Transcript: The Borders of Liberal Democracy | Oct 24, 2018

Steve sits in the studio. He's slim, clean-shaven, in his fifties, with short curly brown hair. He's wearing a gray suit, white shirt, and spotted blue tie.

A caption on screen reads "The borders of liberal democracy. @spaikin, @theagenda."

Steve says THERE IS A SENSE OUT
THERE - WHETHER IT STARTED WITH
BREXIT OR THE ELECTION OF
DONALD TRUMP OR EVEN EARLIER -
THAT MANY LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES
FACE A CHALLENGE THAT'S BEYOND
THE EVERYDAY BACK AND FORTH OF
POLITICS.
INSTEAD, IT'S GOT THE RING OF
"US VERSUS THEM," OF
MY-COUNTRY-FIRST VERSUS
MULTICULTURALISM, A QUESTIONING
ABOUT WHO GETS TO BE PART OF THE
PEOPLE.
SHOULD WE BE WORRIED ABOUT WHERE
THIS TAKES US?
LET'S FIND OUT AS WE ASK:
YASCHA MOUNK, LECTURER AT
HARVARD UNIVERSITY, HOST OF THE
GOOD FIGHT PODCAST AND AUTHOR
MOST RECENTLY OF "THE PEOPLE vs.
DEMOCRACY: WHY OUR FREEDOM IS IN
DANGER AND HOW TO SAVE IT."

Yascha is in his late thirties, with short brown hair and a stubble. He's wearing a gray plaid suit and a gray shirt.

Steve continues AND ALSO JOINING US:
ANDREW COYNE, COLUMNIST WITH THE
NATIONAL POST, AND AS I
INTRODUCED HIM LAST TIME HE WAS
ON THE PROGRAMME, ALL AROUND GOOD GUY.

Andrew is in his fifties, clean-shaven, with shirt brown hair. He's wearing a gray suit, pale blue shirt, and striped blue tie.

Steve continues NICE TO HAVE BOTH OF YOU HERE
FOR THIS CONVERSATION.
YASCHA, I'M GOING TO START WITH
YOU BECAUSE YOU WERE ON THIS
PROGRAM JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO.
THERE WERE ELECTIONS SINCE THEN
IN ITALY, HUNGARY, AND SWEDEN...

Yascha says AND ONTARIO.

Steve says AND ONTARIO.
THAT'S TRUE.
IT MAY NOT BE TO WHERE THIS
QUESTION IS GOING, BUT FAIR TO
SAY, I DON'T THINK IMMIGRATION
WAS A HUGE PART OF THE ONTARIO
ELECTION, BUT WAS IT IN THE
OTHER THREE?

The caption changes to "Yascha Mounk. Author, 'People versus democracy.'"
Then, it changes again to "How divided are we?"

Yascha says YES, ABSOLUTELY.
IT WAS THE DOMINANT TOPIC.
SO YOU'VE SEEN, YOU KNOW, IN
SWEDEN, FOR EXAMPLE, A COUNTRY
IN WHICH ALL OF THE THINGS THAT
SUPPOSEDLY ARE GOING TO CURE US
FROM POPULISM IN OTHER COUNTRIES
ARE ALREADY THERE.
WE ALREADY HAVE A VERY WELL HIGH
PRESSURE FUNCTIONING WELFARE
STATE.
WE'VE HAD REAL IMPROVEMENTS IN
LIVING STANDARDS OVER THE LAST
20 OR SO YEARS.
BUT BECAUSE OF IMMIGRATION AND
PARTICULARLY BECAUSE OF THE
REFUGEE CRISIS, THE POPULISTS
HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EXPLOIT THAT
QUITE STRONGLY AND IT'S ONE OF
THE BIG REASONS WHY THEY ARE NOW
THE STRONGEST THEY'VE EVER BEEN.
THIS IS A PARTY WHICH IS
ACTUALLY MORE RADICAL THAN
RADICAL PARTIES IN OTHER
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
IT HAS ROOTS IN THE NEO-NAZI
MOVEMENT ONLY 20 YEARS AGO AND...

Steve says BESIDES THOSE
ELECTIONS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT,
WOULD YOU SAY THAT IMMIGRATION
HAS DRAMATICALLY CHANGED THE
POLITICAL LANDSCAPE ACROSS THE
ENTIRE EUROPEAN UNION OVER THE
LAST FEW YEARS?

Yascha says YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND
THERE ARE TWO THINGS GOING ON.
ONE IS A HUGE REFUGEE CRISIS.
A NUMBER OF COUNTRIES THAT TOOK
IN A LOT OF REFUGEES, THERE'S A
BIG REBELLION AGAINST IT.
THERE'S ANGER ABOUT THE HANDLING
OF ONGOING INTEGRATION.
BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO A MORE
SLOW-MOVING SET OF CAUSES.
SO YOU ACTUALLY SAW THE ANGER
ABOUT THIS RISING EVEN BEFORE
THE REFUGEE CRISIS, AND THAT'S
REALLY A QUESTION ABOUT
IMMIGRATION WE'VE HAD IN THE
LAST 50 OR 60 YEARS, AND A BIG
DEBATE ABOUT WHAT THE FUTURE OF
A MULTI-ETHNIC SOCIETY SHOULD
LOOK LIKE AND TO WHAT EXTENT THE
MAJORITY POPULATION SHOULD
ACCOMMODATE NEWCOMERS.

Steve says WE HAVE A POLLING
COMPANY IN THIS COUNTRY CALLED
ANGUS REID SUGGESTING
IMMIGRATION IS BECOMING AN
INCREASINGLY CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE.

