tv Former UN Amb. Samantha Power Remarks on Public Service CSPAN October 3, 2019 4:04pm-5:36pm EDT
at we found in 2016, the dumping of emails and change inthe threshold of media reporting. ordinarily if the press got a tip that someone in the clinton foundation said something mean about chelsea run with that. it is idle gossip. but because -- >> 20 minutes left in this conversation. you can watch in its entirety. we go to the willard hotel in washington, d.c., for remarks by samantha power and talking about democratic versus authoritarian. introduction is under way. you are watching live coverage. >> joined members of his family who has been supported of this. haven't seen more on mrs. moynihan is here.
she is patrick's daughter and tremendous supporter of our organization and this initiative from the beginning. i would like to thank sage publications. sage in the publishing world is present eminent publishing house and publish the title we run out of my organization. and they are the principal co-sponsor of this lecture, having given just generous funding. so thank you to them. and thank you to the willard staff and to my staff at the american academy. they have been terrific in getting all this started. we are going to have a brief time for question and answer after ambassador talk. it is going to be brief. there will only have time for several questions. and i would ask you to keep your questions to the point, do your level best not to make mini
lecture of your own or position statements. please wait for a microphone to come to you. we are very pleased to know that c-span is covering this today and we have our inhouse tech staff so wait to be able to be heard before you speak. i welcome ken pruitt to the stage. ken is the carnegie professor of public affairs at columbia university and political scientist and former director of the united states crens us. more of the point to today's proceedings he has been a past president or director of most every organization that has been influential in this country to improve the social sciences and advance their interests on the national stage and he is currently the president of the american academy of american political and social science. so ken, if you please.
[applause] >> thanks. and welcome. and i will say just a few words about the academy itself. 130e years old. and founded by people of the earliest generation of the modern social scientists which didn't come along until the 1880's and the earliest were trained in germany. it was to train them but they did come in and helped our research universities get established for the social sciences. they were compared to the humanities and the natural scientists. they were immature as scientists. and the idea that they should have their own academy was an idea that came out of the university of pennsylvania and launched it. and launched it with the
journal. and so it became the earliest journal in the social sciences that have the responsibility that tom just mentioned of doing more than just reporting our research and research in such a way that it would make a difference. and it has been very successful since. we don't make a lot of noise about ourselves except about 12 years ago, the idea was why don't we do one thing a year publicly. we elect fellows. and that became the moynihan award. and everyone knows this was an unusual man. i have a quote that someone asked me to read so i'm going to do it. the nation's best their among politicians and best politician among thirst.
and that's true. he went back and forth without any hesitancy. always carried his deep commitment to social sciences and getting the story right. and as i say, we started about 12 years ago with this award and the event. and alice was our first awardey. she has passed away this last year. and so we do recognize that and she was a great -- i think i saw becky blank walk in, who is also a moynihan award ee. did i miss anyone who is here today? orry, ron. my immediate task is to get
somebody else up here who can speak more -- what's the right ord -- eloquently than i can about our speaker, about ambassador susan power. i would say the 12th year of doing this and for about half of those years we were looking for somebody out of the international world and wanted to recognize ambassadorships to the u.n. competition is very strong for these events. and we never came up with somebody who was in the international sector who we felt was senior enough and so forth to merit the award. and so you have done us a big favor, because i have been under lots of pressure from that contingent. she wille world -- but be introduced by margaret.
you won't recognize her to have physics degree and law agree from georgetown. and columbia university. that is just an accident -- not extremely e she is active in a number of initiatives that columbia university is engaged in and so forth. a word or two about her own -- she is out of the national security system under obama and make sure i get it right. deputy director of the c.i.a. was a real player and modest person and wouldn't know that was true of her.
she was a major player in the last go-around and remains very active. so would you please take over. [applause] >> thank you so much. honestly, i'm incredibly grateful for the opportunity to briefly introduce samantha this afternoon for her lecture as the winner of the daniel patrick moynihan prize. it's an opportunity to have sam in a ballroom full of people to hear what i think because she would never stand for the smoke i'm about to blow. in large part because i really believe this prize suits her. there are the obvious parallels between moynihan and samantha. they both have irish roots and
she was born in ireland and is a proud immigrant and they are both authors. sam, i have to say she won a pull itser prize for her book in her 20's after spending as a war reporter in the balkans. and they were both harvard professors and still is and is u.s. ambassador to united nations. and like moynihan, samantha is an ideas person and someone who is intell electly insasheable and believes that the biggest problems causing human suffering in the world today can and should be solved and they are both char as matic as people. but that wasn't as when i thought she was well suited for this particular prize and for giving this lecture. samantha ex emapply fisa leader of informed judgment to advance the public good and someone who
consistently thought as i know ken has and to further communication between the academy and the policy world, between scientific thought and practical thought. and i have no doubt that you will see that today in her lecture. the importance she placed on evidence-based policy making and value of social science and academic research and rigor was obvious in her approach to decision making and a memorandum she wrote for the president and interventions and meetings and who she selected to have on her staff when she was in the united nations. she is an intellectual who real issues doing so no matter how ard the truthsr no complex those delems are but combines that drive with an equally if not powerful drive to be effective and produce impact.
