Transcript: Can We Make Good Political Decisions? | Jul 03, 2019

Nam sits in the studio. She's in her early forties, with shoulder length curly brown hair. She's wearing glasses and a black blazer over a pink shirt.

A caption on screen reads "Can we make better political decisions? Nam Kiwanuka, @namshine, @theagenda."

Nam says THE WHOLE IDEA BEHIND
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT
IS THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE A SAY IN
HOW THEY ARE GOVERNED.
SOUNDS OBVIOUS,
SIMPLE AND ESSENTIAL.
BUT DAVID MOSCROP'S NEW BOOK
MIGHT MAKE YOU THINK
TWICE ABOUT THAT.
IT'S CALLED
TOO DUMB FOR DEMOCRACY?
WHY WE MAKE BAD
POLITICAL DECISIONS
AND HOW WE CAN MAKE
BETTER ONES.

A picture of the book appears briefly on screen. The cover is white, with the title written inside of a red arrow that points at a chart.

Nam continues AUTHOR AND
POST-DOCTORAL FELLOW
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA,
DAVID MOSCROP, JOINS US NOW.

David is in his thirties, with side-parted brown hair and a boxed beard. He's wearing a black suit, gray shirt, and spotted black tie.

Nam continues IT'S REALLY NICE TO MEET YOU.

David says IT'S NICE TO MEET YOU.

Nam says I SAW THIS BOOK A
FEW MONTHS AGO
AND I WAS LIKE,
"I MUST HAVE HIM ON THE SHOW."
SO, IT'S NICE
TO HAVE YOU HERE.

David says I'M SO GLAD THAT
YOU INVITED ME ON.

Nam says SO, I'LL ASK YOU AN OPEN...
LIKE, A WIDE QUESTION.
WHY DO WE MAKE DUMB
POLITICAL DECISIONS?

The caption changes to "David Moscop. Author, 'Too dumb for democracy?'"
Then, it changes again to "Thinking about democracy."

David says WELL, IT'S TEMPTING TO SAY THAT
WE'RE JUST TOO STUPID.
I MEAN, YOU HEAR
THIS ALL THE TIME.
NOW, OF COURSE, PEOPLE ALWAYS
EXEMPT THEMSELVES;
THEY THINK ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE
WHEN THEY SAY THAT.
BUT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS
WE HAVE PHENOMENAL CAPACITY
WHEN WE HAVE THE TRAINING
AND THE OPPORTUNITY
AND THE TIME TO MAKE GOOD
POLITICAL DECISIONS,
BUT WE NEVER DO.
SO, WE MAKE BAD POLITICAL
DECISIONS
IN PART BECAUSE WE'VE
EVOLVED IN SUCH A WAY
THAT THERE ARE
PSYCHOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS
TO WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO
DO IN A GIVEN MOMENT,
BUT ALSO BECAUSE THE WORLD
IN WHICH WE LIVE,
OUR ENVIRONMENT,
ISN'T CONDUCIVE TO MAKING
GOOD POLITICAL DECISIONS.
SO, IF A GOOD
POLITICAL DECISION
TAKES TIME AND REFLECTION
AND SORT OF RATIONALLY
ENGAGING WITH THE WORLD
AND RESOURCES AND THE
ENVIRONMENT CALLS FOR THAT,
WELL, LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE GOT... QUITE THE OPPOSITE, IN FACT.

Nam says WELL, THROUGHOUT THE BOOK,
YOU DO GO INTO SOME OF
THE REASONS WHY WE DO...
WE MAKE THE DECISIONS
THAT WE MAKE,
BUT YOU ALSO TALK ABOUT
YOURSELF A LITTLE BIT,
AND YOU SAY THAT
WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER,
YOU WERE A MEMBER
OF THE LIBERAL PARTY,
AND YOU DESCRIBE
YOURSELF AS A "KEENER."

David says YES. VERY KEEN.

Nam says WHEN I HEAR "KEENER,"
I THINK OF MILHOUSE
FROM
THE SIMPSONS.
(LAUGHING)
BUT SINCE THAT TIME,
YOU SAY THAT YOU'VE
BECOME LESS ENAMOURED
WITH PARTY AFFILIATION.
WHY IS THAT?

The caption changes to "David Moscop. University of Ottawa."

David says WELL, I WAS YOUNG AND KEEN,
AND DEEPLY FASCINATED WITH
PIERRE TRUDEAU AS A FIGURE.
I MEAN, I WAS BORN IN '84,
SO I WAS BORN AROUND
THE TIME HE WAS RETIRING,
BUT I WAS INTERESTED.
AND FOR WHATEVER REASON,
I GOT DRAFTED INTO THE LIBERALS
'CAUSE THEY WERE THERE
AND APPEALING ENOUGH.
I DIDN'T LAST VERY LONG... A COUPLE OF YEARS... AND I LEFT AND DON'T MISS IT.

Nam says WHY DID YOU LEAVE?

David says WELL, I LEFT BECAUSE IT
STARTED TO DAWN ON ME
THAT THE NATURE
OF PARTISAN POLITICS
HAD BECOME TOO MUCH
LIKE A SPORT.
NOW, YOU CAN BE PARTISAN
IN A PRODUCTIVE WAY
AND A PARTISAN IN A
LESS PRODUCTIVE WAY.
IF YOU'RE PARTISAN BECAUSE YOU
HAVE A COHERENT IDEOLOGY... YOU THINK IT'S RIGHT
AND YOU WANT TO BAN TOGETHER
WITH OTHER PEOPLE
TO TRY TO HAVE A COHERENT,
COORDINATED STRATEGY,
AND OFFER PEOPLE AN ALTERNATIVE
THAT THEY CAN LOOK AT AND SAY,
"OKAY, I SEE WHERE THOSE FOLKS
ARE"... THEN THAT'S FINE.
BUT IF IT BECOMES
ABOUT STRATEGY,
TACTICS ABOVE ALL ELSE,
THEN IT'S JUST ABOUT WINNING
FOR THE SAKE OF WINNING
AND MANIPULATING PEOPLE
TO DO IT, TO GET THERE,
WELL, THEN IT'S LESS APPEALING.
AND SO, PARTISANSHIP
IN THE SORT OF A CONTEMPORARY
POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT
HAS BECOME LESS ABOUT
ADVANCING COHERENT POLITICAL
PHILOSOPHIES OR IDEOLOGIES
AND MORE ABOUT TRYING
TO MOBILIZE TACTICS
AND STRATEGIES
TO WIN AT ANY COST.