A slate appears on screen, with the title "How much immigration?"

Steve reads data from the slate and says
THE POLL FOUND 49 percent OF CANADIANS
WANT TO SEE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT'S 2018 TARGET OF MORE
THAN 300,000 IMMIGRANTS REDUCED.
SO THE NUMBERS OF CANADIANS
WANTING A REDUCTION IN
IMMIGRATION IS ALSO UP 13 percent SINCE
2014.
ONLY 31 percent SAID THE TARGET SHOULD
STAY THE SAME.
ONLY 6 percent WANTED TO SEE EVEN MORE
IMMIGRATION.
ANDREW, THOSE NUMBERS, WHAT DO
THEY TELL YOU?

The caption changes to "Andrew Coyne. National Post."

Andrew says THEY'RE BUILT
UPON A BASE THAT CAN GO BACK
SOME PERIOD OF TIME.
THEY ARE UP SOMEWHAT FROM WHERE
THEY WERE BEFORE.
BUT IMMIGRATION IS ALWAYS A
SOMEWHAT CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE,
EVEN IN THIS COUNTRY.
AND THIS COUNTRY, OF COURSE, IS
AN IMMIGRANT RECEIVING COUNTRY
FROM ITS FOUNDING.
IT'S DOUBLY SO, OF COURSE, WHEN
YOU'RE LOOKING AT EUROPE WHERE
YOU HAVE COUNTRIES THAT HAVE
NEVER REALLY SEEN THEMSELVES AS
IMMIGRANT-RECEIVING COUNTRIES,
DON'T HAVE QUITE THE SAME SENSE
OF CIVIC NATIONALISM, A
NATIONALISM NON-ETHNICALLY BASED
BUT BASED ON A COMMON SET OF
IDEAS.
FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT HAVE
BEEN SAID, IT'S PARTICULARLY
SALIENT THERE.
IN CANADA TO SOME EXTENT WE'RE
IMPORTING SOME OF THESE
ATTITUDES, AS WE ALWAYS DO,
PARTICULARLY FROM THE STATES.
THERE'S A CERTAIN SORT OF
COPY-CATTISM IN ALL OF THIS.
AND WE'RE LOOKING AT A
RELATIVELY MINOR ISSUE ON OUR
BORDERS OF PEOPLE SHOWING UP,
ASYLUM SEEKERS, BY INFORMAL OR
ILLEGAL METHODS, WHATEVER WORD
YOU WANT TO USE, AND THAT'S
GIVEN THE ISSUE MORE SALIENCE.
PEOPLE PARTICULARLY IN THE
POLITICAL WORLD HAVE EXAGGERATED
THE STATE OF THAT AND HOW BIG A
THREAT IT REPRESENTS TO ORDER
AND LAW, ET CETERA.
I THINK THAT'S FED SOME OF THIS.

Steve says ANY THOUGHT ABOUT
WHY WE WOULD BE COPYCATS HERE IN
CANADA FOR THE AMERICAN
PHENOMENON YOU JUST DESCRIBED
WHEN WE HAVE A PRIME MINISTER
WHO CLEARLY IS NOT TRAFFICKING
IN THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE, UNLIKE
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?
AND UP UNTIL THREE MONTHS AGO WE
HAD A PREMIER OF ONTARIO FOR THE
LAST FOUR YEARS WHO ALSO WAS
QUITE NOT THERE IN TERMS OF
INDULGING IN THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE.

Andrew says SURE.
PART OF THAT JUST SAYS THERE'S
DIFFERENCES OF OPINION IN THE
COUNTRY.
SO SOME PEOPLE... YES, SOME
PEOPLE HAVE DECIDED THEY'RE
GOING TO FOLLOW THE TRUMPIAN
MODEL, OR WHATEVER THE CONCERNS
ARE IN THE STATES, AND ABSORB
THEM.
WE DO THAT ON EVERY SHOW UNDER
THE SUN IN THIS COUNTRY.
WE IMPORT LEFT-WING IDEAS FROM
THE UNITED STATES AS WELL IN OUR
HISTORY.
BUT I THINK IT NEVER... IT'S
SIGNIFICANT THERE'S BEEN LESS OF
AN UP SURGE OF POPULISM IN THIS
COUNTRY.
WHAT'S THE CAUSE AND WHAT'S THE
EFFECT IN TERMS OF THE
GOVERNMENT THAT WE ELECTED?
BUT IT'S SIGNIFICANT THAT
THEY'VE TAKEN A DIFFERENT TACK.
JUSTIN TRUDEAU WENT OUT TO THE
AIRPORT TO WELCOME THE SYRIAN
REFUGEES...

Steve says WITH PREMIER WYNNE.

Andrew says THAT'S RIGHT.
ALSO WE HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH
SOME OF THE SAME TRAUMAS THAT
BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND
EUROPE HAVE GONE THROUGH IN THE
LAST 20 YEARS.
THIS IS A MUCH LARGER DISCUSSION
THAN JUST IMMIGRATION.
BUT IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS
THAT'S FED INTO DISTRUST OF
ELITES, DISTRUST OF GLOBALISM,
QUOTE, UNQUOTE, AND ONE ASPECT
EMERGES AS DISTRUST OF
IMMIGRATION AND IT LEADS TO THE
PEOPLE FORCING IT UPON US.

The caption changes to "Yascha Mounk. Tony Blair Institute for Global Change."

