enoughto keep him busy otherwise.
He also is a professor at the Universityof California at Berkeley.
(01:23):
The the Bears, who has nowabandoned the PAC 12,
along with some other schools and CalArts.
Tell us what now the member next year of.
The improbably university of Californiais going to be a member
of the Atlantic Coast Atlantic.
Coast Conference. Who? Go figure. Yeah.
What's left behind isthe PAC two is near, as I can tell.
(01:46):
Well, maybe we'll get into that discussiona little bit as well.
But but, Dan,thank you so much for being here.
California politics, you teach this.
You've taught it for years.
And my stats might be a little bit off,but let me just kind of kick this off
and you
just put some statistical demographicson it.
(02:08):
California, I think 35% of Californians
are demographically categorized as white.
About 40% there or about are identified
as Hispanic, 15% Asian, and only 5%African American.
A few percentage, I think they're four,
(02:30):
possibly Pacific Islandersand things of that nature.
So so whites are notis not even a plurality.
non-Hispanic whites are not doingin a plurality in the states.
So it's a very unique demographic makeupwhen it's compared
to most of the rest of the United States.
(02:51):
Is that,do you think, a harbinger of the future
of the entire country,or is California a one off?
Well, when you talk about the statesdemographics,
no question that it has been
a unique mixand a unique level of diversity,
as you mentioned, Roger.
But we are beginning to seethe same trends emerging
(03:13):
in other parts of the country.
First, in some of the other Sunbelt statesand Florida
and Texas and Georgia and Arizona,most notably.
But now we're seeing thisacross the country that given the level
of migration into the US overthe years, we're seeing perhaps
not quite this level of diversity,but a much greater demographic mix
(03:35):
in most of the United Statesthan we've seen in the past.
So at least in that sense,the demography in California
really is a forerunnerto what we'll see across most of the U.S.
in the years ahead.
Of course, the question iswhether the political trends that emerge
as a result of those shifts will follownationally, the way along the lines
(03:56):
of the way the political landscapehas changed here in California.
Well, let me ask you about that,because to an untrained mind like mine,
well, I thanks, but
politics are probably a lot simplerwhen you're dealing with a homogeneous
population.
And so when you have peoplefrom different cultures,
(04:19):
different racial and ethnic backgrounds,it strikes me that that complicates
politics in a certain sense, too.
To borrow an old saying that,you know, it's kind of corralling cats.
How does California deal with such unique
racial and ethnic mix up
(04:39):
politically?
Well, it's been a real challenge.
In the times, it's been a real struggle.
We live in the most demographicallydiverse place in the history,
the planet Earth.
And there are timeswhen that diversity brings great strength.
It brings a multiple range of perspectivesand experiences
that can fuel a statesor a communities growth.
(04:59):
But there's timesyou suggest when it creates or intensifies
some divisions and makes it muchmore difficult to to move forward.
Interesting, though,when you talk about those divisions,
city types of things that divide us,not just here in California,
but nationally to a large degree,they've changed over the years.
Gallup did some polling on thisnot too long ago and they asked Americans,
(05:23):
would you be comfortable
with your son or your daughter marryingsomeone of a different race or religion?
And the overwhelming majorityof Californians,
the overwhelmingmajority of Americans said
they'd be completely comfortablewith that.
Those numbers were at an all time high.
It's a questionthey've been asking for years.
Then they asked, Would you be comfortableif your son or daughter married
someone from the opposite political partyin the numbers were an all time low.
(05:47):
On one hand, we are becoming more tolerantand more respectful
of our differences in terms of demographyand heritage under the banner
of becoming less tolerant and more divided
when it comes to how we think.
And do politics.
Well, that's just fascinating.
So if my my son is a Democrat,
(06:10):
the Galluppolling says that most parents would say,
I don't want him to marry a Republicanand or vice versa.
Exactly right.
But again, I think it's importantto mark the progress.