Nam says WELL, WHEN WE ARE MAKING
THESE POLITICAL DECISIONS
THAT NOT ONLY AFFECT US
INDIVIDUALLY,
BUT COLLECTIVELY AS A SOCIETY,
WHAT SHOULD WE CONSIDER MORE... THE PARTY OR THE PERSON
LEADING THE PARTY?

The caption changes to "David Moscop, @David_Moscop."

David says WELL, I MEAN, NEITHER, IDEALLY.
I MEAN, THE PROBLEM
IS WE TEND TO THINK,
"OKAY, I'M GONNA VOTE
BECAUSE I LIKE THE PARTY,
"I'M GONNA VOTE BECAUSE
I LIKE THE LEADER."
NOW, WE THINK THAT WE'RE DOING...
WE OFTEN THINK WE'RE DOING
SOMETHING RATIONAL.
YOU KNOW,
YOU EITHER EXPECT THE VOTERS
ARE GOING TO GO
AND READ THE MANIFESTOS
WHICH THEY DON'T DO... OR YOU EXPECT THAT THEY HAVE A
COHERENT CONNECTION
THAT'S BASED ON
IDEOLOGY AND POLICY... WHICH THEY SOMETIMES DO
BUT OFTEN DON'T.
SO, IN THE AMERICAN CONTEXT,
THERE WAS A STUDY YEARS AGO
BY PROFESSOR
MARK EVANS AND HIS COLLEAGUE,
AND THEY FOUND THAT A VOTER'S
ASSESSMENT OF THE ECONOMY
WAS DEPENDANT ON WHICH PARTY
THEY PREFERRED. RIGHT?
SO, THEY DIDN'T SAY,
"HOW'S THE ECONOMY DOING?
"OKAY, NOW I'M GONNA
JUDGE THE PRESIDENT."
THEY SAID,
"DO I LIKE THE PRESIDENT?
"OKAY, NOW I'M GONNA
JUDGE THE ECONOMY."
NOW,
THAT HAPPENS IN CANADA, TOO.
PARTISAN AFFILIATION
BECOMES A LENS,
BECOMES PART OF YOUR IDENTITY
AND IT WARPS THE WORLD.
THAT'S AN ISSUE
IF WE EXPECT PEOPLE TO MAKE
GOOD POLITICAL DECISIONS
BASED ON THINGS LIKE
POLICY AND EVIDENCE.

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

Nam says WELL, IN
TOO DUMB
FOR DEMOCRACY?
YOU POINT OUT THAT HUMANS
ARE COGNITIVE MISERS,
WHO USE MENTAL SHORTCUTS.
COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT FOR US?

David says WE'VE EVOLVED TO TRY TO
DO THE MOST, COGNITIVELY,
WITH THE LEAST AMOUNT
OF RESOURCES,
WHICH MAKES SENSE... YOU KNOW,
THERE'S A LOT GOING AROUND,
GOING ON AROUND YOU,
THE WORLD'S COMPLICATED,
THE WORLD'S BUSY, YOU DON'T HAVE
TIME TO SIT DOWN AND JUDGE
AND THINK THROUGH EVERYTHING.
I MEAN, WE WOULDN'T HAVE
SURVIVED AS A SPECIES
IF EVERY TIME YOU HAD
TO MAKE A DECISION,
YOU SAT DOWN AND REFLECTED;
WE WOULD HAVE NEVER MADE
IT OUT OF A FOREST,
WE WOULD HAVE NEVER MADE
IT OUT OF A CAVE,
WE WOULD HAVE NEVER MADE IT
ACROSS... THROUGHOUT A JUNGLE,
OR ACROSS THE SAVANNAH. RIGHT?
WE WOULD HAVE BEEN EATEN ALIVE.
SO, THAT'S THE OLD
EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATION,
THAT, WELL, YOU'VE GOT
TO MAKE QUICK DECISIONS,
AND WE'RE REALLY GOOD AT THAT.
SO, WE ARE COGNITIVE
MISERS IN THE SENSE
THAT WE USE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF
RESOURCES TO REACH A DECISION.
NOW, THAT'S GOOD
FOR SOME THINGS,
LIKE DODGING A CAR THAT'S COMING
AT YOU OUT OF NOWHERE,
OR DECIDING IF YOU WANT
TO TURN LEFT OR RIGHT,
OR IF YOU WANT SPAGHETTI
OR SALAD.
IT'S LESS GOOD WHEN
YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE
A COMPLICATED
POLITICAL DECISION.

Nam says SO, A LOT OF THE TIMES,
WE KIND OF GO ON AUTOPILOT.
COGNITIVE AUTOPILOT.

David says AND PART OF THE CORRECTIVE,
PART OF MAKING BETTER
POLITICAL DECISIONS,
IS KICKING YOURSELF OFF OF
COGNITIVE AUTOPILOT.

Nam says WHICH IS HARD TO DO.

David says WHICH IS VERY HARD TO DO.

Nam says WELL, IN
TOO DUMB
FOR DEMOCRACY?,
YOU WRITE...

A quote appears on screen, under the title "A marvellous thing?" The quote reads "ONE OF THE MARVELLOUS THINGS ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS IS OUR ABILITY TO LOOK AT THE WORLD AS IT IS AND IMAGINE IT OTHERWISE. SEEING A STONE AND IMAGINING IT AS A STONE AXE FOR SHAPING THE WORLD AROUND YOU IS DIFFERENT FROM SEEING A GROUP OF PEOPLE AND IMAGINING A SYSTEM IN WHICH THEY HAVE INALIENABLE RIGHTS AND IN WHICH THEY, AND YOU, ARE EXPECTED TO TAKE PART IN DECIDING HOW TO LIVE TOGETHER. LIBERAL DEMOCRACY REQUIRES AND EXPECTS CERTAIN THINGS FROM ITS CITIZENS... SUCH AS THE ABILITY TO MAKE AUTONOMOUS AND RATIONAL DECISIONS... THAT WE TEND TO UNDER-DELIVER ON OR FAIL TO DELIVER AT ALL."
Quoted from David Moscop, "Too dumb for democracy?" 2019

Nam says WHY DO WE TEND TO UNDER-DELIVER?