Yascha says IT HAS ALWAYS
BEEN A COUNTRY OF IMMIGRATION.
THAT YOU HAVE HAD AT ONE POINT
IN TIME A STRICT RACIAL AND
ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS HIERARCHY,
AND THAT TRYING TO OVERCOME THAT
IS COMPLICATED AND IT'S GOING TO
TAKE TIME.
SOME PEOPLE HAVE TO GIVE UP SOME
OF THE PRIVILEGES THEY USED TO
HAVE, TO BE ANGRY AT THAT.
THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN A SENSE THAT
A CANADIAN CAN COME FROM
ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.
THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT.
THE SECOND IS THAT IMMIGRATION
IN CANADA HAS ALWAYS PRIMARILY
BEEN HIGHLY SKILLED IMMIGRATION,
BECAUSE OF THE POINT SYSTEM AND
NATURAL BORDERS, YOU'VE ALWAYS
BEEN ABLE TO CHOOSE IMMIGRANTS.
AND THE BEST PREDICTOR AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT A PERSON IS GOING
TO IMMIGRATE WELL IS NOT THROUGH
RELIGION, NOT THE PART OF THE
WORLD, CERTAINLY NOT THE SKILLEN
COLOUR, IT'S THE SKILLS.
YOU DON'T HAVE ONE DOMINANT.
SO WHAT'S QUIET WORRYING IN MANY
COUNTRIES, WHEN YOU HAVE ONE
DOMINANT GROUP THAT'S
HOMOGENEOUS AND ONE DOMINANT
MINORITY GROUP.
IN CANADA YOU HAVE A DOMINANT
MAJORITY GROUP AND LOTS AND LOTS
OF DIFFERENT MINORITY GROUPS.
THAT'S A HEALTHIER SITUATION.

Steve says IT KIND OF HELPS
KEEP THE PEACE, DOESN'T IT?

Andrew says YOU STAND ON
A STREET CORNER IN TORONTO AND
YOU WILL SEE A CONVERSATION
HAPPENING MANY FIVE PEOPLE OF
DIFFERENT SKIN COLOURS AND
ETHNICITIES, IT BRINGS THAT
POINT HOME THAT PEOPLE ARE...
THAT IT BREAKS DOWN THAT
POLARIZATION INTO US AND THEM.

Steve says ANYBODY WHO KNOWS
ADRIENNE CLARKSON, OUR FORMER
GOVERNOR GENERAL HERE IN CANADA,
WILL NOT BE SURPRISED TO HAVE
HEARD HER SAY THE FOLLOWING...

A quote appears on screen, under the title "
Populist nonsense." The quote reads "WE
NEED IMMIGRANTS. WE KNOW THAT WHEN THEY COME, THEY DO FIT IN. THEY LEARN THE LANGUAGE. THEY GO TO SCHOOLS. THEY PARTICIPATE. ALL THE OTHER STUFF IS JUST
RHETORIC AND POPULIST NONSENSE. IT'S RACIST. IT'S PREJUDICE AND BIGOTRY."
Adrienne Clarkson, as quoted in the Toronto Star. September 21, 2018.

Steve says YOU WANT TO SIGN ONTO THAT?

The caption changes to "Andrew Coyne, @acoyne."

Andrew says I WOULDN'T
NECESSARILY GO THAT FAR.
THERE ARE CERTAINLY PEOPLE WHO
WOULD FIT ALL THOSE
DESCRIPTIONS.
THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE
JUST CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE
SOCIETY IS GOING, AND PEOPLE...
WE HAVE TO EXTEND SOME DEGREE OF
GOOD FAITH THAT PEOPLE MAY NOT
SIMPLY HAVE THOUGHT THROUGH AN
ISSUE AND THEY MAY EMERGE WITH
POSITIONS THAT YOU OR I MIGHT
NOT AGREE WITH, BUT IT MIGHT NOT
BEGIN FROM A PLACE OF HATRED, IT
MAY BEGIN FROM A PLACE OF
CONFUSION AND CONCERN.
THERE'S A LEGITIMATE GROUNDS TO
SAY, LOOK, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING
ACROSS OUR BORDER ARE COMING IN
BY LAWFUL MEANS AND PARTICULARLY
IN THIS DAY AND AGE OF
TERRORISM, IT'S LEGITIMATE TO
SAY WE'RE VETTING EVERYBODY THAT
COMES IN.
IT'S WHEN YOU START TO
EXAGGERATE THE IMPORTANCE OF
THINGS OR ATTACH THINGS TO IT
THAT DON'T BELONG.
FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S NOT
ILLEGITIMATE TO SAY WE CAN HOLD
TOGETHER AS A SOCIETY IN CANADA,
WE HAVE SOME DEGREE OF COMMON
IDEALS OR EVEN THAT WORD
"VALUES."

The caption changes to "Connect with us: Twitter: @theagenda; Facebook, agendaconnect@tvo.org, Instagram."

Steve says MAXIM BERNIER SAID
THAT ON THE SHOW THE OTHER NIGHT.

The caption changes to "Who's in and who's out?"

Andrew says THAT'S NOT AN
ILLEGITIMATE SUBJECT FOR
DISCUSSION.
THE PEOPLE THREATENING THAT ARE
PEOPLE COMING FROM SOMEWHERE
ELSE.
AT THE VERY MINIMUM, YOU BETTER
BE ABLE TO SHOW THAT RATHER THAN
SIMPLY ASSERTING IT.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF THAT.