Asking the same question20, 30, 5000 years ago
about someone from a different racialor religious background.
Americans would have beenmuch more uncomfortable with it.
(06:32):
Today,we're learning to recognize the benefits
of that type of diversity.
Again, we're just becoming a little bit
less tolerant to ideological diversity,and that runs in both directions, too.
Well. Let's kind of focus then.
I mean, California's a great test casesince it's
the forerunner of what is coming inthe rest of the United States.
(06:53):
Put it into politics,
because here the hot topic and has been
for a long time is identity politics.
And identity politics meansyou identify people from visible marks,
whether it's gender or race, too,traditionally.
And it raises the question then,
(07:15):
if we're dealing with identity politics,how can we.
And some people may not even like thisterm anymore.
But traditionally, the United Stateswas deemed to be the, quote, melting pot.
A lot of people don'teven like that term anymore.
But but how do we meld ourselves if if
we have certain types of identity politicswhen there's a strong allegiance
(07:36):
with certain identity groups,
with certain political partiesand they're not intermarrying?
Well, a couple of things.
I mean, you raise several good points.
One, in fact, the rate of intermarriage
between people of different racialand ethnic and religious backgrounds
is increasing,not decreasing, decreased, not decreasing
even an erain an era of identity politics.
(07:57):
But even the verb meld, believe itor not, can be a highly charged one.
Yes, because you correctly pointed out to
how for most of the United States history,we looked at the idea
of a melting potas something for which to strive.
Well, in in recent years,you have, as you correctly pointed out,
we have seen a challenge to thatand the metaphor that you and I hear
(08:19):
more frequently than a meltingpot is a fruit salad.
The idea that you have these differentingredients that mix together
and cohabitate but still maintaintheir initial distinct identity.
Now, when you get to questionsof identity politics and this is
something I talk aboutin all of my classes at great length
(08:39):
because it's of tremendous importto Generation Z.
And I tell them that identity politics,as you've defined it,
I said there's a real positivethat comes along with it.
But there's a real challengeand a potential negative
that comes along as well.
So let me go through both.
The first,as I said, your identity, your heritage
(09:01):
is definitionally who you are.
The art of that wasn't important to you.
It'd be odd if it wascompletely irrelevant to your politics.
I said.
That said, when you beginto define identity in an exclusionary way,
that people who aren't from my racial or
ethnic or religious heritage are peoplewho I don't have
(09:23):
anything to talk to about.
I said, That's where we run into trouble.
And an example I give quite frequently is
I will pointto one of my teaching assistants,
someone who had known before the semesterstarted.
I'll say, okay,
this is a young Latina woman.
(09:43):
I am an old white man.
If we practice identity politicsthe way it's
currently defined,we have nothing to say to each other.
We have nothing to gain.
We have nothing to learnbecause we come from different places.
That said,once we take the time to start talking,
once we take the timeto start listening to each other,
we realize that we might not sharethe most obvious invisible identities,
(10:08):
but there's a lot of other identitiesthat we do share.
None of us contains a single identity.
We all contain dozens, if not hundreds.
So when this young woman and I talk
about the experience that her parentshad coming here from Latin America,
an experience that my grandparentshad coming here from Eastern Europe,
realized in that sense,our identities aren't as different
(10:30):
as they seemed at the outset.
So nothing. There's nothing wrong at all
with being proud of who you areand where you're from.
As long as you recognizethat your identities
are much more complicated than that.
And while it takes more timeand more effort to look beyond
those of most obviousidentifying characteristics,
(10:52):
it's usually worth the effort.
That's a great point.
I know a lot of our listeners
are wondering
where did this whole concept of identitypolitics originate?
Maybe it's always been around.
Maybe it's the fact
that it's just got a new buzzwordassociated with it to define what it is.
(11:13):
But the whole concept of identitypolitics strikes so many of the people
who watch the program as being a divider,
not a uniter, a part of it.
And as we were talking about a moment ago,it can be in the easier
route is to let your demographic identitybe a divider.
