Hello. Good evening everyone. Welcome again i am the director of religious programming and like to start by asking who is here for the first time tonight whether a first or a repeat offender we have a bunch of programs to check out with a conversation with dan pfeiffer to a concert with josh ritter. Went to see the things that drive us to drink im sure reality has something for us all we are undeniably into 2020 the most t polarized election of all time the 2016 election seemed we didnt know our country or communities or who we thought we did questioning those deep rooted values and with that divisive twoparty political system tonight we are thrilled to welcome ezra klein back to make sense of it all to hear his perspective how the polarization has been growing roots for decades and why we are polarized he asserts the system is a broken but working exactly as designed and how our identities the disastrous results with the bonds of older country together the editor at large in cofounder of the ezra klein show podcast and executive producer on the netflix show explained previously an editor at the Washington Post policy analyst at msnbc and a contributor at bloomberg news. I he is in conversationn tonight as a political analyst for cbs news former chief Political Correspondent perk also a talented photographer take out his visual take on his instagram please help me to give a warm welcome to ezra klein. [applause] what are you doing here cracks you know this is free as a podcast, right cracks this is the first event of the obook tour in a city that means a lot to me and it means a lot to me you are here this is a solitary and strange experience there are real human beings out here so thank you for being here. [applause] i got a copy of your book in the mail i am reading the title why we are polarized. I said this to you but when they see books with these kinds of titles my immediate thought is come on, we are not that polarized. Things have been worse to the 18 fifties, 1930s or 19 sixties. So if we are uniquely polarized in the present moment and you acknowledge in the book that it has been worse but now is different in a way that the trend is different. N i really want to note i managed not to have a subtitle and everybody is welcome trying to push against the trends in publishing. [applause] you are completely right you get the immediate intuition that whatre you are doing is lamenting everything today. That things have been much much much worse like the 18 thirties. But it does seem different today of mid 20th century it is important to say the baseline of the pundit class because people run political publications and the political comingofage i remember in dc in the eighties why cant we have reagan and tip oneill have a drink and fix social security. That was iconic. What i came to explore is that seemed wrong but why cracks and what way cracks it is wrong because mid20th century politicss was very unusual that it was not polarized it usually polarized in those countries but the second thing that i think is that polarization is not necessarily a bad thing or a synonym for disagreement or extremism the 20th century was a time of less political fracture of the Womens Movement the indigenous Rights National guardsmen killing a protester at kent state and riots and nixon and watergate and political assassination after political assassination all the trouble in the country itself not just democratic socialism like norway but communism. Stalin is right. In the recent memory of some of the people who came of age in politics stalin was a meaningful faction. So what is different now not faction or fracture but the way they align on top of each other to becomeat polarized and that party has linked to otother identities. I always think a good example is a piece of legislation and complete the bipartisan. But to imagine major pieces of legislation it is almost unthinkable. That american politics the way they function is actively different than it was at other times and how that works on a field to pass. See you begin how american politics got polarized so its very much a part of the Civil Rights Act to have the liberal and conservative factions to republicans and democrats and republicans in the political system in a way that it has never been before has a Straight Line of ideological polarizationha its not tnecessarily a bad thing even if the consequences of the political system. Implicitly people believe the alternative to polarization as agreements, comy when the alternative is suppression. Often times political systems say the reason you are not polarized is the disagreements would be polarized over are suppressed. Beforey they were suppressed by a twoparty system collapsing intoar a four party system so what Democratic Party that is left of economics with structural barriers and the dixiecrat c party all there there was a wide range of opinion conducting the form policy request of the nation of oneparty rule at home and then to ensure basically the National Political system of White Supremacy and then the republicans that this was consideredis at the time from my friend called the polarizers but he shows there were people looking at this and theres something wrong with the system but fundamentally conducting the form policy of the rest of the nation it wasnt oneparty rule at home and then to ensure that basically the National Political system forced White Supremacy in the south but then these conservative republicans