Steve says CAN YOU HELP US
UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT LINE IS
BETWEEN, YES, WE CAN HAVE A
DISCUSSION ABOUT COMPETING
VALUES AND THAT'S OKAY, BUT
OTHERING IS NOT ACCEPTABLE?
WHERE'S THAT LINE?

Yascha says I ACTUALLY
THINK IT'S MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD
WHEN SOMETIMES PEOPLE THINK OR
SAY... I MEAN, WE LIVE IN A
LIBERAL DEMOCRACY, WHICH MEANS
WE WANT TO PRESERVE PEOPLE'S
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND THOSE
RIGHTS CAN DEPEND ON THEIR
RELIGION AND SKIN COLOUR AND SO
ON, AND IT'S UTTERLY
UNACCEPTABLE TO TREAT PEOPLE WHO
ARE LEGALLY IN THIS COUNTRY ANY
DIFFERENTLY DEPENDING ON THOSE
CHARACTERISTICS.
IT IS UNACCEPTABLE TO DO WHAT
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES HAS DONE, WHICH IS TO
SAY, ANYONE WHO HAS A PARTICULAR
RELIGION CAN'T COME INTO THIS
COUNTRY, AND THEN I THINK A
LEGITIMATE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE
ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE WE SHOULD
LET IN.
NOW, I TEND TO BE ON THE MORE
PERMISSIVE END OF THAT IN THOSE
KINDS OF DEBATES.
I'M NOT A CANADIAN.
I DON'T WANT TO JUDGE WHETHER
CANADA HAS THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF
IMMIGRATION, MORE OR LESS.
IF I HAD TO GUESS, I WOULD SAY
IT'S PROBABLY THE RIGHT AMOUNT.
I DON'T THINK SO THERE'S
ANYTHING INHERENTLY RACIST IF
SOMEBODY SAYS, LOOK, WE ACTUALLY
FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF
IMMIGRATION RIGHT NOW AND WE
SHOULD SLOW THE PACE OF THAT A
LITTLE BIT.
IF YOU'RE NOT VICTIMIZING PEOPLE
ALREADY IN THE COUNTRY, IF
YOU'RE NOT MAKING CULTURAL OR
RELIGIOUS STIPULATIONS OR RACIAL
STIPULATIONS ABOUT WHO IS
ALLOWED TO COME IN, A LEGITIMATE
POINT OF VIEW IN A DEMOCRACY,
I'M LIKELY TO DISAGREE WITH IT,
BUT THAT'S FINE.
LET'S HAVE IT OUT AT THE BALLOT BOX.

Steve says THIS IS GOING TO BE
CONTRARIAN, WHAT I'M ABOUT TO
SAY, BUT I HAVE A NEIGHBOUR WHO
IS A REAL ESTATE AGENT.
AND HE'S BEEN IN THE BUSINESS
FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
AND HE SAYS THE PEOPLE IN HIS
EXPERIENCE WHO ARE THE MOST
RACIST IN TERMS OF "I DON'T WANT
THOSE KINDS OF PEOPLE BUYING A
HOUSE IN MY NEIGHBOURHOOD" ARE
NOT, AS STEPHEN HARPER CALLED
THEM, OLD-STOCK CANADIANS, WHITE
ANGLO SAXONS FROM WAY BACK, IT
IS PEOPLE OF COLOUR.
IT IS PEOPLE WHO HAVE COME HERE,
IN HIS VIEW, FROM OTHER PLACES,
WHO ARE CONCERNED, APROPOS OF
YOUR FORMER POINT, THAT WE ARE
IMPORTING PEOPLE INTO THIS
COUNTRY WHO MAY NOT SHARE OUR
KIND OF WESTERN-ORIENTED SPEECH,
EQUALITY OF GENDERS, SO ON AND
SO FORTH KIND OF VALUES.
AT WHAT POINT ARE MINORITIES WHO
OBJECT TO INCREASED
MULTICULTURALISM OR OBJECT TO
INCREASED IMMIGRATION ALLOWED TO
EXPRESS THOSE VIEWS WITHOUT
BEING ATTACKED?

Andrew says WELL, I MEAN,
I'M IN AN INVIDIOUS POSITION,
BEING A WHITE MALE, HAVING TO
ANSWER THIS.
YOU SEE THIS IN THE POLLING DATA
OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE GONE THROUGH
THE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM, HAVE
GONE THROUGH ALL THE HOOPS,
ET CETERA, BEING I THINK
UNDERSTANDABLY DISMAYED.
PEOPLE OF COLOUR MAY FEEL LESS
INHIBITED ABOUT THESE
DISCUSSIONS FOR THE REASONS I
SET OUT AT THE OUTSET, THAT THEY
DON'T FEEL THEY'RE IN A
PRIVILEGED GROUP...

Steve says THEY HAVE LICENCE.

Andrew says I WOULD SAY
SOMETHING TO THE CONTRARY AT THE
SAME TIME, WHICH IS I FIND THAT
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE MORE
FERVENT ADHERENTS OF THE CLASSIC
LIBERAL MODEL OF SOCIETY, OF
EVERYONE IS AN EQUAL INDIVIDUAL,
WE SHOULD TRY TO GET ALONG WITH
EACH OTHER ON THE BASIS OF
EQUALITY AS INDIVIDUALS RATHER
THAN TRYING TO FIT TOGETHER A
JIGSAW.
PUZZLE OF GROUPS, THE
PEOPLE WHO CONSISTENTLY RESTORE
MY FAITH IN THAT IDEAL ARE
RECENT IMMIGRANTS.
THEY'VE COME FROM SOCIETIES THAT
HAVE BEEN ORGANIZED AROUND CASTE
AND RACE AND RELIGION AND THEY
DON'T WANT ANY PART OF THAT.
MAYBE THEY ARE OVERLY CONCERNED
ABOUT IT.
BUT IT CHEERS ME THAT THEY'RE
SAYING, YEAH, WHAT WE REALLY
CAME TO CANADA FOR WAS THIS
WESTERN LIBERAL IDEA THAT SO
MANY PEOPLE ARE CRITICIZING NOW.