But again, the pointI try to make to these young people
(11:35):
is it's worththe extra effort to talk with someone
with whom it might not immediatelyseem that you share an identity.
If you dig a little bit deeperand listen a little bit more carefully,
you realize that while you don't sharethat most visible identity,
you share a lot of other identitiesthat are worth talking about.
But to your question,where did this come from?
(11:55):
Where did it?
So this concept,as you correctly pointed out,
Roger, it's as old as humanity.
It did get a
it's.
Been labeled.
It got a clever new namein the relatively recent past.
But we are we are a tribal species
and you can go back to prehistoric areas
(12:16):
and what our earliest ancestry,our earliest human ancestors
would go out hunting and gathering.
They learned very quicklythat they were much more likely
to catch a saber tooth tiger for dinnerif they banded together.
And they learned very quicklythat he'd be much better,
better prepared to protect themselves
(12:36):
against an other band of humans
if they worked together and cooperated.
So this over the millennia,this isn't cultural.
This isn't social at this point.
This is hardwired in us.
We is a biological, chemical track.
And there've been studiesdone on this that show that people
(12:56):
are so intent
on preserving, on maintaining their roleas part of their define tribe,
They're willing to make decisions,they're willing to take actions
that they disagree withand that actively work
against their own best interestin order to stay part of the group.
And whenever any of my studentsdoubts me on that last point,
(13:17):
I asked them, Is anybody in this roomever pledged a fraternity or sorority?
Remember the things they madeyou do in your pledging.
But you were willing to do thembecause is that important
to become part of the tribewith those Greek letters on your chest?
So that's who we are as human beings.
And that tribalismhas become much more apparent in politics
(13:37):
in the modern era than.
Well,it strikes me it's been weaponized. Yes.
I mean, so what, you label something?
You define it. Yeah.
And so it's identity.
And then we get intoissues. Once upon a time,
peoplewould assume assimilation is a good thing.
You know, I'm Friday night, I eat pizza.
I don't It never occurred to methat I'm not an Italian.
(13:57):
Right. But.
But we've assimilated, you know,part of the Italian culture, you know.
But. But now the counterpoint to thatis it's it's
it's a appropriating a culture.
And that's bad.
And so so for political purposes,it seems like this whole concept
of identity politics has been weaponizedfor the purpose of political gain.
(14:20):
I mean, it is that a correct observation.
Is a very correct observation,and it leads directly from a major change
that's taken place in our politicsover the last generation or so,
for most of not just American history,but for most of history of democracies
in in human history,
(14:41):
generally,when voters supported a candidate,
they voted for that candidatebecause they admired that person,
because they like them,because they believed in them.
What we've seen happen in recent yearsis the overwhelming majority of voters,
not just here in the U.S.
but elsewhere
now cast their ballots not basedon the candidate to their liking, admire,
(15:01):
but they cast their ballotsagainst the candidate
of the party who they dislikeor they disdain.
And so at that point,once you begin to look at that person
across the aisle as the other,
then that identity, instead ofbeing a potential bridge, becomes a wall.
Well, it's a negative.
(15:21):
Negative vote in the term in politicalscience is negative partizanship.
And what we've seen overthe last few election cycles
is that more and more Americanssay to themselves and to each other,
I don't really like either of them,but I like that one.
Even less likely vote for this one.
Is that.
Well, I bet there's a lot of peopleout there that will hear this and say
(15:45):
that is not healthy, that that's not ahealthy way to elect our representatives.
I would broaden their concern.
It's not not is itnot a healthy way to elect politicians?
I don't know if it's a healthyway to go through life.
If you're I'm sure there'sa lot of medical specialties out there.
Specialists will say, that's terrible.
It's going to drive up your blood pressureand everything else.
(16:06):
Well, and it do it in.
And of course, what we have as a resultis not just a divided politics,
but we've divided communitiesand divided society
of people who cling to their tribeso closely
that you talk to someonewho disagrees with them.