The caption changes to "Why we under-deliver."

David says WELL, IN PART,
IT'S OVER-PROMISING
OR OVER-EXPECTING AS WELL.
SO, THE WHOLE BOOK PROJECT
CAME OUT OF MY DISSERTATION
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA.
AND WHEN I WAS
READING ABOUT DEMOCRACY
AND DEMOCRATIC DELIBERATION,
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY,
I CAME ACROSS A
BIT OF A PUZZLE... WE HAVE THESE HIGH
STANDARDS FOR OURSELVES,
OF WHO WE EXPECT
OURSELVES TO BE... RATIONAL, AUTONOMOUS, CAREFUL
THINKERS, CRITICAL THINKERS... AND WE HOLD THIS UP
AS THE IDEAL.
BUT THERE WERE JUST DECADES
AND DECADES AND DECADES
OF LITERATURE FROM PSYCHOLOGY,
SOCIOLOGY, ANTHROPOLOGY,
THAT SAID,
"THAT'S NOT WHO WE ARE.
"THAT MIGHT BE WHO WE THINK WE
ARE
"OR WHO WE WANT TO BE,
BUT THAT'S NOT WHO WE ARE."
SO, HOW DO WE GET THERE, RIGHT?
SO, WE UNDER-DELIVER BECAUSE
WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW,
NECESSARILY BUILT FOR THAT
ANY MORE THAN WE'RE BUILT
FOR HITTING A FASTBALL
OUT OF THE WOMB.

NAM SAYS I'M GUESSING A LOT OF PEOPLE
DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT, THOUGH.

David says WELL, WHAT'S FUNNY IS WHEN I...
YEARS AGO, I DID AN EPISODE
OF
CBC IDEAS
AND IT WAS CALLED "TOO DUMB
FOR DEMOCRACY" FULL-STOP,
AND IT AIRED AND IT AIRS TO
QUITE A FEW PEOPLE,
AND I WOKE UP THE NEXT DAY
THINKING, "I'M IN TROUBLE."

Nam says RIGHT.

David says I'M GONNA HEAR
FROM PEOPLE NOW."
AND I STARTED TO HEAR FROM
PEOPLE AND EVERYONE SAID,
"LOVE THE TITLE.
ABSOLUTELY AGREE."
AND THEN THEY WOULD SAY,
"I KNOW EXACTLY WHO YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT."

Nam says NOT MYSELF.

David says NO. IT'S MY NEIGHBOUR,
MY DENTIST, MY DOCTOR,
MY SPOUSE.
RIGHT.
SO, PEOPLE,
THEY'RE OPEN TO HEARING THIS.
NOW, THE PROBLEM
IS GETTING THEM TO REALIZE
THAT IT'S THEM
I'M TALKING ABOUT
AND THAT IT'S A PROBLEM THAT
OUGHT TO BE ADDRESSED.
AND I INCLUDE MYSELF.
I DON'T EXEMPT MYSELF FROM ANY
OF THE CRITIQUES OF THE BOOK.
IN FACT, I SPEND A LOT OF TIME
IN THE BOOK TALKING ABOUT
HOW I'M PART OF THE PROBLEM.
AND SO, THE TRICKY THING IS
CONVINCING PEOPLE
THAT IT'S A PROBLEM
THAT'S WORTH SOLVING.

NAM SAYS AND HOW DO YOU DO THAT?

David says WELL, I START BY SAYING
WE COULD LOSE EVERYTHING.
WE THINK THAT DEMOCRACY
AND CIVILIZATION
AS IT HAS EVOLVED AND DEVELOPED
IS AN ACHIEVEMENT THAT,
ONCE UNLOCKED, IS FOREVER OURS,
AS IF WE COULDN'T
POSSIBLY LOSE IT.
BUT THE HISTORY OF DEMOCRACY
AND THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION
IS A HISTORY OF COLLAPSE
AS MUCH AS IT IS A HISTORY
OF ANYTHING ELSE.
SO, I TRY TO MAKE
THE CASE IN THE BOOK
THAT WE COULD LOSE EVERYTHING,
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU FACE DOWN
CHALLENGES LIKE CLIMATE CHANGE.
ARE WE REALLY PREPARED TO
DEAL WITH CLIMATE CHANGE?
ARE WE REALLY PREPARED TO DEAL
WITH THE CHANGING WORLD ORDER?
I'M NOT SURE THAT WE ARE,
BUT WE CAN PREPARE
OURSELVES TO BE,
IF WE TAKE GOOD POLITICAL
DECISION-MAKING MORE SERIOUSLY.

The caption changes to "Losing it."

Nam says IN THE GREEN ROOM,
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT
WE LIVE IN SUCH A UNIQUE TIME
BECAUSE WE HAVE A DIFFERENT
COMPONENT TO DEAL WITH,
WHICH THE INFORMATION
THAT WE'RE GETTING ONLINE.
AND YOU WRITE THAT
POLITICAL ADVERTISING
THAT MANIPULATES OUR EMOTIONS
IS STANDARD PRACTICE
AND THE INTERNET IS HOME
TO NEW AND FRIGHTENING WAYS
OF LEADING VOTERS ASTRAY.
DO YOU SEE A WAY TO COMBAT THIS
TREND IN ORDER TO PROTECT US
FROM MAKING EVEN WORSE
POLITICAL DECISIONS?