at the time this was considerede a problem there is a book called the polarizers but what he shows people were looking at this theres something wrong with the system. But what they say is the problem is that the parties are not responsible. They are not putting forward a separate and clear and defined agendas. Is did you have a democrat with South Carolina and a democrat in minnesota voting for Hubert Humphrey burke you have a period where american politics functions well on what it functions upon but the cost is this important compromise but the cost of that is this compromise to allow racial supremacy to exist in the south. So this is what people underestimate. So with parts of the old confederacy it takes for a long time to become democratic. Im sorry saul of the republican into the nineties because itio takes a long time for those identities to fall away. It is a generational replacemen replacement. I dont think you can look at those compromises to say they were just there was a really nice line he talks about it being a false piece of false peace to suppress issues like this brca1 of thes arguments it is it polarization per se but it is another word for disagreements we have to have coming to the service its built theres not a way to resolve this disagreement but that is a political System Design problem not a polarization problem per se. In the book he talk about the parties or as you mentioned here the ways identities are becoming polarized all along to the theories of polarization so to find what is happening you can basically guess who somebody would vote for and what exactly is happening such that in the present you can guess who will someone will vote for based off their proximity close to whole foods or Cracker Barrel both wonderful establishments. [laughter] so where i start in the book henry is born polish jew moves to france in the thirties he cannot go to university of poland because he is jewish this is National Holocaust remembrance day. He moves to france, and list during world war ii captured by germans and becomes a prisoner of war and survives because he is understood as a french prisoner of war not as a polish jew. When he comes back his whole family has been dead and killed in the holocaust. He began subsisting in the context the only thing that mattered was the identity. Not him or who he was but a group i identity who he was understood as if he lived or died. So many people he had loved had died. He is fixated on the question of Group Identity and how does it work. He starts to run a very famous series of experiments and the idea is basically he will call subjects into a lab subject them to conditions to create coherence and see at what point the identity and discrimination began to take hold. He has all of these kids from the same school horse lawn dash 64 of them and looks s at a piece of paper that have dots how many dots do you think there are cracks he separates them into the over estimator and under estimator. They didnt care it was totally random this wasnt related to the first when one first one we will see into these groups just give us a second. Then it is a new experiment about allocating money to other kids just sorted into random groups they immediately began favoring their co over or under estimators this was not unexpected but the first test meant to be below which level Group Identity takes hold he could not take a test so subtle and meaningless characteristic with a bunch of people were already in a group and you still got this. So he did it again of paintings. False it was random and this one he shows Group Discrimination becomes very powerful people will choose to give their own group less money if its more compared to the other group. So we are very sensitive to Group Identities its easy to create them they have been created for endless number of subjects. So once the sorting mechanism begins to happen in the 20th century with the Civil Rights Act the Democratic Party becomes the liberal party and it sets off. The ideological not ideological sorting but demographic now it is diverse Republican Party is white 90 percent. Republican party is overwhelmingly christian the single religious party after that its a coalition of a lot of different groups even with the ideology of those that are self identified conservatives so its not just ideology but race and religiosity andce geography and psychological qualities. Where you live, all the downstream cultural things. So they become mega identities so in general not only by who you vote for but a lot of things that can trigger to reinforce your political identity and as the other party becomes much more ideological different and more demographically the different. Those underlying i did one dynamics are powerful. A fascinating study shows countries with the most act identities as the most crosscutting they are 12 times less likely to have civill war. These areig big numbers that drive political behavior. So should china be a currency manipulator cracks but the Group Dynamics is almost no twork. It would not be good for people like you it is a very powerful thing. And then the more you are in favor against them. So talk about the path to polarization the parties begin the realignment. But then things take their own path. But in all of this there are actors making choices how to win the election or do whatever and they end up beating polarization to put us on a certain path. But we have to move there in addition to these