Yascha says THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT POINT.
ONE OF THE WAYS TO REALLY
ADDRESS THE FEARS THAT SOME
PEOPLE IN THIS SOCIETY HAVE IS
TO BE CLEAR THAT WE WILL INSIST
ON THAT MODEL.
THAT THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH
SAYING THAT WE OBVIOUSLY
CELEBRATE DIFFERENCE, WE
OBVIOUSLY CELEBRATE RELIGIONS,
EVEN IN A STRICT SENSE, THEIR
OWN CULTURALS.
THEY WILL COOK DIFFERENT FOODS
FROM EACH OTHER AND SO ON AND SO
FORTH.
WE HAVE A BASE OF COMMON VALUES.
AND THAT IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO
BE CANADIAN THAN OTHER THINGS.
YOU HAVE MULTIPLE IDENTITIES.
THAT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE
CASE IN CANADA AND HOPEFULLY IT
WILL INCREASINGLY BE THE CASE IN
COUNTRIES IN WESTERN EUROPE.
BUT THE CITIZENSHIP COMPONENT
HAS TO BE VERY IMPORTANT.
I WAS AT A DEBATE EARLIER TODAY
IN TORONTO IN WHICH PEOPLE WERE
STARTING TO SAY, YOU KNOW,
CONCEPTS OF CITIZENSHIP ARE
DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC.
NOT EVERYBODY IS INCLUDED.
WE REALLY SHOULDN'T TALK ABOUT
CITIZENSHIP.
AND I AGREE WITH THE FIRST HALF
OF IT, THAT CERTAINLY IN THE
UNITED STATES AND TO SOME DEGREE
IN CANADA THERE ARE PEOPLE HERE
WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS WHO CAN'T
PARTICIPATE AND THAT'S A PROBLEM
WE HAVE TO ADDRESS.
THAT'S ALL THE MORE REASON TO
INCLUDE THEM IN THIS NOTION AND
TO ACTUALLY DEFEND THAT'S
SOMETHING SPECIAL ABOUT
CITIZENSHIP.

Steve says DON'T GO THERE YET.
I KNOW YOU WANT TO COME BACK ON
THIS AND WE ARE GOING TO GET TO
IT.
YOU AND I KNOW MICHAEL IGNATIEFF
FROM HIS TIME AS FEDERAL LIBERAL
LEADER.
DO YOU KNOW HIM FROM YOUR TIME
AT HARVARD?

Yascha says I DO.

Steve says BIG RED SOX FAN,
INCIDENTALLY.
SO HE'S NOT ALL BAD.
WHEN WAS THIS DONE?
HERE'S MICHAEL IGNATIEFF AFTER
BREXIT, BEFORE TRUMP, IN THAT
SORT OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE WAY
THROUGH 2016.
SHELDON, GO.

A clip plays on screen with the caption "September 22, 2016. Michael Ignatieff. Former Liberal Party of Canada Leader."
In the clip, Michael talks in the studio. He's in his fifties, clean-shaven with short gray hair.

He says PEOPLE WANT CONTROL OF THEIR
BORDERS.
THEY WANT TO HAVE A SENSE THAT
WHEN THEY VOTE, THE VOTES THEY
TAKE DETERMINE WHAT NATIONAL
POLICY IS.
THE SENSE OF LOSING DEMOCRATIC
CONTROL OF YOUR COUNTRY, THE
SENSE OF LOSING CONTROL OF YOUR
BORDERS JUST CREATED A SITUATION
IN WHICH BREXIT WON HANDILY.
SO I'M NOT... TO YOUR QUESTION,
I THINK THE EUROPEAN UNION WILL
SURVIVE.
BUT THE QUESTION, THE CHALLENGE
THAT BREXIT POSES IS ONCE AGAIN
TO LIBERAL DEMOCRACY: CAN
LIBERALS WHO BELIEVE IN OPEN
BORDERS AND TOLERANCE AND
MULTICULTURALISM AND DEVELOP A
SET OF ARGUMENTS THAT SAYS TO
PEOPLE FRIGHTENED BY
GLOBALIZATION, LOOK, WE HEAR
YOU.
YOU WANT A COUNTRY THAT CONTROLS
ITS BORDERS.
YOU WANT A COUNTRY THAT'S
SOVEREIGN OVER ITS NATIONAL
AFFAIRS.
YOU WANT A COUNTRY WHERE YOU
FEEL PATRIOTIC PRIDE IN YOUR
COUNTRY'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
ALL THAT LANGUAGE HAS TO BE PART
OF WHAT A SMALL-L LIBERAL... I'M
OUT OF POLITICS... A SMALL-L
LIBERAL BELIEVES IN.

The clip ends.

Steve says YASCHA, I WANT TO
ECHO WHAT DONALD TRUMP SAID AT
THE UNITED NATIONS THE OTHER DAY
WHERE HE SAID I'M NOT THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS,
I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA.
AND SO GIVEN THAT COMMENT, GIVEN
MICHAEL IGNATIEFF'S COMMENT, CAN
A SMALL-L LIBERAL EMBRACE
PATRIOTISM IN THIS INCREASINGLY
GLOBALIZING WORLD?