David says I MEAN, I DO.
I MEAN, THERE IS, I THINK,
AT LEAST AN APPROACH TOWARDS A
SOLUTION AND IT'S NECESSARY.
I THINK WE UNDERESTIMATE
THE DEGREE TO WHICH
OUR INFORMATION SPACE
HAS BEEN POLLUTED
AND WILL BECOME
EVEN MORE POLLUTED.
SO, THINK ABOUT DEEP FAKES,
THIS IDEA THAT YOU CAN
USE A TECHNOLOGY, AI,
TO EFFECTIVELY DOCTOR VIDEO
SO CONVINCINGLY
THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE
TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE
THE ACTUALLY POLITICIAN SPEAKING
AND THE DOCTORED VIDEO,
OR WHOMEVER IT MAY BE, CELEBRITY
OR WHOMEVER IT MAY BE.
SO, THAT'S GOING TO BE PAR FOR
THE COURSE SOON ENOUGH.
QUESTION IS,
"OKAY, WHAT DO YOU DO?"
YOU'VE GOT FAKE NEWS,
YOU'VE GOT MISINFORMATION,
YOU'VE GOT DISINFORMATION,
YOU'VE GOT BOTS,
YOU'VE GOT DEEP FAKES.
HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THAT?
WELL, PART OF IT IS
CREATING A MEDIA SPACE
WHERE THERE ARE GOOD,
RELIABLE SOURCES OF INFORMATION
THAT PEOPLE TRUST AND CAN GO TO
'CAUSE THEY KNOW THAT
IT'S NOT GONNA COME FROM TVO,
IT'S NOT GONNA COME FROM YOU,
IT'S NOT GONNA COME FROM ME.
PART OF IT IS ALSO GETTING
SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES,
WHO ARE PURVEYORS OF THIS... THEY ARE...
THEY DON'T LIKE TO BE CALLED
PUBLISHERS OR BROADCASTERS,
BUT THEY SERVE THAT FUNCTION.
PART OF THE PROBLEM IS GETTING
THEM TO TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY,
TO SAY, "WE'RE GONNA MAKE SURE
WE KNOW WHERE THE LINE IS
"AND WE POLICE IT,
"SO THE INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT
DOESN'T BECOME TOO POLLUTED."
BUT THEN, A HUGE PART
OF IT IS ALSO INDIVIDUALS
DEVELOPING CAPACITIES
AND SKILLS,
SO THAT THEY CAN DETECT AND
MANAGE THIS STUFF, RIGHT?
SO, YOU SORT OF DEAL
WITH IT ON THE SUPPLY SIDE,
BUT YOU ALSO DEAL WITH IT
ON THE DEMAND SIDE.

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

Nam says SO, WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE INTERNET,
BUT BEFORE THE INTERNET,
WE WOULD GET COMMERCIALS
ON TELEVISION.
CAN YOU TELL US
ABOUT THE FACE AD
THAT WAS USED IN THE 1993
CANADIAN FEDERAL ELECTION
AND WHAT IT TELLS US
ABOUT EMOTION TARGETED
POLITICAL ADVERTISING?

David says YEAH. SO, THIS WAS,
YOU KNOW, AN INFAMOUS AD
RUN BY THE TORIES
AGAINST JEAN CHRÉTIEN
IN THE '93 FEDERAL ELECTION,
AND IT SHOWED HIM,
A PHOTO OF HIM,
AN UNFLATTERING PHOTO OF HIM
THAT SORT OF EMPHASIZED
NERVE DAMAGE IN HIS FACE.
AS A RESULT OF AN ILLNESS,
OF BELL'S PALSY.
NOW, THERE WERE SOME SORT OF
OMINOUS OVERLAY... YOU KNOW, "IS THIS A LEADER?"
RIGHT?
WHICH POLITICAL
ADS ARE INFAMOUS FOR.
WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO
IS TAKE SOME UTTERLY
IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATION,
WHICH WAS HIS APPEARANCE,
AND TIE IT TO SOMETHING THAT WAS
RELEVANT... HIS COMPETENCY.
IT WAS DIRTY POOL,
IT WAS A LOW BLOW,
BUT IT WAS TRYING TO CREATE
AN EMOTIONAL ASSOCIATION
TO GET YOU TO JUDGE HIM
AS DISTRUSTFUL
OR INCOMPETENT.
BUT IT BACKFIRED ON THE TORIES.
IT WAS WIDELY SEEN
AS INAPPROPRIATE
AND THEY PULLED IT IMMEDIATELY.

Nam says BUT IN THE BOOK,
YOU SAY THAT
SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT IF
THEY HADN'T PULLED IT,
IT MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE WORKED.

David says YEAH. SO, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A
BATTLE BETWEEN PEOPLE'S DISGUST,
BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE DISGUSTED,
RIGHTFULLY SO, BY THE AD,
BUT ALSO BY THEIR SORT OF
EMOTIONAL CONNECTION
TO THE MESSAGE.
SO, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
A REAL CHALLENGE
TO THOSE COMPETING
EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENTS.
BUT THAT TAKES TIME.
SO, I MEAN, IT REVEALS
A COUPLE THINGS... THAT WE HAVE EMOTIONS
THAT ARE COMBATIVE WITHIN US,
THAT IT TAKES TIME SOMETIMES TO
ESTABLISH THOSE NARRATIVES,
BUT ALSO THAT EMOTIONAL
APPEALS CAN BACKFIRE ON YOU
IF YOU'RE NOT TOO CAREFUL.
PARTIES ARE GETTING PRETTY
GOOD AT THEM SO FAR,
BUT THEY CERTAINLY CAN BACKFIRE.

Nam says WELL, YOU GO DEEPER IN THE BOOK
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE
AMERICAN ELECTION IN 2016
WITH HILLARY CLINTON
AND DONALD TRUMP
AND HILLARY'S EMAILS.
BUT THERE'S ALSO
RECENTLY IN THE NEWS,
WE'VE SEEN A VIDEO OF
SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI AND...
APPEARING TO BE DRUNK.
WHAT CONNECTION DO YOU SEE
BETWEEN THE FACE AD
AND THAT RECENT VIDEO
WITH NANCY PELOSI?