and in my experience that is a rare combination. the first time i met sam, she isn't going to remember this, she was chairing a meeting in the white house in the white house and i was a lawyer at the time of the state department and the scene was quite striking. here was this incredibly tall, red-headed woman who was a well known human rights advocating chairing a discussion in arms control in a room full of male military officers. and people made a number of assumptions about her how she would run the meeting were not the impression they left with that day. she had done her homework, as she always did, but she made clear she wasn't here to advocate for the treaty even though her position was clear. she studied the report and what she had were penetrating
questions that made clear she was listening and wanted to understand what they thought about this but wasn't going to accept peoples' view on faith. she wanted to be sure that the discussion surrounding it would be rigorous and moreover, she knew and assumed that everyone had noble intentions and trying to achieve the objectives that were critically important to the national security of the united states. she was focused on the means for achieving those objectives and the human consequences and forcing an examination of those issues in anyone in that room had done in that issue. as a colleague, you can't help to see she is fierce, brilliant and self-reflective, sometimes to a fault, she is occasionally stubborn but kind, generous and tough as nails when it comes to protecting people and a better
society. something that makes her suited to be a leader today and having a dialogue is the focus of consequences of governmental action. if you read her book, you will see this reflected in spades. she is constantly asking herself as ambassador to the u.n. whether and how we are effectively integrating concern for human consequences into our thought processes and international security. and this may sound obvious, for someone who is working for years, i can tell you it's not. even if you recognize it as being critically important, it's ot easy to do when you the traditional lenses that ignore the state-to-state interactions and the human beings they touch. and i think in part, it makes it easier to sit in the sit room and make these hard decisions to
do that but also true it's challenging to find ways on the time lines ta you are making decisions and in the institutional structures that we have to actually tap into outside sources that give you a sense of what those human consequences in the moment that are so critical. yet, today, giving the increasing interconnected world where nonstate actors if powerful if not more powerful than states, decision making that actually brings together and breaks down the barriers between those sort of governmental actors and the communities that they are working with across borders is more and more critical. and the human consequences we need to be taking into account is not the potential harms that people may suffer as a consequence of government objection on particular portions of the population but it is the opportunities that we can reveal
and promote but also how authoritarian societies can affect the societies, the people that are living in those societies. and i think in short, samantha's approach about thinking of these issues is not only preferable and more likely to be sustainable and pragmatic but something we need today and democratic societies have a comparative advantage on. and i'm so proud and honored to introduce samantha power for her lecture for this wonderful prize and i appreciate the society has done this. it's remarkable. so thank you very much. [applause] ms. power: thank you so much. i'm so grateful to be here. thanks to the american academy of political and social science and ken pruitt for serving as
president and leading this important academy and i'm looking forward to our discussion after. to tom who hounded me all summer to get a topic for this lecture and never did. so it will be a big surprise to everyone here. nd to jessica for organizing this, which is no easy feat. of rule, i have to say more than a record about my former colleague and dear friend, she brought to every governmental debate that i saw her participate in and this is at the highest levels of government, the freshest eyes of anyone i saw working in government. there were no taboos and no dumb questions and talk about rare, it turns out that one of the things that constrains informed
and rigorous policy debate is the sense that some questions are off limits or certain things must be done a certain way. and while the position of national security adviser is famously the most stressful position there is in the national security establishment, the secret, best kept secret, one of the best kept secret is the deputy national security secretary is more and mikie in the old cer emp al commercial, everything that is hard comes to you. and she ran the most fairest and ost intensively determined and inclusive national security process i ever saw. and made her way to the c.i.a. where she brought her background in international humanitarian law and her regard for human
consequences into that institution and not only i think changed many dimensions of how things were done in the intelligence community but won the fierce loyalty of intelligence professionals just as she has everywhere she has worked in the government. and the unfailing decency that she offers as a human being, person and a friend is what she wants to see reflected in american public policy. i couldn't be more honored that she was the one to introduce me. another word about maura moynihan. thank you, maura, for your support for this enterprise. she is here. nice to see you, maura, and could not be more honored to be receiving this awart in your dad's honor and could not be more pleased and proud as an american and as a person who
also lives in the broader world that there is an award named for your dad and every year we come together to think about your dad and his legacy. i'm incredibly proud to be here. there were a few alleged parallels between me and senator moynihan. i don't flatter myself to believe that i necessarily belong in his league despite how pleased i am to be associated with him, but there are a few parallels that i do acknowledge. so both senator moynihan and i take pride in our irishness, but part of that is that we and i'm going to speak about him in the pretense because he is a large force in our world today, but we carry with it an expectation, an irish expectation that good
things may not last and you all remember after president kennedy was shot, moynihan famously saying, i don't think there is any point being irish if you know the world is going to break your heart eventually and he paused and added, i thought we had more time. i spend my days with that same sense of worry about the world, especially these days, but i'm hoping we have a lot more time and not just a little more time. we both have the experiences of to goling between academics where we were each professors and stints in public service but he in a far more diverse range of government in roles and disciplines than i did. serving in the white house and sensing skepticism about insights i might have drawn from
social science or behavioral science or political science, i often wished that i could mobilize a retort as lively as moynihan could when he was being challenged. and the incident that comes most quickly to mind is that in 1976 when he was challenging the new york incumbent senator james buckley and moynihan's first political race and when senator buckley referred to in one of the debates professor moynihan, from harvard and then moynihan ex claimed with mock indignation, the mud shrinking has begun. the mud shrinking has begun. [laughter] ms. power: no dirtier mud than to be called professor in a political debate. we both believe in the essential role for ideas in the shaping of
public policy and also in the power of words. never to diminish just the power of words. maura's overlap but mother, senator moynihan's spouse, the senator's wife of 48 years, elizabeth, she said she married her husband because he was the funniest man she ever met. and i feel the same way about my husband. you know about his books, but you don't know about his humor. some of those books have a little humor in them. when one attempts to take the measure of moynihan, senator, ambassador, veteran, author of 18 books, nine of which he wrote while serving in the u.s.