Yascha says THE MOST
STRIKING THING THAT DONALD TRUMP
SAID IN FRONT OF THE U.N.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY, MORE THAN
ANYONE BEFORE IN HUMAN HISTORY,
AND WAS ROUNDLY LAUGHED OUT OF
THE ROOM.
IT WAS QUITE A MOMENT.
YOU KNOW, YOU'RE SPIKING THE
FOOTBALL A LITTLE BIT IN THAT I
FIND IT HARD TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF
IN ANY KIND OF SENSE WITH DONALD
TRUMP.
NEVERTHELESS, I DO THINK WE NEED
TO FIGHT FOR OUR NOTION OF
PATRIOTISM AND NATIONALISM
AGAINST PEOPLE LIKE DONALD
TRUMP.
SO I GREW UP THINKING IN MANY
WAYS THAT IT WOULD BE GREAT TO
OVERCOME PATRIOTISM AND
NATIONALISM.
THAT IT WOULD BE GREAT TO LIVE
IN A WORLD IN WHICH OUR
ALLEGIANCE IS UNIVERSAL.
WE CARE AS MUCH ABOUT PEOPLE
REALLY FAR AWAY THAN THOSE CLOSE
AND SO ON.
WHEN YOU TAKE THE LAST 20 YEARS
OF POLITICS AND REALIZE WHAT'S
BEEN HAPPENING IS NATIONALISM
HAS MAINTAINED TO BE AN
INCREDIBLY STRONG FORCE.
AND PEOPLE LIKE DONALD TRUMP
WANT TO USE IT IN ORDER TO
VICTIMIZE MINORITIES, IN ORDER
TO BEAT UP ON OTHER NATIONS.
THE BEST WAY TO DEFEND AGAINST
THAT IS TO TRY TO FIGHT FOR WHAT
OUR INTERPRETATION OF PATRIOTISM
SHOULD BE AND IT'S TWOFOLD.
THE FIRST IS IT'S GOT TO BE
INCLUSIVE.
UNLIKE FOR SOMEBODY LIKE DONALD
TRUMP, YOU CAN BE A MUSLIM AND
AN AMERICAN.
YOU CAN BE A MUSLIM AND
CANADIAN.
BLACK OR BROWN.
IT DOES NOT MATTER.
ANYBODY WHO LIVES HERE IS PART
OF OUR CLUB, AND THAT'S WHAT WE
UNDERSTAND AS PATRIOTISM.
THE SECOND IS ABOUT WHAT IT
MEANS TO FIGHT FOR YOUR
INTERESTS.
THE PHRASE "AMERICA FIRST" HAS A
HORRIBLE HISTORY.
BUT IN A SENSE IT IS A NATURAL
EXPRESSION OF WHAT EVERY
POLITICAL LEADER DOES.
MICHAEL IGNATIEFF HAD BECOME
PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA, HE
WOULD HAVE FOUGHT FOR CANADIAN
INTERESTS.
THAT IS COMPLETELY ABNORMAL.
BUT MICHAEL IGNATIEFF
UNDERSTANDS THAT THERE'S NO
CONFLICT BETWEEN CANADA'S
NATURAL INTERESTS VERSUS MANY
OTHER COUNTRIES.
THAT THERE'S LOTS OF WIN-WINS
BETWEEN NATIONS.
I CAN FIGHT FOR MY INTERESTS BUT
THEY ALSO HELP TO SERVE YOUR
INTERESTS BECAUSE WE CAN
COOPERATE.
THE PROBLEM WITH DONALD TRUMP IS
HE ISN'T WILLING TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT.

Steve says LET ME, IN HELPING
SET UP YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT, QUOTE YOU.

Andrew says THAT'S DIRTY POOL.

Steve says HERE'S ANDREW COYNE
IN THE NATIONAL POST.
SHELDON, IF YOU COULD?

A quote appears on screen, under the title "How lucky can one get?" The quote reads "Until comparatively recently, German law held that no one could become a citizen who was not of German blood, even if they and their forbears had been living in the country for generations. By contrast, it is enough in Canadian law to have been here for one day -your birthday- to be a citizen in perpetuity, even if you spend the rest of your life abroad. Stranger still, your children, though they never set foot in the country, will also automatically be citizens. This is remarkably unfair, when you think about it. We talk a lot of white privilege or male privilege, but the biggest single advantage anyone can have, the advantage we all share, is to live in Canada. Were we more aware of our own extraordinary good fortune -out lottery win- we might feel more obliged to share it with others."
Quoted from Andrew Coyne, National Post, August 29, 2018.

Steve says STARTING WITH THAT,
PICK UP THE TORCH, RUN WITH IT,
AND SPEAK TO WHAT HE SAID.

The caption changes to "Our brother's and sister's keepers."