David says WELL, I MEAN, THE FACE AD
WAS ATTEMPTING TO DO THE SAME
THING AS THE PELOSI VIDEO,
WHICH WAS TO SORT OF...
TO MANIPULATE PEOPLE
INTO JUDGING SOMEONE
AS UNFIT TO LEAD
BECAUSE OF SOMETHING
UTTERLY IRRELEVANT
TO THE QUESTION AT HAND.
BUT THE PELOSI VIDEO
IS MORE FRIGHTENING
BECAUSE IT WAS EFFECTIVELY
A DOCTORED AND EDITED VIDEO.
THE TECHNOLOGY HAS...
YOU KNOW, SINCE 1993,
BETWEEN 1993 AND 2019,
THE TECHNOLOGY'S MUCH BETTER.
WE CAN PRODUCE FAR MORE
COMPELLING MANIPULATIVE VIDEOS
AND VIDEO CLIPS IN 2019
THAN IN 1993.
SO, IT'S THE SAME
PROBLEM EFFECTIVELY,
BUT THE TECHNOLOGY
IS MORE EFFECTIVE,
BUT ALSO THE DISTRIBUTION
NETWORK IS MORE EFFECTIVE.
YOU CAN GO AND SEE
THE PELOSI THING STILL,
WHETHER OR NOT ANYBODY
WANTS YOU TO SEE IT.
THE TORIES PULLED THE AD
IN '93 AND THAT WAS IT,
THERE WAS NOWHERE
TO GO WATCH IT.
TODAY, YOU COULD
WATCH THOSE VIDEOS
OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
IN FACT, YOU MIGHT NOT EVEN KNOW
THAT THEY WERE PULLED.

Nam says MM-HMM.
I THINK... 'CAUSE WE DO TALK
ABOUT IT A LOT IN THE NEWS,
I THINK SOME PEOPLE
MIGHT BE OKAY WITH THAT.
THEY MIGHT KNOW THAT
THAT VIDEO IS DOCTORED.
SO, WHAT IF WE ARE FINE WITH
THE RESULTS OF OUR BEHAVIOUR,
EVEN IF WE KNOW THAT WE'RE BEING
MANIPULATED IN THE PROCESS?

David says WE OFTEN ARE.
WE OFTEN ARE.
AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN OLD
LINE ATTRIBUTED TO MARK TWAIN
THAT A LIE GETS
HALFWAY AROUND THE WORLD
BEFORE THE TRUTH HAS A CHANCE
TO PUT ITS PANTS ON.
SO, THAT'S PROBLEM ONE, IS THAT
THE LIE IS PERSISTENT AND RAPID.
BUT PROBLEM TWO IS
THE ONE YOU IDENTIFY... WELL, WHAT IF PEOPLE
FIGURE OUT THAT IT'S A LIE
BUT JUST DON'T CARE?
AND THAT'S OFTEN THE CASE
BECAUSE WE AREN'T NECESSARILY
DRIVEN OR INCENTIVIZED
OR MOTIVATED TO GET THE RIGHT
ANSWER OR THE TRUTHFUL ANSWER.
WE'RE OFTEN MOTIVATED
OR INCENTIVIZED
TO GET AN ANSWER WE CAN LIVE
WITH OR THAT WE LIKE
OR RECONFIRMS OR
CONFIRMS, RATHER,
OUR PRE-EXISTING BIASES.
NOW, THAT'S THE PROBLEM,
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM
OF POLITICS,
IS THAT OFTEN
WE WON'T CARE ABOUT THINGS
WE OUGHT TO BE CARING ABOUT
BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO
SATISFY A DIFFERENT URGE
OR A DIFFERENT NEED.
SO, ONE OF THE THINGS I'M
ARGUING FOR THE BOOK
IS A RETURN TO...
OR ACTUALLY TO SAY A TURN TO... I'M NOT CONVINCED
WE WERE EVER THERE... TO A DEEPER AND RATIONAL
REFLECTIVE POLITICS
THAT SAYS, "LOOK, THERE'S A
SPACE FOR EMOTION,
"BUT YOU SHOULD BE AWARE
OF WHAT THAT EMOTION IS,
"YOU SHOULD PUT IT ON THE TABLE,
YOU SHOULD ENGAGE WITH IT,
"RATHER THAN JUST
SETTLING FOR, YOU KNOW,
"THE SORT OF CONFIRMATION OF
YOUR PREJUDICES."

Nam says TO GO BACK IN THE BOOK,
YOU DISCUSS A STUDY
THAT POLLED AMERICANS
ON WHETHER OR NOT
THEY SUPPORTED GOVERNMENT
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS,
AND YOU POINT OUT THAT...

Another quote from the book appears on screen, under the title "Thinking back(ward)." The quote reads "POLITICAL SCIENTIST PAUL SNIDERMAN AND HIS COLLEAGUES FOUND THAT THE EXPLANATIONS
THAT PEOPLE WERE GIVING FOR THEIR SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO SOCIAL ASSISTANCE TO AFRICAN AMERICANS WAS BASED ON RATIONALIZATION RATHER THAN REASONING. WHAT THE STUDY SUBJECTS WERE
DOING WAS REASONING BACKWARDS. THOSE WHOSE OPINIONS WERE DRIVEN BY AFFECT WOULD IMMEDIATELY REACH A CONCLUSION WITHOUT REALLY
THINKING ABOUT IT, AND THEN DOUBLE BACK TO FILL IN THE MIDDLE BITS BASED ON HOW WE EXPECT PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT POLITICAL ISSUES... BY PROVIDING EVIDENCE, THINKING CRITICALLY, AND SO FORTH."

Nam says A FEW THINGS TO ASK
ABOUT THAT PASSAGE.
FIRST OFF, WHAT IS MEANT BY
"PEOPLE WHO WERE
DRIVEN BY AFFECT"?

The caption changes to "Getting it backwards."

David says SO, WE OFTEN THINK OF OURSELVES
AS PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH
RATIONALITY AND REASONING.
COLLECTING INFORMATION
ABOUT THE WORLD,
ASSESSING THE EVIDENCE,
AND SO, OF LOGICALLY
COMING TO A CONCLUSION.
A LOT OF THE TIME, WE'RE
JUST DRIVEN BY EMOTION.
"I LIKE THIS, I DISLIKE THIS,
I'M DISGUSTED BY THIS,
"I'M ATTRACTED TO THIS,"
WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE.
AND SO, THAT'S
THE AFFECTIVE CONNECTION,
SO APPROACH OR AVOID
BASED ON ALL KINDS OF
DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS,
OFTEN PREJUDICIAL EITHER TOWARD
OR AGAINST, WHATEVER IT MAY BE.
SO, RATHER THAN SORT OF
RATIONALLY CONSIDERING SOMETHING
AND REASONING THROUGH,
WE WILL LET OUR GUTS
DO THE THINKING FOR US.