It's seen as an abdication.
It's seen as a forfeitingof some aspect of their identity.
(16:29):
Think about it.
If you and I are negotiating in business,
we both know thatneither of us can get everything we want,
and so we negotiate out a dealthat's as good as possible for both sides.
That's the way politics has workedfor most of our history.
I'm not going to get everything you want.You're not going to get it.
You're not going to everything you want.
We'll do it. We'll figure this out.
(16:50):
But if you beginto take your political positions,
not based onwhat's in your material interest,
but based on what it says about youas a person.
Compromisemeans you're not just compromising
on an issue, you'recompromising a matter of your identity.
You're forfeiting a part of who you are.
And so voterswho've learned to hate those people
(17:11):
over on the other side,I can't compromise with them.
They're evil.
And so the two sidesretreat further and further apart.
That's that's very troubling
because we used to pride ourselves in thiscountry on our power of assimilation.
And itraises the question, California, once
again, is a great test casefor powers of assimilation.
(17:34):
And of course, now we have so many,you know, subtext going on that
a lot of people believe that this countryis inherently evil based upon.
So what? Good to assimilate.
And we don't want to assimilate anything.
We want to cancel itand we want to form something new.
And then there's another group of peoplewho say
we want to preserve the traditional valuesthey're worth being to,
to assimilate them.
(17:54):
But yet we've now gotten ourselvesinto these walled off
communitieswhere people don't want to talk.
I mean, who who's responsible for that?
I mean, we all want to know this didthis is just have is it organic
or is there some something in the lawthat kind of drove this or
the change in politicsthat got us to this point?
Well,we are all somewhat responsible for it.
(18:16):
But first
of all, before we go on,I just want to clarify a point that I made
a moment ago when I was talking abouthow much more polarized we are.
I don't want toI don't want to over idealize the past.
When you and I were coming backor coming up,
the two parties argued very vociferously.
The difference is, one, they had to
they found the ability to put asidetheir differences for the common good.
(18:40):
So when you look at the personon the other side
as your opponent tonight,your enemy could say, okay,
I don't agree with him on everything,but we have to work this out.
The country needs it.
And that'swhat's become harder. And harder.
I tell my students about Ronald Reaganand Tip O'Neill working together.
The same seltzer. Tip O'Neillwas speaker of the House during the.
In the Reagan administration.
(19:00):
All a.
Republicanpresident, a Democratic speaker.
And I don't sugarcoat it.
I said most of the
a lot of the time most of the timethey went at each other pretty hard.
But together, they combined
they teamed up to save Social Securityfrom bankruptcy.
A decade later.
Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrichand Democratic President Bill Clinton,
(19:24):
who fought fiercely in the political wars,
put aside, albeit temporarily,their differences to balance the budget
and enact other policy reforms.
And Roger, it's interesting.
My students, these Genz years,they don't doubt me.
They don't think I'm making this up,
but I might as well be telling themabout the butter churn and the eight track
(19:47):
tape player.There's just nothing in modern
society today to which they can associate.
It's all historical to them. So.
So if I hear what you're saying isand that's a beautiful thing about
being a professor,
is that you hang around with
young people all the timeand it keeps you fresh.
What's current new ideas, new
(20:08):
perspectives, a lot of energy,Ambition keeps you young.
I suspect that keeps me optimistic.
And but.
But yet here, here you're talking to these18 to 23, 24 year olds,
and you're telling them somethingthat's really profound,
but they're not relating to. It insomething that's unfamiliar to them.
And I think to a large degree explains
(20:32):
why the rates of voting participationamong these young people is so much lower.
These young people, obviously,they vote in much smaller numbers
than any other generation,but they also volunteer
their time back into their communitiesin very high levels.
So they're still looking for thatcohesive,
collegial actionon behalf of their communities.
(20:54):
They just don't see itcoming from traditional politics.
They see it coming from their volunteeractivity.