senate, presidential counselor, cabinet member, sociologyist, professor and public intellectual, what is the most striking of all in our era of intense polarization is his fierce independence of mind and spirit which persisted throughout his decades of public life, how inson eveable would it be today for someone to do what moynihan did, to be appointed to cabinet and subcabinet positions in four consecutive, kennedy, johnson, nixon and ford. bill chris toll out of bounds of moynihan, he is never in anybody's camp, a rarity today. on the occasion of being recognized with this honor, i would like to address a problem that greatly concerned moynihan
when he served as u.s. ambassador to the u.n. under president ford and that challenge was the future of democracy. so today, i would like to examine first the contemporary state of democracy and its relative appeal around the world. i would like to discuss the rise of china and its implications for the future of democracy and thirdly, i will add, facing a different future in the democratic model and china model will co-exist on this earth, i would like to look at what we can and should do to enhance democracy's prospects. first on the state of democracy. back in the fall of 1975 with the american bicentennial approaching, moynihan having recently left his role as ambassador to india spelled out
his pest mimple about the democratic model for an article in the public interests. what he wrote was quote, liberal democracy on the american model increasingly contends to the condition of monarchy in the 19th september try, a holdover form of government which which persists here and there and even serve well enough for special circumstances but which has no relevance to the future, end quote. moynihan continued, quote, it is where the world was, not where it is going, end quote. now for context, we should recall the world as it was when moynihan offered this present dick shon. across the globe, only 30% of the countries in the world were democracies at that point. from the middle of the 20th
century until he became u.n. ambassador in 1975, the number of so, maybe it is understandable why moynihan went on to observe in the article that "increasingly, democracy is seen that kill yournt to a handful of north atlantic countries and a few other olonies." moynihan's views had been particularly influenced by his experiences as u.s. ambassador to india. 1973.ived in new delhi in during his two years in the country, he experienced painful backsliding of the democracy. as he prepared to leave india and return to the u.s. to become the u.n. ambassador, he wrote "here in india, liberty displays and an easy presence, and an
endangered that endangered species. that indian democracy should struggle to maintain itself is the national condition of its being. all democracies struggle but what troubles me is it is struggling to maintain its reputation in the world. the heart has gone out of it. we no longer believe that liberty will prevail. here, not come i suspect, much longer in western europe and not in the united states." , indian prime minister indira gandhi had a state of emergency declared suspending elections, arresting political opponents, and cracking down on civil liberties drop the country. the emergency would last for over a year and a half. that democracye was "where the world was and not where it is going" derived from his lived experience.
he was, of course, mistaken. the third wave of democratization was beginning just as he issued these dire predictions. -- moynihann was was focused on india come and uprising was occurring in portugal. the carnation revolution there led to a transition to democracy. know,ollowed, as you all was three decades of democratic flowering around the world. by the time of moynihan's death in 2003, the percentage of democracies in the world had more than doubled. some 65% of the countries in the of 191, weret democracies. relishedhan himself this development. not long after the fall of the berlin wall, moynihan wrote to george kennan "you must be enjoying the spectacle of the
world turning your way. it only took half a century." in the span of just a few decades, democracy had become the dominant form of government around the world. today, however, gloomy those thatresembling moynihan issued a half-century ago have surfaced a new hearing we are confronting what is become known as the democratic recession. we are seeing a pronounced surge for support of populist national figures around the world. major established democracies are currently on the defensive chastened ida seeming disillusionment with democracy around the world, intimidated, it seems, by china's success and the every day difficulties of conducting everyday governance. dire warnings that democracy is
inin crisis have become almost inescapable. think -- people versus democracy. can it happen here? authoritarianism in the u.s.? at least he had a question mark. share thecans intuition that our democracy is an extra bleat in decline. suggest a sizable percentage of the american inlic has -- have lost faith the democracy. characterizing it as weak 60% of it thinking it is getting weaker. polling of americans 18-29 find that two thirds are fearful of the future of democracy in the united states. these sentiments are given additional credence by the disposition and rhetoric of our current president who, in
addition to his assault on democratic institutions like the media, the courts, and his political opposition party at home, has come in terms of is foreign policy, removed the reference of democracy from the state department of the -- from the mission of the state department, and has shown greater affection with the leaders of the most repressive countries in the world than he has for our democratic allies. so, is democracy doomed? i do not think so but let us examine the facts as democracies are suffering more than a crisis of confidence. of global expansion democracy, the third wave of democratization that began with that carnation revolution in portugal, has ended. although the experts and rankings differ on the margins of when this began happening and they differ on how serious the trends are coming the best studies and assessments of
global democracy, if you take them together, show that in the last 10-15 years, democracy has experienced more setbacks then gains. of three reversal decades of essentially uninterrupted progress and democratic gains. according to freedom house, we are now in the 13th straight year of freedom in decline around the world. and in the past three years, it has been established democracies, those countries states, that are considered fully free in the freedom house index, that show the worst setbacks. instead of rule of law, something the u.s. has been promoting for many decades or seeking to promote, the carnegie endowment has identified 60 governments that have instituted ruled by law taking a number of serious measures to restrict civil society. through legal means like regulation or the curbing of
financial assistance to those organizations. parties and politicians that were once at the periphery due to their extreme views, now occupy influential roles in many established democracies. from these more mainstream positions, they often demonize immigrants and refugees, attacked the press, and do what the can to undermine judiciary and the checks and balances that exist on and realized power. today, for example, 90% of the media in hungary is owned or controlled by allies of the president and his party. in poland, the conservative law and justice party came to power in 2015 and in 2018, the party passed along a law that forced the retirement of long serving supreme court judges which were then -- who were then replaced by allies of the party.