NAM SAYS AND THAT'S THINKING
BACKWARDS, REASONING BACKWARDS?

David says WELL, THEN COMES
THE REASONING BACKWARDS.
SO, SAY I REACH A CONCLUSION
THAT... I DON'T KNOW...
I LIKE PRODUCT X,
I DON'T KNOW WHY,
BUT THEN SOMEONE SAYS,
"WELL, WHY?"
WELL, I MIGHT FEEL
PRESSURE TO EXPLAIN WHY
AND I SAY, "WELL, YOU KNOW,
THE NUTRITIONAL VALUE
"AND I LIKE THE NUTRITIONAL
VALUE,
AND I REALLY BELIEVE
IN THE COMPANY,"
AND WE'RE GONNA WANT
TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER
THAT'S RATIONAL AND COHERENT.
BUT THE TRUTH IS SOMETIMES
YOU JUST LIKE THINGS
OR DON'T LIKE THINGS,
AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
REASONS THAT YOU CAN ACCESS.
NOW, WHEN YOU DO THAT IN
POLITICS, YOU GET PEOPLE SAYING,
"I'M A LIBERAL,
I'M A CONSERVATIVE,
I'M A NEW DEMOCRAT,
I'M A GREEN."
AND YOU SAY, "WELL, WHY?"
THEY DON'T ALWAYS KNOW.
THEY OFTEN DON'T KNOW.
BUT THEY FEEL LIKE THEY NEED TO
GIVE YOU AN ANSWER,
SO THEY'LL WORK BACKWARDS
FROM THEIR CONCLUSION
TO TRY TO RATIONALIZE IT WITH
ALL KINDS OF REASONS.
THE PROBLEM
IS OFTEN THOSE REASONS
ARE COMPLETELY FABRICATED
OR INCOHERENT.

Nam says AND HOW DOES THAT EFFECT
OUR POLITICAL DECISIONS?

David says WELL, IT MEANS
WE MIGHT NOT BE GETTING
WHAT WE THINK WE'RE GETTING.
WE MIGHT BE EXPECTING ONE THING
OR TRYING TO PURSUE
ONE THING BUT GET ANOTHER.
IT MEANS THAT WE'RE
VERY EASY TO MANIPULATE,
AND IT MEANS WE'RE VERY SLOW TO
CHANGE OUR MINDS IN MANY CASES,
AND IT ALSO MEANS
THAT IT MAKES IT TOUGH
TO SIT DOWN AND HAVE A
CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE
BECAUSE SOMEONE WANTS
TO CHANGE YOUR MIND
OR THEY WANT TO BE
THEMSELVES CONVINCED
OR THEY WANT TO UNDERSTAND
AND YOUR SITTING THERE
EFFECTIVELY LYING TO YOURSELF
AND THE OTHER PERSON
BACK AND FORTH.

Nam says IT'S REALLY HARD, THOUGH,
TO LOOK AT YOURSELF
AND SAY,
"HOW I'M THINKING IS WRONG."
OR "I SHOULD MAYBE
TAKE A DIFFERENT APPROACH."
IT'S REALLY HARD
TO DO THAT, ISN'T IT?

David says IT IS,
BUT WHEN PEOPLE DO LEARN
ABOUT THESE THINGS,
THEY DO START TO CHANGE AND THEY
DO HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO CHANGE.
SO, YOU KNOW,
AT THE FINAL THIRD OF THE BOOK
I TALK ABOUT A LITTLE PROGRAM
FOR SELF-ASSESSING, DOING BETTER
AND JUST KNOWING THAT THESE
COGNITIVE BIASES EXIST,
JUST KNOWING THAT WE'RE
COGNITIVE MISERS
OR THAT WE'RE RATIONALIZERS
OR MOTIVATED REASONERS
OR WHATEVER, KNOWING THAT THOSE
POTHOLES ARE ON THE ROAD
MAKES IT ACTUALLY MUCH
EASIER FOR US TO AVOID.
SO, PART ONE IS REALIZING
THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM.

Nam says WELL, YOU POINT OUT
THAT MANY PEOPLE
ARE MORE FLEXIBLE AND REASONABLE
ON POLITICAL ISSUES
THAN WE TEND TO ASSUME.
HOW DO WE TAP
INTO THIS FLEXIBILITY
IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE GOOD
POLITICAL DECISION-MAKING?

The caption changes to "Walking toward better outcomes."

David says SO, I MEAN, THERE'S
THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DO
AND THINGS I THINK
GOVERNMENTS SHOULD DO.
THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH
OF THINGS WE SHOULD DO,
SO, OFF THE TOP
OF MY HEAD, YOU KNOW,
SURROUNDING YOURSELF WITH PEOPLE
WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU
IN GOOD FAITH, WHO AREN'T
DISAGREEABLE BUT WHO DISAGREE
IS A GREAT WAY TO START.
TAKING A LITTLE BIT
OF TIME EVERY DAY
TO ACTUALLY THINK ABOUT THIS
STUFF... 20 MINUTES,
YOU KNOW, THE LENGTH OF A SITCOM
OR A SHOW YOU MIGHT BE BINGING
ON A STREAMING SERVICE.
FINDING, YOU KNOW,
SOURCES THAT YOU TRUST,
BUT HAVING A VARIETY OF THEM,
SO YOU'RE NOT JUST GOING BACK TO
THE SAME WELL EVERY DAY.
AND KNOWING THAT
THERE ARE PROBLEMS,
LIKE THE SORT OF PROBLEMS
THAT I DISCUSS IN THE BOOK,
JUST KNOWING THAT THESE
ARE CHALLENGES.
ALL OF THAT IS
A GREAT WAY TO START
ADDRESSING
SOME OF THOSE PROBLEMS.
ON THE GOVERNMENT'S SIDE,
WE NEED OPPORTUNITIES TO
PRACTICE THIS IN REAL LIFE... THINGS LIKE CITIZENS'
ASSEMBLIES,
PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING,
SUBSTANTIVE MEETINGS BETWEEN
POLITICIANS AND INDIVIDUALS,
CITIZENS,
NOT JUST SORT OF TOWN HALLS,
WHERE EVERYONE'S RALLYING
AROUND THE PARTY FLAG.