material changes. I dont want to say individual behavior has no effect but i do want to say has a lot less range of choice those two have a narrative in a way that is helpful for whats to u understand. Donald trump had not one in 2016 the issues would be different if obama did not run in 2008 it would be different but the underlying trend would be all that t different. Is that Newt Gingrich speaker of the house to drive that Republican Party theres a lot of people. [laughter] as somebody appears like that eventually. This is a disagreement literally over Newt Gingrich. The reason is truly a polarization a innovator. And how Newt Gingrich began to give speeches when the cspan cameras were on and would heanswer me because nobody was there im not saying its not a good story but the question is not but why did Newt Gingrich get made speaker cracks less bombastic but also the destruction every innovator but over personalized to him in some way any republican leader would do he just did not allow a vote on republicans wanted to vote on he would not have the had the power to stop them but in general i think the metaphor is taken out of the book but american politics were always trying to tell the story the other guy walks out which is wonderful history of moderate republicanism. But step back from the book the way it describes is moderate republicans are this close to figure it out and then collapse because they make the wrong strategic move or something doesnt go quite right. But conservatives are such bumbling fools to be blown out and have totally crazy people making strategic decisions. But they win and in no way like all polarization history hyto understand why because its not like they make tons of mistakes but sometimes a complete fool the fact of the matter is and then something very different is going on thats the weird thing about the democrats but also the dynamics so skeptical not that i dont think individuals can make different decisions but the reason the individuals ended up the position they did because donald trump there is a lot that is unique in a very straightforward way to give voice to what they wanted to have a voice given to and he understood that in the way the others didnt see you can look at trump and why was the party deceptive and when the dimmick party Democratic Party definitely would have been. , race didnt just affect the origins of polarization but very much driving presentday polarization because among the stack of identities if you are the evangelical christian in the south or the midwest are probably republican. That the other side appears to be growing or seemingly political dominant, seems to be in the way that may be in your mind on the world in which you live. Yes but its important to understand why the Republican Party has reacted the way it has. We can be a polarized country with a different kind of co party one that nominated marco rubio for instance we would still be talking about polarization just as we were in 2015 but not a party that had adopted the view politics and you still hear from attorney general william barr to say there is an organized assault to destroy christianity in this country. One of the things goinghi on we are on check on on track for a similar thing with religion. You will see the religiously unaffiliated be the Single Largest Group we are on track for a record percentage of foreignborn. This is a pretty rapid rise from 4 percent in the seventies. So the country really is changing and in a way that comes with power. So i got this idea from Robert Joness the head of the Research Institute but he makes a point politics is like a time machine. In politics the power White Christian demographic is ten years behind where they are demographically some more christian people come out at higher rates so the white evangelicals as a percentage of the electorate where they were ten years ago so they are bigger than they appear but culture has a funny way to be ten yearstu ahead they are very focused to get young people to buy products and watch Television Shows prescribed and a lot of cable news an interesting fact they dont care about ratings they care about the demographics only people between 24 and 45 or maybe 18 and 45 a lot of people there watching her older than 45 is not an issue. Product placement itct all moves very fast. Theres a feeling on the right they are losing the one l thing that really matters the soul of the country and the way it is changing. This is true for people on the left and right they think they we are more diverse than we are the we are a majority minority has already happened so people e that experience these changes are doing it faster so there is panic on the right but yet it creates panic on the left so in addition to Everything Else you have these two coalitions at both feel threatened one feels it should be ascended but isnt quite and people in it have a reason to feel truly threatened and others feel it is dominant representing the true america pushed out to be called deplorables and desperately fight to keep the country they grewgr up in its a high political state so that conflict is anything goes because the stakes feel that if they win it could be the end of you so look at the trump rhetoric the idea of the left wins that is just the end. I think he literally said that in 2016. There was a book about retreating from the communities to wait out the storm very apocalyptic type of politics. But here you can imagine its not