Andrew says I'LL START WITH THAT THEN.
YES, IN ANY DISCUSSION OF
IMMIGRATION... AND I DON'T
DISPUTE THAT WE'RE ENTITLED AS
CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY TO SET
OUR OWN IMMIGRATION POLICY...
BUT WE SHOULD AT LEAST BE
CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT WE DIDN'T
DO ANYTHING TO EARN OUR
PARTICULAR STATUS OTHER THAN
CHOOSING OUR PARENTS WELL AND
HAPPENING TO BE BORN HERE.
YOU CAN HAVE A MORE RADICAL
DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
THAT SHOULD BE THE BASIS OF
CITIZENSHIP.
BUT AT THE VERY LEAST, LET'S BE
CONSCIOUS OF THAT AND INTRODUCE
A CERTAIN HUMILITY IN US IN
DISCUSSING IT.
I WOULD CERTAINLY AGREE THAT
THERE'S NOTHING ILLIBERAL PER SE
ABOUT NATIONALISM OR PATRIOTISM.
AND TO ECHO THE POINT MADE,
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE
AMERICAN PRESIDENT STANDING FOR
THE AMERICAN INTEREST.
IT'S THE IDEA THAT THE AMERICAN
INTEREST IMPLIES PROTECTIONISM
AND PULLING OUT OF EVERY
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND
THESE KINDS OF THINGS.
THAT'S A PARTICULAR TAKE ON THAT
INTEREST THAT YOU CAN TAKE OR
LEAVE.
NATIONALISM, LIKE MANY OTHER
THINGS, CAN BE BOTH POSITIVE AND
NEGATIVE.
IT'S POSITIVE WHEN IT'S THE
NATIONALISM OF WE ARE US, WHEN
WE HAVE A SENSE OF OUR
COMMONALITY AND ARE ABLE TO
SENSE A CONNECTION TO EACH OTHER.
AND MAKE THE EXACT POINT, IT
ENABLES US TO CARE ABOUT PEOPLE
THAT WE'VE NEVER MET.
IF SOMEBODY'S LOST OFF THE COAST
OF NEWFOUNDLAND, WE'RE GOING TO
TAKE A GREATER INTEREST IN THAT
THAN IF THEY WERE LOST
UNFORTUNATELY OFF THE COAST OF
SOUTH AMERICA OR ANYWHERE ELSE.
WE HAVE THAT CONNECTION.
WHAT THAT SUGGESTS TO ME IS THE
POSITIVITY OF IT IS, THE DEGREE
TO WHICH NATIONALISM LEADS US TO
WIDER AND WIDER FEELINGS OF
ALLEGIANCE.
AND ULTIMATELY WE SHOULD FEEL
THAT ALLEGIANCE TO HUMANITY AT
LARGE, BUT IT DOESN'T.
WE'RE HUMAN BEINGS.
IT'S THAT KIND OF NATIONALISM.
WHEN IT BECOMES THE KIND OF
NATIONALISM, WE ARE NOT YOU,
WHICH IS EXCLUDING PEOPLE INSIDE
THE COUNTRY OR BEING
VITUPERATIVE ABOUT PEOPLE
OUTSIDE OUR COUNTRY, THAT'S WHEN
IT LOSES ITS MORAL FORCE.
IT CAN BE A FORCE FOR GOOD.
IT CAN BE A MORAL THING.
IT CAN ALSO BE THE OPPOSITE.
AND THE LAST ONE AND I WOULD SAY
IS, THE THING THAT INFUSES IT
WITH MORAL PURPOSE, I THINK, IS
A SENSE OF COMMON PURPOSE AND
MISSION, OF THE OBJECTIVES AND
THE IDEALS THAT WE WANT TO
ASPIRE TO.
ONE OF THE THINGS I ADMIRE ABOUT
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS
THAT THEIR NATIONALISM,
CERTAINLY TRADITIONALLY HAS
BEEN, NOT ONE FOUNDED ON BLOOD
AND SOIL BUT ONE FOUNDED IN THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF
RIGHTS.
AND IT'S A REAL THING.
YOU TALK TO ANY AMERICAN AND
THEY KNOW THEIR RIGHTS AND THEY
ATTACH ENORMOUS IMPORTANCE TO
THE CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF
THE COUNTRY.
THAT'S A VERY POSITIVE THING, I
THINK.
IT KEEPS THE... IT ENABLES THAT
VERY CONTENTIOUS, OFTENTIMES
VERY DIVIDED SOCIETY TO HOLD IT
TOGETHER.
THAT THEY STILL, NOTWITHSTANDING
ALL OF THAT, YOU DON'T SEE, YOU
KNOW, SIGNIFICANT SEPARATIST
MOVEMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES.

Steve says YOU JUST USED THE
"N" WORD, "NOTWITHSTANDING."
WE'VE HAD A GOOD WORKOUT WITH
THAT WORD IN THE LAST COUPLE OF
WEEKS, HAVEN'T WE?
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE NOTION,
YASCHA, THAT IT IS UNJUST TO
HAVE KIND OF A LEG UP AS A
CITIZEN IN A COUNTRY THAT YOU
WERE LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE BORN IN
ON YOUR BIRTHDAY AND MAYBE HAVE NO OTHER CONNECTION TO BESIDES THAT?

The caption changes to "Yascha Mounk, @Yascha_Mounk."

Yascha says FIRST, I WANT
TO POINT OUT A NICE PIECE OF
PATRIOTISM IN YOUR ARTICLE,
WHICH YOU SAY THAT THE MOST
EXTRAORDINARY PRIVILEGE YOU CAN
HAVE IN THE WORLD IS TO BE
CANADIAN.
AND I LIKE THAT.
I MEAN... I MIGHT FIND IT A
LITTLE BIT COLD AND SO ON, BUT
IT'S QUITE NICE AT THE MOMENT,
YEAH.
BUT IT IS A NICE EXPRESSION OF
WHAT ACTUALLY MAKES YOU
GENEROUS.
AND I AGREE WITH MUCH OF YOUR
SENTIMENT IN THAT ARTICLE.
I THINK IT'S RIGHT THAT IT IS AN
INCREDIBLE LUCK AND PRIVILEGE TO
BE A MEMBER OF A LIBERAL
DEMOCRACY IN WHICH YOU'RE
TREATED DECENTLY NO MATTER WHAT
YOU ARE AND THAT YOU HAVE ACCESS
TO OPPORTUNITY AND SOME AMOUNT
OF ECONOMIC WEALTH.
AND WE SHOULD SOMETIMES, NOT
JUST REMEMBER THE WAYS IN WHICH
OUR SOCIETIES ARE UNJUST, AND
THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO
FIGHT AGAINST, BUT ALSO IN WAYS
IN WHICH IT'S VASTLY BETTER TO
LIVE IN CANADA OR THE UNITED
STATES OR GERMANY OR SWEDEN THAN
IT IS TO LIVE IN VENEZUELA OR
TURKEY OR A WHOLE SET OF PLACES
WHERE...