And our challenge is to explain to themthat it can't be one or the other.
It has to be both.
So are you saying we no longer
have the art of compromisethat we once had?
Not in the slightest.
(21:15):
Certainly not in politics, but moreand more in other facets of life also,
Yes, we see it in our communities.
We see it in our neighborhoods.
Unable to compromise. Precisely.
And we become more and more divided,not just in terms of partizan politics,
but as a society.
One you asked earlier whose faultit was that ultimately it's all of ours.
(21:38):
But let'smaybe that was a bad choice of word.
Make the cause and talk about the causeas opposed to attributing fault.
All right.
So first, there are many causes,but I will point to just one.
And that is the incredible influence
of digital media and social media.
Now, I'm not a druid.
(21:59):
I believe that the benefits
of communicationstechnology far outweigh the downsides.
But what online
media and in particular social mediaallows us to do
it allows us to self-select
who we talk to, who we listen to, what
we read, what we learn,and ultimately what we think.
(22:22):
Look, when I grew up,
my fatherand I disagreed profoundly on politics.
But that wasn't the first timethat's ever happened.
Probably not.
But we watched the evening news togetherand we might come
to extremely different conclusionsabout what we saw,
but at least were drinkingfrom the same pool of information.
(22:43):
Well, if one person is watching Foxand the other is watching MSNBC,
see if one's on a conservative websiteand the other is on a liberal website,
if one to listen to a Democratic podcast,those listen to a Republican podcast.
We're not just disagreeing.
We're experiencing two entirelydifferent versions of reality.
And this doesn't happen by accident.
(23:03):
And I am not like I said,I'm not a technophobe.
I think the benefits of technologyfar outweigh the downsides.
But the social mediaand social media companies in particular
exacerbate this trend.
Most of
your audience is educated enoughto have read about or heard about
the algorithms that are used to determinesocial media exposure.
(23:26):
And what that meansis that when you read or watch
or listen to something on a particulartopic
matter
or Snapchat or Tik-Tok or whoever it is,they're going to bring you more of that.
So let's say that you like videosabout puppies.
Well, they all just keep sending you
(23:48):
videos of puppies and never, ever showyou want of a kitten.
Whereas if you have a friendwho likes kitten videos,
they only see the kitten videosand everything is puppies.
Now, if it's pets, no big deal.
But it's not because they're evil.
Because they're not.
It's not because they'relooking to divide us. Because they're not.
But they're businessesand they know that if they keep showing
you puppy videos,you'll stay on their site.
(24:11):
So if instead of puppies and kittens,
it's videos and information and opinion
about liberal and conservative politics
and policy,
one audience member
is going to get a steady dietand a steady stream of it.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warrenand Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez think
(24:33):
another audience member is going to get
just a steady streamof what Donald Trump thinks.
A third audience memberis going to just get
what a light on a mitt Romney thinks.
But instead of watching the same newscast
and coming to different conclusionsabout it,
each one of us
has the potential at least to live in
(24:55):
almost an ideological igloo, if you will.
And we're never challenged,
we're never disagreed with.
Rather, our opinions are just reinforced
and we're congratulated for having them.
So I'll just finish this up real quick.
So this is human nature.
Human nature, if I want to
(25:16):
I want to listento the smartest people in the world
who are the smartest people in the worldare the people who agree with me.
So what we have to do, our responsibility
is as well-informed individuals,
is to stepbeyond our natural instincts and say,
even if I don't agree with it,I'm going to make an effort to read
or listen to or be exposed to opinionsthat are different than mine,
(25:39):
because they're going to change my mind.
But just because they're going to better
equipped me to participatein a broader range of conversations.
You're talking about your disagreementsthat you had with your father growing up.
My big disagreement with my fatheris that I could he all the way
was convinced that the best heavyweightboxer of all time was Joe Louis.
And I was obviouslya different generation.
(25:59):
I said, No, no, no, no, it's Muhammad Ali.