Nam says AND YOU EVEN SUGGEST MAKING...
MAKING US HAVE TO VOTE,
LIKE, YOU HAVE TO VOTE BY LAW.

David says OH, I STRONGLY SUPPORT
MANDATORY VOTING,
BUT LESS BECAUSE OF CITIZENS
AND MORE BECAUSE IT FORCES
POLITICAL PARTIES
TO TRY TO APPEAL TO EVERYONE
'CAUSE, RIGHT NOW,
POLITICAL PARTIES CAN
MICRO TARGET... THEY CAN TRY TO
MOBILIZE THIS GROUP,
BUT DEMOBILIZE THAT GROUP.
WITH MANDATORY VOTING,
THOSE INCENTIVES CHANGE.

Nam says YOU DO TALK ABOUT INSTITUTIONS,
GOVERNMENT BEING AN INSTITUTION.
ANOTHER ONE THAT YOU TALK ABOUT
IS THE ONE THAT WE'RE IN... THE MEDIA.
AND I THINK THE MEDIA,
UM, YOU KNOW,
FINDS ITSELF IN
A UNIQUE POSITION
THAT IT'S PROBABLY
BEEN IN THE PAST.
BUT HOW CAN WE, THE MEDIA,
DO A BETTER JOB
OF HELPING PEOPLE
MAKE BETTER POLITICAL DECISIONS
WITHOUT US GETTING OUR
BACKS UP AGAINST THE WALL?

David says YEAH, I MEAN, I CONSIDER MYSELF
PART OF THE PROBLEM HERE
AND PART OF
THE SOLUTION AS WELL.
I MEAN, I'M A COLUMNIST,
I WRITE LONG FORM PIECES,
I DO TV AND RADIO
AND SHOWS LIKE THIS,
SO I'M IN THE ECOSYSTEM AND I
UNDERSTAND THE SORT OF...
THE INCENTIVES AND
THE PRESSURES ARE TO BE QUICK,
TO BE APPEALING,
TO GET THE SORT OF
CLICKBAITY HEADLINE,
TO BE PROVOCATIVE,
TO PUSH BACK AGAINST CRITIQUE
IN A STYLISH WAY... YOU KNOW, THAT GETS
AWARDED WITH ATTENTION... AND TO BE FAST.
NONE OF THOSE ARE
PARTICULARLY GOOD
FOR MAKING GOOD
POLITICAL DECISIONS.
YOU KNOW, THE GOAL SHOULD
BE "HOW DO I TAKE THE TIME
"TO HELP PEOPLE
UNDERSTAND SOMETHING?
"HOW DO I PROVIDE THE RESOURCES
"FOR SOMEONE TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT'S GOING ON AROUND THEM?
"HOW DO I PROVIDE THE TOOLKIT
"FOR THEM TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT'S GOING AROUND THEM?"
THAT OFTEN MEANS SLOWING DOWN,
IT MEANS WRITING
VERY ACCURATE HEADLINES,
IT MEANS DEEPLY
RESEARCHING PIECES,
TALKING TO A VARIETY OF SOURCES,
AND NOT JUST PULLING THE QUOTE
THAT MIGHT, YOU KNOW,
BE THE SEXIEST QUOTE OR
THE MOST SHOW-WORTHY A QUOTE,
BUT PERHAPS THE MOST ACCURATE
AND BEST REPRESENTATION
OF WHAT SOMEONE BELIEVES.
BUT THAT'S HARD TO DO.
I MEAN, IT'S EASY TO SAY
THE MEDIA SHOULD DO THAT,
BUT IN ANY ERA, IT'S TRICKY,
AND IN THIS ERA... OF A
CHANGING MEDIA LANDSCAPE
AND DIMINISHING RESOURCES... IT'S VERY,
VERY DIFFICULT INDEED.
SO, THEN IT FALLS BACK ON
CITIZENS TO SUPPORT THE MEDIA,
SO THAT THEY CAN DO
THE WORK THEY NEED TO DO
AND GOVERNMENTS
TO SUPPORT THE MEDIA,
SO THAT THEY CAN DO THE WORK
THAT THEY CAN DO,
BECAUSE, AGAIN,
IF NOT, IT RISKS CONTRIBUTING
TO BROADER PROBLEMS
LIKE THE ONES WE WERE
TALKING EARLIER.

Nam says I'M JUST LISTENING BACK
ON OUR CONVERSATION
AND I WONDER IS
DEMOCRACY IN PART TO BLAME
FOR US MAKING BAD
POLITICAL DECISIONS?

David says PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT.
I MEAN, I OPEN THE BOOK WITH...
IT'S SUCH A CLICHÉ,
BUT I OPEN THE BOOK WITH
THAT CHURCHILL QUOTE
THAT DEMOCRACY IS
THE WORST FORM OF GOVERNMENT
EXCEPT FOR ALL THE OTHERS
THAT HAVE BEEN
TRIED FROM TIME TO TIME.
IT'S A CLICHÉ, BUT IT'S TRUE.
ULTIMATELY, DEMOCRACY IS
A GOOD POLITICAL SYSTEM
BECAUSE IT MORE OR LESS HELPS
PEOPLE GET WHAT THEY WANT,
IT PROVIDES ACCOUNTABILITY.
BUT IT ALSO MEANS
THAT POLITICIANS
AND CITIZENS GET
TO GET AWAY WITH A LOT.
AND THE WAY THAT
WE PRACTICE DEMOCRACY
MIGHT NOT BE THE
PRACTICE IT, RIGHT?
I MEAN, WE'RE
SO REMOVED FROM IT.
WE ELECT SOMEONE EVER FOUR
YEARS, FIVE YEARS,
AND THEN WE DON'T REALLY
THINK ABOUT IT DAY TO DAY.
IT'S NOT A
PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY.
AND THEN, OF COURSE, IT'S NOT
SUPPORTED BY DEMOCRATIZED
INSTITUTIONS OUTSIDE
OF POLITICS.
SO, FOR INSTANCE,
THE ECONOMY.
SO, IT MAKES IT VERY HARD FOR
EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE
IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES
OR THE SKILLSET
OR THE TIME TO DO SO.
SO, THE SORT OF VARIETY OF
LIBERAL DEMOCRACY
THAT WE PRACTICE IS A REAL
HANDS-OFF VERSION.
MY CONTENTION IN THE BOOK
IS THAT
THAT DOES CONTRIBUTE TO BAD
POLITICAL DECISION-MAKING,
BUT IT'S ALSO INSUFFICIENT
TO ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES
THAT ARE COMING,
THAT WE NEED TO
DOUBLE-DOWN ON DEMOCRACY.
HAVE A MORE INCLUSIVE
AND PARTICIPATORY VERSION OF IT.