critical reporting is dismissed as fake news by not only president trump but leaders in dozens of countries. whether brazil or the philippines, right-wing populist that control the levers of government have already caused serious setbacks for open and democratic societies. polling oft recent global attitudes across 27 democracies has found that overall, more people are dissatisfied with how democracy is working in their country than satisfied. theuld now like to turn to rise of china and how this fits into the picture. for those searching for an alternative, the most common is, of course, the authoritarian capitalism practiced in china. has been xi explicit about china's desire to provide an alternative model that does not imitate western values. offers a newchina
option for other countries and nations who want to speed up their development while preserving their independent." the word "independence" is shorthand to signal other countries that china will not be into theirs nose internal human rights practices. although china has lifted millions of people out of poverty, it's governance model has deeply disturbing aspects. aging has locked up between 800000 and 2 million chinese muslims in internment camps framing the measure as what it calls effective counterterrorism. it has banned many of the world's most popular websites including google and wikipedia. it has treated desperate people fleeing gulags from north korea as criminals and come in the most orwellian development, assignedns to have
a citizen's core to every one of his people. it will use artificial intelligence to process a mixture of information about the movement of chinese citizens, purchases, social media posts, religion, and the records of their family members and friends. the government will use this come -- continually updated score to classify citizens as safe, normal, or unsafe. used tol in turn be determine everything from citizens access to jobs and social services to whether they should be picked up for preemptive questioning or be allowed to travel. already, the chinese government has revealed that due to bad social credit, it has blocked its citizens from taking flights 17 million times. china hasident xi capitalized on its economic have to turbocharge its diplomacy and development.
usedools that the u.s. has over the time to support the consolidation of democracies. china's foreign affairs budget has doubled since 2013 as the state department budget stagnates and its career administrationan that is generally shunned their expertise and even the practice of diplomacy. greatly enhancing chinese influence, it now provides just as much development financing as the entire world bank. as of 2018, some 20% of african governments' external debt was owed to china. at the u.n., the u.s. remains the largest donor and at least, for now, wields the greatest influence however, china this year asn just the second-largest contributor budget..n. regular it already contributes more peacekeepers than any other permanent member of the security
council. gallup polling across 100 33 countries shows the chinese president is viewed as favorably ther more favorably than american president. and while people around the world are more or less evenly split about whether they hold a favorable or unfavorable view of china come its favorability numbers are relatively high particularly in the developing world and among younger generations. in countries like tunisia, nigeria, and can you come all countries the u.s. would like to see continuing their progress in shoring up democratic institutions, views of china today are markedly popular. positive. poland anda and others, double-digit gaps exist between those in the 18-29 range that have a favorable view of china and those from older generations, particularly over 50 who are much more skeptical. authoritarian capitalism is in a
way ascended as roberto stephan -- and others have pointed out, within the next five years, the total gdp that freedom house considers undemocratic will surpass the -- that of western democracies. of combined economies democratic countries like the u.s., germany, france, and japan they write will be smaller than those of autocracies like china, russia, turkey, and saudi arabia. the implications of the world are serious. a powerful argument for democracy has always in that accountable governance and economic development go hand in hand. for leader is wavering on whether to become more open and citizens deciding on what society they hope to build, the appeal of democracy has been tied in part to its ability to deliver for peoples quality of life and economic well-being. onna's well-documented game -- economic success combined with a global awareness of
inequality inside democracies have complicated this long-standing argument. all of this said, we do not yet know how aggressive japan -- beijing will become in trying to use its leverage and assistance beyond its borders to nudge countries on the fence or democracies that are backsliding in a more repressive direction. we do not know whether they deem it in their interest to, to paraphrase a former american a myth -- make a world safe for authoritarianism and ought secretary and is him. i sell competing impulses among chinese diplomats. on the one hand, china's internal stability remained its governance overriding concern. over many decades, u.s. diplomats have recognize that our national security is enhanced by a more diplomatic world in which we have more democratic partners to enlist in
meeting shared challenges. asna sees domestic security the most important foundation of its national security. yet, in a number of areas, i also saw china stepping in and stepping up to influence countries on issues where the united states has enduring interests and now, when the united states has vacated a leadership role, that tendency has been dramatically accelerated. while many expect china to actively pull countries in its direction to not be agnostic about the form of governments that countries it is providing assistance to have, others, like the historian said, argue that xi's government is a nationalist government. itself as ansent alternative model to western democracy but for the time being, it's a main approach may
be to show china system works better in china and the american system works in america. regardless, our former colleagues from the obama administration, j sullivan and kurt campbell road -- wrote recently that china may present a stronger ideological challenge than the soviet union did even if it did not ask was the least week to ask for its system. if the international order is a reflection of its most powerful they, china's rise to superpower status will exert a pull towards autocracy. china is also not the only country pulling the system in that direction. to date, farmer players are on the scene actively promoting their political visions then did so during the third wave of the 1970's to the 1990's and many of them are operating with a range of impressive tools that match or exceed what established democracies are currently offering. development aid.