And we never saw eye to eye on that.
So I understand the dilemmayou had with your father on politics.
And of course, the generational divideis a perfect example.
There's an old joke.
They say the one thing everyone can,if all ages can agree on, is we all know
absolutely with absolute confidencethat the best music ever written came out
(26:21):
when we were in high school.
A good point.
Is the words for their own window.
Well, let let me challengeyou, though, on the statement that you
and let me kind of make a hypothetical,which may
or may not be entirely accurate, maybecompletely off, maybe it is accurate.
But you but you said that the benefit,the benefits
(26:41):
of the technology, communicationtechnology be far away the detriment.
But yet I just heard you describevery negative outcomes of this
because if the technology
contributesin the communication technologies,
so they contribute in a material wayto dividing us to the point where
(27:02):
we're not listening to each other
and we're not listening to other,it seems to me,
and I probably got a lot to our listenerstoo, to a dysfunctional nation
and democracy,which could be self-destructive.
So what's what's the positive?
I the communication technologythat outweighs the threat that it may
in the point at the endpoint,
(27:24):
destroy us as a nation, as a communityor a culture?
my goodness.
Maybe we should have startedwith the positive communication technology
then got to this.
I think there's many, but I'll offer onein particular, particularly,
especially as it relatesto political discourse.
The average voter todayin 2024 is more empowered to participate
in the political conversationthan at any other time in human history.
(27:47):
The toolsof digital media and social media
not only give us the opportunityto talk back to power vertically
in a way that never existedin human history before,
but I'd sayjust as if not even more importantly,
it allows us to communicate and coordinatehorizontally.
We can organize as citizensin a much more effective and efficient
(28:10):
and impactful way because of these tools
than were ever available available before.
If you and I wanted to organize a protestrally
50 years ago, well, we'd have gotten out
of mimeograph machineand we would handed out fliers on corners.
It would've made phone callsand you'd have hope for the best.
Right.
Well, the tools of technologyallow us to reach a much greater
(28:33):
audience and organizemuch more effectively than ever before.
And I do think that that empowersthe voice of the average citizen
in a really important, sometimes annoying
but unbalanced, really beneficial way.
So the technology, on one hand,it can divide us.
When it has and. Has. Has.
But it can also empower us.
(28:55):
The other distinction I would draw
is the tablet analogy can divide us,but we are entirely capable
as sentient human beings of overcomingthat should we so choose to.
At the end of every semester,last day of class, every December
and every May tell my students said, I'mgoing to give you one last assignment.
(29:15):
It's the last day of class.
I can't even so, I can't grade this one.
But it's the most important assignment.
I'm going to give you all semester long.
I said.
I want every principal conservativein this class
to watch Rachel MADDOW once a week.
And I want every
principled, progressive,every principled liberal in this room
to read George Will
or Ross Douthator Bret Stephens once a week.
(29:39):
I'm not trying to change your mind.
I'm not even trying to open it.
Ross Trying to remind youthat there's really smart people
over there on the other side, too, whoyou might not happen to agree with, but
just because you don't agree with them,does it make them evil or stupid?
Ben Sasse, the former Republican senatorfrom Nebraska, who's now the president
of the University of Florida,he is a great term that he likes to use.
(30:02):
He calls it nut picking.
He's opposed in the picking.
And what he means by nit pickingis you pick out the weirdest,
loudest, most obnoxious, most unreasonablevoice over on the other side
and use them as a reasonwhy you can't work with those people.
I can't work with Democrats.
Look at that ridiculous Ilhan Omar.
I can't work with Republicans.
Marjorie Taylor GREENE is out of her mind.
(30:25):
And I think we
while those divisionsthat we were talking about earlier
can be intensified by social media.
We have it in our power to overcome them
as long as we're willing
to resist the impulse
to retreatinto that ideological comfort zone.