Nam says AND YOU SAY THAT THE CURE
FOR THE ILLS OF DEMOCRACY
IS MORE DEMOCRACY.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

David says SO, THERE'S A MOMENT RIGHT NOW... WE'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE,
BUT WE'RE DEFINITELY BACK... OF SORT OF
AUTHORITARIAN POPULISM... THE SORT OF BOLSONARO, TRUMP,
BREXIT, BORIS JOHNSON.
AND THEN, ON THE OTHER HAND,
A RISE OF TECHNOCRACY,
OF SORT OF,
"LET THE EXPERTS DECIDE.
"WE'LL JUST LIVE OUR LIVES."
BOTH OF THOSE SAY,
"LET'S PULL AWAY FROM
DEMOCRACY," RIGHT?
"LET'S NOT TRUST
CITIZENS TOO MUCH."
EVEN THE POPULISTS DON'T
REALLY TRUST CITIZENS.
THEY'RE GONNA TELL THEM WHAT
THEY THINK MORE THAN REFLECT IT.
AND THE TECHNOCRATS,
THEY DON'T CARE AT ALL,
THEY JUST WANT
THE EXPERTS TO GOVERN.
NOW, WE MIGHT SAY, GIVEN THE
PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE FACING,
"WE'LL GO THIS WAY OR THAT WAY,
BUT WE DON'T WANT TO INVOLVE
"ORDINARY, DAY-TO-DAY CITIZENS
TOO, TOO MUCH MORE
"IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS
BECAUSE WE CAN'T TRUST THEM.
"AND HEY, LOOK,
"DAVE'S JUST OUTLINED
ALL THESE THINGS IN HIS BOOK,
"ALL THESE REASONS
WHY WE SHOULDN'T,"
WHICH IS EXACTLY
THE WRONG CONCLUSION.
WE'RE AT A MOMENT WHEN DEMOCRACY
IS UNDER THREAT
AND WE COULD LOSE IT.
THAT'S THE MOMENT
WE SHOULD BRING ORDINARY
CITIZENS INTO THE PROCESS
MORE THAN THEY HAVE EVER
BEEN IN THIS PROCESS BEFORE,
TO GIVE THEM THE SPACE,
THE TIME,
THE RESOURCES TO TAKE PART,
TO BUILD CIVIC SKILLS,
TO LEARN HOW TO NAVIGATE
THE MEDIA SPACE,
TO COMMUNICATE TO POLITICIANS
WHAT THEY WANT
AND WHY THEY WANT IT,
AND TO TRUST IN THE SYSTEM,
SO THAT WHEN THE WORST ARRIVES... OF, SAY, CLIMATE CHANGE,
OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE... WE'RE PREPARED TO RESIST THAT
BECAUSE IT'S OUR SYSTEM...
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S DONE
TO US, IT'S SOMETHING WE DO.

Nam says WELL, AS YOU KNOW,
THERE'S A FEDERAL ELECTION
IN JUST A FEW SHORT MONTHS.
IN YOUR VIEW, DO YOU THINK
WE'RE BETTER OFF WITH MINORITY
GOVERNMENTS OR MAJORITIES?

David says WELL, I'M DEEPLY BIASED AND I
RECOGNIZE THE BIAS... I HAVE A FONDNESS FOR
MINORITY GOVERNMENTS.
BUT I'LL TRY TO REASON,
NOT RATIONALIZE.
I'LL TRY TO REASON
MY WAY THROUGH IT.
MINORITY GOVERNMENTS FORCE
POLITICAL PARTIES
TO COOPERATE DAY-TO-DAY
IN THE LEGISLATURE
WITH AT LEAST ONE OTHER PARTY,
SOMETIMES TWO OR EVEN THREE.
IT MAKES THEM VULNERABLE,
SO EVERY DAY, THEY HAVE TO GO
OUT AND THEY HAVE TO EARN IT.
THEY CAN'T DOG IT. EVERY DAY,
THEY'VE GOT TO LEAVE
IT ALL ON THE FIELD.
SO, IT FORCES...
NOW, ANYONE WHO'S LIVED THROUGH
A MINORITY GOVERNMENT
WILL TELL YOU IT'S AWFUL;
THEY'RE EXHAUSTED ALL THE TIME,
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT,
BUT GOOD, IT SHOULD BE.
BECAUSE THE OTHER THING IT DOES
IS IT FORCES PARTIES
TO CONSIDER THINGS
THEY WOULD OTHERWISE
NEVER CONSIDER,
AND THEY END UP BEING REMARKABLY
PRODUCTIVE IN CREATIVE MOMENTS,
AND I'LL GIVE
THE GREATEST EXAMPLE... LESTER B. PEARSON'S GOVERNMENT
BETWEEN 1963 AND 1968,
WHEN WE GOT CPP, MEDICARE,
THE FLAG, THE AUTO PACT,
ALL KINDS OF NICE THINGS.
WE COULD BE HEADED TOWARDS THAT.
WE COULD BE HEADED TOWARDS A
REMARKABLY CREATIVE TIME
IN CANADIAN POLITICS AND
PRODUCTIVE TIME,
AND I THINK WE COULD USE IT.

The caption changes to "Producer: Gregg Thurlbeck, @GreggThurlbeck."

Nam says DAVID, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THIS IS SUCH A FANTASTIC BOOK
AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL
COME BACK ONTO THE SHOW
BECAUSE WE'VE GOT SO MUCH MORE
TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT.

David says OH, MY PLEASURE. ANY TIME.

Nam says AND GOOD LUCK
ON THE SECOND BOOK.

David says THANK YOU.

Watch: Can We Make Good Political Decisions?