military assistance. diplomatic have to. and media influence. part three of all of this -- what can be done? and here, i have a few ideas. the challenge is that i have laid out will require more than a few ideas to be met but, for starters, the most critical step for americans to take is to focus on our own deeply divided democracy. there are many impediments that stand in the way of improving the health of our democracy. in politics. gerrymandering. restrictions on voting rights. downright corruption. and, and it is related to what is above, it deep and ever deeper polarization. it sometimes seems not to have fully penetrated just how quite destructive this polarization is and how difficult it has made meeting any problem much less
making a dent in a problem as big as a global rights recession. the salience of political identity in our country is now far greater than the salience of what we all have in common as americans, classmates, neighbors, and citizens. arises,r a fresh issue we see almost an instant polarization now. just this week, when of the , found leading pollsters that only 40% of republicans believed to that president trump had talked to ukrainian president about investigating joe biden. only 40% of republicans believe that yet this means the majority of republicans said that the president either did not speak to the ukrainian president or they could not be sure. but this is in spite of the fact that the president stated openly that he did and the fact that the white house released a
partial transcript of the call between them. these somewhat baffling divisions are of course mirrored in our congress. polarization has made the legislative branch immensely ineffectual and even irrelevant when faced with a major challenge. when a gunman kills 58 people at an outdoor concert, the baseline expectation is that our congress will not do anything to try to decrease the risk of future attacks. it used to be that international treaties were ratified with bipartisan support in congress. but that has changed. the bush administration, the george w. bush administration ratified 163 international treaties. obama administration, we managed 20 international treaties. administration so far, just nine. on the front of polarization, i was profoundly disheartened after learning of the supreme court's 5-4 rolling this year
that federal courts could not put a stop to partisan gerrymandering. this was a rare opportunity to do something that would've had a real impact on the health of our democracy. instead, the majority of the court said it was acceptable for politicians to continue choosing their voters rather than having voters choose their politicians. half of congressional districts nationwide are still drawn by legislators whose elected representatives tend to prioritize keeping their jobs over other priorities. thus, in north carolina, during , democraticterms and republican candidates, each one about half of the votes cast, yet republicans ended up 13ning 10 of the state's seats in the house. manipulating boundaries for gains is also practiced by democrats notoriously in states like maryland and new jersey.
as a result of all of this gerrymandering, primaries and of the and of being the only important election in so many districts and the increased importance of the primary often favors candidates who represent the extremes. but itn still be fixed is up to state courts and legislators to write this structural wrong. second recommendation -- as we enter a period in which these two models of government are competing, we must rebuild our diplomatic corps and put ourselves in a position to rejuvenate and strengthen alliances among democracies. at present, the pentagon and armed services have more than 275,000 american personnel employed outside of the united states. the state department, around 9000. indeed, the pentagon famously has only slightly fewer people serving in marching band then the state department has
diplomats. we still do not have ambassadors posted in more than 40 countries around the world. the battle between the democratic and authoritarian model is going to play out in the international domain over the coming decades and we need to be resourced for that battle. in the years after the arab spring, i believe we and our allies should have done more to help a country like tunisia as it tried to consolidate the hard-earned democratic gains achieved by the protest movement that began in 2010. today, when a new leader in ethiopia negotiates peace with releases political prisoners, opens freedom of the press and appoints a candidate with a 50-50 gender balance declaring that his ultimate goal was to ensure that a democratic election takes place in ethiopia, we and other democracies should be supporting his agenda. in sudan, when an incredibly
courageous and persistent protest movement forces the military leadership and assigning a power-sharing agreement, we should be working with them to improve their chances of getting military leaders to hold to that agreement. even now, with the trump andnistration a wall lacking in credibility in promoting human rights and democracy, the u.s. congress can play an important role by using the laws we have on the books including the bipartisan 2016 that sanctions human rights abusers around the world and the foreign assistance act which requires that the executive branch cut off assistance to governments that take power through military to lose. as on carruthers has recently argued, the congress could also has a new law that would limit u.s. aid to leaders that get rid of constitutional term limits, a growing trend. third and final recommendation -- it is that we have to get our mojo back and we have to be prepared to defend democracy.
taken together, the decline in freedom around the world which is borne out by the data and the inexorable rise of china has deepened a confidence gap that seems to have overtaken our world. the authoritarian's seem to be strutting around although their model rests on very fragile foundations, democrats meanwhile at times seem to be running for cover. i confess i bring an inherent skepticism to sweeping fatalism and to overwhelming optimism. when i graduated from college back in 1992, a book about the global triumph of liberalism had spent a month on the bestseller list. i gave you earlier the list of best-selling books on the perils to democracy we are reading today. list, as our reading
suggest, people have begun speaking about liberal democracies demise with the same certainty that people back when i graduated from college talked about liberal democracies inevitable triumph. it seems we should not make the mistake of replacing one narrative about inexorable ability with its doomsday opposite. my own view is that, notwithstanding everything we are confronting here in our country and other democracies around the world, we have the better model. there was a logic to churchill's laim -- in a talker sees, economic growth is likely to be impeded by stagnant state owned enterprise, a lack of transparency in the economy. even in china, we have already seen growth slowing and one wonders how secure investors will feel over time with the arrest of expatriates and the absence of due process in
property rights. autocrats often overreach. they tend not to hear from critical voices in their inner circle and they often prefer the company of sycophants. if you work for the chinese president or the hungarian president, you would likely be -- be reluctant to be the bearer of bad news to your leader. the mostlitary, capable officers in such systems may be less likely to rise than the most loyal. the lack of accountability, when you have endless terms or you are president for life, can breed all kinds of decay. and because ethnic, religious, and national identity is often stymied in illiberal systems, it frequently leads to social unrest and even violence. while innovation today is flourishing in some sectors within certain autocracies, i think we have reason to question
whether innovation will be undermined in the long-term by the absence of freedom of speech and the presence of so much fear. and finally, one of the biggest factors explaining the appeal of illiberal or popular leaders in democracies is inequality and the feeling of many that they are being left behind by their governments. and by society. and this trend may well be one that only increases with automation and some of the other structural features of our economy. no reason to expect that systems that concentrate power at the very -- will more equally lead will more equally distribute benefits or will not leave people behind in an age of ottoman station. even today, we must remember that democracy remains, and this is counterintuitive given some of the statistics i gave earlier, but democracy remains