I've always found that the peoplewho I admire most intellectually,
(30:49):
the smartest people,the most impressive thinkers,
are those who are willing to havetheir ideas challenged
in the public squarein order to have your ideas challenged
and you step outside that comfort zone.
So it is a downside, the division.
But I think the empowering aspectof communications technology outweighs it
and I think outweighs it even morewhen we have enough confidence
(31:11):
in ourselves and our ideasto allow them to be challenged.
Let me challenge you to challenge you.
You know, you once again,
I hear you loud and clear.
I agree that that's a wonderful solution.
The last assignmentyou give to your students.
Superb. I love it.
But this is my concern.
(31:33):
You'retalking to a limited group of people.
We're talking about hundredsof millions of people
who don't have the benefitof that insight.
And yet we're swimmingagainst the powerful ups
upstream of technology giants that
weaponize.
If I can borrow that term,because they want us to keep coming back
(31:55):
and having the same steady diet ofthe stuff that we saw or read yesterday.
We're going to read today
and we're going to read againtomorrow gets us to the point
where we only hear one side of the story,which leads us to believe that
anybody else who doesn't agree with us,they're just evil or they're idiots
or they're stupid or whatever,you know, we want. So.
So I love your optimism, but maybeI've just become too much of a pessimist.
(32:18):
How do you overcome such powerful economic
inertia against what you preach or teach?
Preach is not the right word, Teach.
Well, I think the question is the exactright one.
And I don't think these problems
get solved from Washington, D.C.,or from Sacramento or from city hall.
I think they have tobe solved in the community.
There's been
(32:39):
plenty of researchdone on questions of trust.
Who do we as citizenstrust to trust politicians?
Not so much journalists?
Not really.
Who do we trust? We trust each other.
We trust our friends.We trust our neighbors.
We trust our coworkers.
And so, to me, the way you model
(33:01):
this behavior is not by having electedofficials or famous journalists say
this is what we do, but this country'sstrength from its beginning.
And de Tocquevillewrote about this in the 19th century,
is the communitybased organization actions
that bring a village, a city,
a state together, those organizations,whether it's
(33:22):
chambers of Commerceor Rotaries or PTA, is
those organizations that decidethat they're going to encourage
that kind of behaviorand that kind of thinking.
I think that's where the change gets made,not because we're told from Washington
or Sacramento.
It has tobecause people like us in a community
(33:43):
turn to our friends and neighborswhen we gather for bowling night and say,
hey, why don't we listen towhat that other person has to say?
Well, on the on the issue of Washington,which is probably the most
unpopular place
to be, atleast in the eyes of most Americans, now,
we all have lost faith in what Washington
(34:06):
can do or fails to do or what it does do.
But is there any legislation, anything
from a political standpoint,through a law that could be done?
And I realize we're butting upagainst the First Amendment here
where we can pare back
the social media giants, you know,
(34:28):
algorithms that give us a constant diet.
The feeding is on the same thingover and over again.
Is there anything legislativelythat you can see on the horizon
that might prevent that from occurringinto the foreseeable future?
Well, this is something that Congressis struggling with right now.
I think there's a realizationon both sides of the aisle
(34:48):
that the early years of social media
would have benefited from not edictbut more guidance,
and that many of our elected officials
didn't really understandthe challenge of the technology.
And so therefore, it's allowed to flourishoften in unhealthy ways.
My own opinion is they're going tothey're doing
(35:10):
what politicians do best,which is overcorrect.
And now that artificial intelligencehas become our next
great technology, technologybased challenge,
they're going to try to make upfor their lack of attention and action
and social mediaand probably overdo it on the side.
But there's considerable debatethat is going on in Washington.
It's intensifying.
(35:31):
Primarily, we're getting a little bit offtopic here, but it's worth raising
primarily around the topic of children'ssafety online.
I mean, hearings in Washingtonon this and heated hearings.
Two very heated, very heated hearings
and this debate.
One example, back in the 1990s,in the early years of the Internet,
(35:55):
Congress passed a bill calledthe Communications Decency Act.