The caption changes to "Watch us anytime: tvo.org, Twitter: @theagenda, Facebook Live."

Andrew says IT'S BETTER
THAN IT WAS 50 OR 100 YEARS AGO AS WELL.

Yascha says ABSOLUTELY.
SO IT IS AN EXTRAORDINARILY
PRIVILEGE, AND I THINK WE DO
NEED TO FEEL THAT IS AN ACT OF
LUCK AND WE SHOULD THINK
CAREFULLY ABOUT WHAT IT MAKES US
OWE TO OTHER PEOPLE.
I THINK PEOPLE WOULD BE MORE
RECEPTIVE TO THAT ARGUMENT IF
IT'S BASED IN PRECISELY THE KIND
OF SELF-CONFIDENT SENTIMENT THAT
YOU HAVE EXPRESSED.
IF IT'S BASED ON THIS COUNTRY
HAS A LOT TO OFFER AND WE CAN BE
PROUD TO BE CANADIAN, WE CAN
FEEL SOLIDARITY WITH ONE
ANOTHER, AND BECAUSE OF THAT,
OUT OF THIS SENSE OF ALREADY
HAVING A LOT AND HAVING BEEN
LUCKY, WE SHOULD ALSO BE MOVED
TOWARDS GENEROSITY.

Steve says WITH A PRESIDENT
CLINTON LEFT, ANDREW... WITH A
MINUTE LEFT, ANDREW, LET ME GIVE
IT TO YOU TO TALK ABOUT HOW DO
DEFENDERS OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY
NEED TO THINK ABOUT POPULISM
TODAY, GIVEN EVERYTHING WE'VE
TALKED ABOUT, TO ENSURE WE DON'T
MAKE THE CLEAVAGES AND THE
POLARIZATION EVEN WORSE?

Andrew says TO START BY
TAKING IT SERIOUSLY.
IT DOESN'T COME FROM NOWHERE.
THERE ARE PERHAPS SOME
LEGITIMATE GRIEVANCES.
SOME PEOPLE SAY WE SHOULD EITHER
BE LESS LIBERAL OR LESS
DEMOCRATIC IN THE FACE OF THIS
CHALLENGE.
MY RESPONSE IS WE SHOULD BE MORE
OF BOTH.
LIBERALISM AND DEMOCRACY, WHILE
THEY ARE INTENTIONS TO EACH
OTHER, THEY'RE ALSO MUTUALLY
REINFORCING.
IT'S NO ACCIDENT THAT THEY TEND
TO GO TOGETHER.
THAT, YOU KNOW, THE QUALITY OF
EVERY INDIVIDUAL IS NOT...
EQUALITY OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL IS
NOT BED ROCK, THEY ALL GET ONE
VOTE, IT'S DEFENCE AGAINST
OPPRESSION.
I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE
SERIOUSLY THE IDEA OF GREATER
AND DEEPER DEMOCRACY.
THAT SOME OF WHAT PEOPLE ARE
RESPONDING TO IS THIS FEELING
THEY DON'T HAVE ANY SAY, THEY
DON'T HAVE ANY SAY IN THEIR OWN
NATIONAL POLITICS, THAT THEY
DON'T FEEL THEY HAVE EFFICACY
THERE, AND INCREASING AMOUNTS OF
THINGS ARE BEING PUT OFFSHORE
INTO SUPER NATIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS.
I DON'T THINK THOSE
ORGANIZATIONS ARE INVALID OR
THEIR PURPOSES ARE INVALID, WE
SHOULD RECOGNIZE IT AS A
DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT.
WE SHOULD ACCEPT THAT THE U.N.
HAS SAID SO.
THAT'S A PROBLEM WE'RE GOING TO
BE WRESTLING WITH A LOT OF
ISSUES THAT ARE GLOBAL IN SCOPE
AND WE HAVEN'T DEMOCRATIZED
THOSE STRUCTURES ENOUGH.

The caption changes to "Producer: Wodek Szemberg, @wodekszemberg."

Steve says I WANT TO THANK YOU
BIG BRAINS FOR COMING ON OUR
PROGRAM AND HAVING A REALLY
GREAT DISCUSSION ABOUT SOMETHING
THAT IS TIMELY AND IMPORTANT.
YASCHA MOUNK, "THE PEOPLE VS.
DEMOCRACY: WHY OUR FREEDOM IS IN
DANGER AND HOW TO SAVE IT."
OF COURSE YOU CAN READ ANDREW
COYNE IN THE POST AND POSTMEDIA
FROM COAST TO COAST TO COAST.
THANKS, GENTLEMEN.

Andrew says PLEASURE.

Yascha says THANK YOU.

Watch: The Borders of Liberal Democracy