today the dominant form of government in countries around the world. 55% of states today are democracies and they are home to more than half of the global population. moreover, despite the very real and worrisome backsliding come if you look at all four of the most widely used and accepted databases that assess democracy over time, and since we have so many political scientists here, i won't -- i will describe those, the freedom house included, the percentage of democratic countries in the isld, according to those, either at or near its all-time high reached just after the end of the cold war. the reason that can be true at the same time you are seeing all of the backsliding is that countries are still considered democratic even as you see setbacks in terms of rights enjoyment and the various freedom indexes. i would also call attention to a
trend that has not quite registered yet it seems in our public imagination that political participation is now increasing in almost every region of the world. voter turnout is up. the number of people who say they are following the news come in politics and joining political parties is up. measures, the engagement and participation of women in politics has increased substantially. the proportion of the population willing to participate in demonstrations is also rising. not only an democracies. in turkey, the people of istanbul delivered a stunning rebuke to president erdogan twice and a row first electing a member of the political opposition as mayor and then, when president erdogan's party forced a three vote to try to manipulate the results, the population elected the opposition candidate again by a margin almost 60 times that of
the initial victory in the first race. in hong kong, people of all ages are standing up for the rights and freedoms that are central to their city. in moscow, thousands upon thousands of russians have taken to the streets repeatedly this past summer to demand free and fair local elections. despite arrests and harassment. slovakia, a young environmental lawyer who has never held political office and who was vocal on women's and lgbt writes "the this last summer loudly proclaiming her support for european integration and triumphing over entrenched and reactionary political parties. valuestory showed "that such as humanism, solidarity, and truth is our import into our society." six months after algerians first took to the streets, the long-time president
resign and after trying to rush a presidential election, the interim leaders bowed to public pressure postponing that election. theite the stalemate, people participating in weekly demonstrations have held fast to their demand for political transition. sudanese protesters toppled bashir. and he is now standing trial. and we have seen elements of this in the united states. the 2018 midterm election saw the highest overall turnout for a midterm in 50 years. college students more than doubled their turnout from four years earlier. the surge in political activation of young people manifested also in the marches for climate -- for addressing adjustingange and for gun control, shows the next generation is engaged in pushing back against the status quo. \
as mike kennedy school colleague has shown recently in her research on social movements -- we live in a decade where there have been more movements around the world than at any time in recorded history. oferestingly, after years reports that highlighted the global trend of democratic backsliding, the most recent democracy index released by the economist noted it did not register an overall decline in global democracy for 2018. this is not exactly a great data point to hang our hats on. the report goes on to detail the difficulties but it highlights the explosion of political participation. planning to developments like the ones i've just described saying the surge in engagement is one of the defining change is taking place on the global stage. with certaintyy it seems is that the future of our society and the role that
governance and citizens will play in shaping them is being actively contested. despite all of the challenges and setbacks, people appear to have an inexhaustible aspiration to hold their leaders accountable. it is far too early to write the story of democracy's fate in the 21st century. when moynihan despaired about the future of liberal democracy as i indicated earlier he wrote "it is where the world was and not where it is going." would stressng, i that where the world is going is not already scripted. it will be decided by the resilience, the well, and the actions of the people who comprise the countries within that world. notwithstanding all of the grave structural challenges before us, when it comes to a cause as vital as the future of democracy, we must resist the
temptation to spend our time admiring the problem. rather, we must urgently work for the world we seek. i thank you. [applause] >> in terms of where we want to cut into this. could you take us all the way back to moynihan's reservations? what was he seeing that led him to that rather unexpected sense that it could all crumble? was watching in india where they were on the verge of a state of emergency.
was also seeing ethnic and religious tensions flaring up but above all, -- percentage of the countries were not democratic. >> if he were here tonight, and we were talking to him about it, and we wanted to say where were the social scientists and what were they saying? if we are not it able to hold onto the democracies we have created? where does the intellectual foundation, for preserving democracy if not somehow out of our investigations? i am not a social scientist or a political scientist. was intried to do when i government and what i try to do today is draw on the incredible work that is being done by scholars throughout our country and around the world who are
looking at these trends and trying to drill into them and understand where they come from. i think there are a lot of different aspects of this including citizenship and political participation including voting and voting rights and all of the dimensions of voting. it is the case, as many of you know, that 9% of the people who voted for barack obama in 2012 shifted to voting for donald moreover, 7% but, of the people who voted for barack obama in 2012 stayed home in 2016. so these trends are kind of up even setand there are motivate political participation but understanding those individuals and what is motivating them is important. and finally, you are seeing to what hasning been a very unaccountable and
understudied sector of our society which is the techundersr society which is the tech world. alongside that come you see regulators paying some attention to that in the face of public outrage. our more scholarship can be done on that. at its height of economic worth, 167book was worth more than of the 193 countries in the u.n. has more adherence than christianity. and yet, while we have scholars that study countries and local government and state government ,nd federal government understanding facebook as a player again to one of the most powerful countries in the world akin to one of the most powerful countries in the world
and there was a huge explosion of social science doing field experiments and so forth. and yet, i guess i want to put it this way -- somehow, we must failed. i don't want to failed. i don't want to overstate that. but, we were surprised by 2008. coming. how in the world could we have missed donald trump? something that big, that dramatic, and that transformative. we were not sitting around tables 10 years ago, two years ago, four years ago. -- power: i think every there are a number of dimensions that we and the obama administration were blindsided by major events internationally that i think are analogous to
what you are describing. i think it is fair to say that almost no one saw the arab spring coming and this was a tinderbox waiting to explode. the extent to which vladimir putin's grievances were going to translate into militarized aggression of the extent that he carried out. on issue after issue, we have been surprised. i don't think that is a summary indictment of generations of , by by social scientists any means. it is cause though to ask why? why in these cases were we blindsided? for example, now this is not my but so i am at a my depth one conclusion that one could draw particularly about how both in government and here perhaps we were blindsided by the degree of support a candidate like donald trump could draw, and
that is why i focused on the shift from obama to donald trump -- that delta is a significant delta. to askght be because ourselves, are we doing enough applied work? actuallyt there identifying the places where different dimensions of globalization and the sort of a rub of our international economic approach and domestic economic policies and the absence of the safety net, where those issues are hitting home. even, when i look back, i think -- why did we not see that the opioid epidemic in a way was in , at one preview of level, the despair and alongside the despair, a rage can exist. i think it can be a question of is one too cloistered in our pop -- in our foreign policy?