And in it, there were protections
for technology companiesfor for Internet companies,
from lawsuits based on the content.
As the companies argued, We're not promote
we're not advocating this.
(36:16):
We're just simply a platformon which other people speak.
And the common realization
among Democrats and Republicansthat seems to be emerging
is that's probably letting
the technology companies off the hookjust a little bit too easily.
Because if you put up content
that can be dangerous to a young person,
you're not just a platform,you're an enabler.
(36:38):
And these are difficult questionsAnd about
I think belatedly, we're beginningto see our elected representatives
starting to starting to wrestle with them.
But it's it's a confoundingset of challenges.
I would offer you thisfor just a little bit of solace.
One of my favorite quotes is her,Mark Twain.
He said history doesn't repeat itself,but it rhymes.
(37:01):
And that I love Mark Twain. Absolutely.
If you look back at every otheradvancement in communications
technology throughout human history,we had exactly
the same kind of difficultycoming to terms with it.
Television.
Radio.
There was a story in The New York Timesin the mid-19th century
(37:22):
warning about the societal damagethat would be wrought by the telephone
that once telephones become commonplace,people retreated to their homes.
They would no longer socializewith each other.
This is going to be absolutely horrible.
I go back even further.
You're not goingto go back to the printing press, are you?
After the Gutenberg Bible?
Actually, after after.
After the printing press was invented,Protestants and Catholics
(37:45):
went to war for hundreds of yearsacross Europe.
When you democratize information,
it divides peoplebecause people develop stronger feelings.
And it takes some time
for us to learnhow to use these new communications tools,
whether it's
(38:05):
Instagram or television
or the telephone and the printing press.
We haven't been here before,
but we've been here before. It's rhymed.
We're rhyming. Yes.
So I love your optimism, Professor.
Well, let me ask you, we'realmost out of time for today's episode.
But but let melet me ask you to give us a litmus test.
(38:26):
I love your optimism.
You're saying that the positivesfrom the current
telecommunicationstechnology outweighs the detriment.
What would you
have to experience for youto change your mind
and conclude that the negatives doindeed outweigh the positives?
(38:46):
So what you're asking me is,what would it take to turn my optimism
into pessimism?
So some day in the future
you're sitting in a class and you lookat your students and say, I was wrong.
What would have to happen for youto make that comment to your students?
Boy, that's a it's a great question.
And I have to admit,
first of all,I should say just say more broadly,
(39:08):
I refer to myself as a born againengineer.
I started out in life as an optimist.
I became very cynicaland I would come back around full circle.
And one of the reasons I'm so optimistic
is because even though it'sa self-selected group, as you pointed out,
I get to spend most of my week every week
with some of the most impressiveyoung people on the planet.
(39:29):
And so I can't helpbut to believe that they're going to take
that they're going to takeon these challenges successfully.
What would it take to change my mind?
I have to say,I don't want to sound naive.
I can't I can't bear the thought.
If I had to wake up in the morning
and just say, it's all hopeless,there's no point.
(39:50):
That's just sounds excruciating.
So I'm not saying thatI would be oblivious
to the information you presented to me.
And it might alterthe way I look at things,
but I simply could not admit
as a human being that we as a species
can find a way to overcome the challengesthat we've created for ourselves.
(40:14):
Well, Professor Dan Schnur,
I hope we can have you back for parttwo of this interview.
And this has beena fascinating conversation.
I look forward to continuingthis conversation with you on our next
next episode. Professor Dan Schnur.
Ladies and gentlemen,I hope you enjoyed this program today
discussing California politicsand that it's a harbinger
(40:34):
of the rest of the United Statesand all the fascinating issues
that a very diverse populationpresents to politics, complicated
with our very unique telecommunicationstechnology that we're facing today.
If you've enjoyed this program, pleaselike and share.
And also, we're very interestedin having your comments posted
(40:56):
if you have the time.Thank you very much. And have a good day.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.