the u.s. leadership in the world seems to be dwindling. ask, and thise applies to those doing international relations and other foreign policy related dimensions of political science and international history --have we just been talking to one another? we missed the ways in which mistakes have been made by successive administrations inform policy and how that has brought about widespread disillusionment. have we missed the ways that war has become conflated with foreign policy in some people's minds or the negative effects of free trade conflated with the u.s. leadership in the world that makes people skip this -- that makes people skeptical of u.s. leadership. i think there is a lot of work that can be done given the predicament that we face but focusing on one individual or would be a mistake
and lead us on an ephemeral journey. are we interacting with the world sufficiently? -- not questions everyone has to do this and there is an important role for pure theory -- but our graduate students going out and doing the fieldwork they need to do so their theories are tested by an understanding of real people? add, alsoing i would in the spirit of not despairing because i'm not sure how much good it does at this point nor do i think it is warranted, but i am married to a man who became as a -- who started as a constitutional lawyer and stumbled into the world of behavioral economics and behavioral science. and, oh my gosh, to have the privilege of seeing what behavioral science has been able to do in the field of public
policy to improve outcomes for citizens -- it has been mind blowing. areexamples -- studying why certain subgroups of people going to fill out financial aid forms to go to college because it would be dependent on financial aid instead of just assuming they don't want to go to college or they are too lazy to fill out the form for financial aid. if you talk to people come it turns out they were completely overwhelmed by the length of the form. and what the obama administration did was repopulate -- pre-populate the form and shrink it to three pages. , thehool cafeterias problem of obesity derives in part from the easy access people have to chocolate chip cookies and french fries. where the fruits
and vegetables are in the cafeteria and make it harder to access the unhealthier foods, it brings about a precipitous decline in calorie intake for people in public schools. and on issue after issue, you see a death and its impact on how people are crafting public policy. but your question is fair. i don't think we need to go so broad. i think we can look at the set of questions we wish we had been asking and what can we learn about ourselves. economics -- behavioral economics is something we take great pride in as a community of scholars and it did loosen up the borders of economics somewhat. the models did not quite predict. ms. power: anything? [laughter] wentd the humanities
through a remarkable period of deconstructionism where they only spoke with themselves and had fights internal to their discipline. "practical" word but also "moral." we do not talk about morals very much a social scientists and i think that is going to have to come back. to challenge you on something that you said in your book about self-righteousness about yourself -- i don't think you were self-righteous. i think you really cared deeply about genocide. ms. power: i like that kind of challenge. my favorite kind of challenge [laughter] >> you are right to go after genocide. and right to take a moral stance. ms. power: it looks like you are impudent and the values of
others and when you are in think,circles -- but i just to be fair-minded and basically to be effective also, to anticipate what other values and even other kind of moral precepts others are bringing -- and then meet them on their terms. that is all i really had wanted to do. and one other thing -- again, i don't think i am -- i would not as yourquite as much question suggests and maybe some are here that i was not aware of the extent of that. one thing that did really worry at stanfordout where i gave the tanner lectures maybe a year ago and i learned, and i don't have the numbers in my head, but about the massive
migration from the social sciences into computer science. at that university. graduates,beral arts best and as a liberal arts graduate and someone that is so thankful that i did not burrow myself and i learned how to express myself and how to think analytically in different ways, i feel that serve to me and we have two kids and raising these people i hope are fluid in the sciences and fall in love with them but that they would always see the value of theater and literature and music. anyway, i was having that reaction. and then i had a great conversation with a man who is a atleague, a professor stanford, jeremy weinstein who was my deputy when i was you and abbasid are.
he is a brilliant guy. a master at applying ideas. but he was in the same kind of moment of -- what is happening? and he said -- i am going to go coteach a science and ethics class and we are going to make sure that every computer science graduate cycles through this line of programming. and his work was on comparative politics in sub-saharan africa. it was a leap. virtualo almost take a sabbatical, a sabbatical of the soul to be able to throw himself into that world but that is also an example of what we can do in a moment like this. the shorthand way of describing isured -- interdisciplinary our students are floating with their feet -- voting with their feet. we learn about our
teaching and the lines of inquiry that we pursue? >> i am going to open it up. i am surrounded by political scientists and i want to start with one. bob. >> i thought it was a great talk. ms. power: thank you, bob. >> i interpret your talk as a call for renewed self-confidence about democracy and about social science. that is that we should stop about too much kvetching admiring the problems and both foreign policy, stating more seriously the superiority of democracy. meritocracy's are all thumbs.
meritocracy is all thumbs. is all thumbs. ms. power: i could not have said it better myself. is so manyere dimensions of this. to tease out. we have talked about this -- a book i got a lot out of in recent years was graham allison's book which is titled i think "destined for war." i know it is controversial and people have different views of it. one of the things that really bookk me when reading that , and this is a critique, is that we know the flaws in the littleness of our own system. societies are then so closed to us that
kind of thought bubble of look att xi, and we what he is confronting. and we look at hong kong. not one bookseller there can sell a book that is critical of the chinese government. but part of the question is how do we also get inside of -- maybe part of my proposition but it is tentative because i have not done it is if we could get inside and understand better their cost-benefit calculus, their forecast for themselves. and i only mention that book because as he forecasts china's rise, he does some justice to what the chinese state is having to navigate within its own borders. but really digging into that auld be another source, or
flaws we are the experiencing here. it would be nice if we could be more self-confident but also if we could have more grounds to be self-confident. digging in. did nother example, i have time to go into this and it is not my area but on the question of gerrymandering. to -- inave gone in the wake of the supreme court democracy degrading decision, whatg what north korean -- -- [laughter] sorry. this is my problem when you drag me into domestic social science. the north what carolina institutions are doing in the wake of the supreme court decision saying -- ok, it is
them and not us. citednorth carolina judge that. law that a voter basically makes your second choice count, and it was just past come in a manner that should help crowd out the extremes on both sides of the ballots. extremist may get a lot of votes but not a lot of second votes. digging into these kinds of remedies and experiments that are going on at all levels of our own democracy. and making those more broadly known. i do feel on one level in the last few years that we have been of admiring the problem and the salience of all that is wrong with our democracy. when facts do not matter. was put ine, as it the new york times by a doctor
in philadelphia at the children's hospital, on the issue of vaccines and he said -- science is but one voice in the room on the question of vaccines. it is but one voice at the table. it is easy to focus on problems. to look at the experimentation and the ways in which people are trying to address different dimensions of polarization and atision and trying to render the local or state level and eventually the federal level, our democracy more effective. >> maybe one or two others. ms. power: no pressure. >> ok. fine. not to worry. the problem is i cannot see -- the lights are which -- moynihan oncera
to ask a question and like her pa, she can make herself heard. >> first of all, i want to congratulate you samantha for speech.t wonderful i think most everyone would agree. it was brilliant and amazing. znd my 90-year-old mother li sends her best wishes. traveling is difficult. and ambassador peter dow breaks just returned from syria and also since you his regards. i thought i would take the microphone to say that publicly. china -- it would not have happened without collusion from the western powers as everyone knows. factsare so many shocking that are now coming to light about how chinese firms on wall to be audited and wall street lets them.
-- a year.s china will never have its human rights record questioned at the u.n. or by congress. i have watched this my whole life having gone to high school in india. and i went to china and i saw this link to my father and i found it shocking that the west has given communist china this easy pass. they are very much responsible for the rise of this authoritarian capitalism model. where do you think it is going especially given the uprising in hong kong which i fully support? two y and thank you for your kind words. and to reiterate how honored i am to be associated with your dad. but, notwithstanding your kind words, your comments about the
west also implicate me because i worked for a pretty powerful western government for eight years and indeed, worked day today at the security council with china a permanent member of the security council which had the veto. and so, to address what you are describing, on one level, i isnk you have a point which that when it comes to a country , and evenl as china when it comes to a country far less powerful like saudi arabia, there has been these taboos in american foreign-policy that has caused -- that have caused us and it is not about confronting or not confronting what about whether we do it publicly or not publicly. in the case of china, i think part of what happened is the interdependence of our economies which is a very different sort
of structure of competition than it was when the cold war was on againstr dad was vocal the soviet union and other human rights abusers. veryconomy is also dependent on what happens in china. and so, as you contemplate in 2019, let us say, the measures that you will take as we have seen with donald trump's of very confrontational approach, that has bearing on the lives of american workers and it has bearing on the prices of american goods. and now it is having a bearing on the slowing of the american economy at a time when people are already or are still reeling from the lasting effects of the last downturn in the economy. aboutot disagree with youi do'u
wanting to change the system and render it more effective is climate change. can't get a single peacekeeper deployed to prevent sexual violence against women in a war zone or to prevent the recruitment of child soldiers if i can't get my chinese counterpart on board because they have the veto. that is a structural problem. you could be mad at the international system for being china, where we were going with our domestic debate, where basically the only thing republicans and democrats teen to be able to agree about is the irredeemable badness of china. if you look at the democratic primary debate, if you listen to members of trump administration certainly republicans in a stalking horse and it makes everyone feel like
we can unite on something. saying how terrible china is. there's much to complain about as i did, you did. we also have to work with china. we have to look out for our own interests and we are entangled with china. learning how to walk and chew gum and challenge that government when it's appropriate to do so more than we have, i think you're right in the past. while also carving out space to have a strategic partnership on issues that we can't do anything about on our own. i'm sorry, we are on our deadline now. remaining thing to do is to welcome you to the fellowship of the american academy. there are quite a few of them .ere tonight altogether only 117 so it's a
andrea ocasio-cortez holds a town hall in queens, new york. the theme is her legislation called a just society comprised of six bills dealing with poverty, for the housing, and access to federal benefits. live coverage begins at 5:45 p.m. eastern on c-span. lawmakers briefed reporters on the meeting with court volker a former u.s. envoy to ukraine. he answered questions related to the impeachment inquiry into president trump. the chair and ranking member of the house oversight and reform committee made remarks. >> i will say this, ambassador volker unbelievably knowledgeable about what was going on in ukraine. a true professional in our diplomatic corps. t