just polarization but marco rubio may never take a strategy and not doing so perhaps move this away from this kind of polarization. I think thats right. Its a very tough question too ask how much running room was there quick. I will give you an example. Look at the fox news host diversification it is an extraordinary sense it wasnt just started with Tucker Carlson getting prime time bill oreilly gets on and says we see the end of the white majority this is not the country we grew up and. Listen to Rush Limbaugh how do you get ahead inay the Obama White House cracks hating white people. I remember glenn beck how obama was antiwhite president it is antiwhite america. Joe biden city there is Vice President is an antiwhite country. [laughter] so why. Whatu ve is happening make in kelly who is now understood as moderate force pushed out of fox news created this fear of the new black panthers so on the one hand there is diversity of opinion with fox people are more or less fear mongering but on the other hand it is clear who t wins. Partially it is ratings driven it isnt clear that murdoch cares very much about creating this kind of panic but it is there with roger ailes for quite some point fox and sup with donald trump actually it was a Pivotal Moment fox is inflating the the trump bubble but then there like this is actually running for president so after the first cycle is on fox news the kind of journalist cohort and they actually really confront trump and talk about the way and they go into the primary in the aggressive way and they decided they would pop the trump bubble and he goes to war with them and he wins he attacks them and says they are liberals in a couple days later the stories of roger ailes promised fair coverage. And things like this continue to happen they say they will stop trump and then they fail. So there is the question of what did the individuals if they made another choice what happened cracks in 2012 he was considered to be a likely republican challenger to barack obama before the appalachian trail stuff happened. [laughter] and justin a mosh one of the most libertarian conservative members and rand paul. But when flake and sanford when they challenge trump which a couple of them did they are run out of the party and they will not have a future here. So its not that there are a not moves available but if you look at who try to take those move moves, making kelly is out of fox one year after she comes into conflict with trump flake and corker are out of office after they say they are anti trump some said they retired but they thought they would retire because they would lose. There were individuals who tried and there is a reason they did not win 16 other republicans ran in 2016 who were not donald trump saying they wonder she was a secretary a cancer on conservativism and then rand paul was positive in the Senate Lindsey Graham said horrible things about donald trump people did try and they lost so its important to analyze so there are two directions one is the structure of American Government t because you make the case in the book that if we had a different political system a polarization rates that doesnt necessarily lead to gridlock its not good but it doesnt produce that institutional dysfunction reexperience right now. They just had an election in thehe uk but nobody said he won but he cant do anything. Sure he won but can he get anything through parliament. There is something distinct winning elections does not mean you cant govern or do anything close. That could be a strange outcome in 2021 Bernie Sanders is a present president so if dad is the collection of political power that Mitch Mcconnell is so you have the idiosyncratic american political system that has a high level of compromise but in those conditions polarize parties make them ungovernable but also in the sense of a potential crisis. So what it will be tough to read is hard to pinpoint what Mitch Mcconnell dido wrong. He used powers he had constitutionally to not have a vote on someone he and his party did not want to be on the Supremee Court that was the single most ideologically important vote anybody in the senate would take up the swing seat on the Supreme Court for the lifetime appointment so in that structure the Supreme Court cannot fill vacancies. And then you no longer have the highest court in the land operating in a credible fashion or in the reverse cant stop thinking that the rulings are credible so what happens if you have a democratic president and republican Supreme Court and those vacancies are open if the Supreme Court keeps doing those rulings today stop listening and say who will stop us thats how that strikes down to create the potential for a near one irresolvable crisis. With a competing source of legitimacy congress has one electorate and in these conditions it is not clear really who should have that legitimacy Barack Obama Says i just got elected or i was reelected by 60 Million People that mcconnell could say in 2014 we had an election. It is compounded by the fact not only of the power out but it works for xhosa right now with the democracy when kids go to school right now the white house is occupied by the candidate who won fewer votes than the runnerup. The senate is occupied by the votes the lower of the three cycles the Supreme Court is appointed by those i have zero votes three outoc of four are occupied by the party that did not have a popular majority to implement their agenda. Thats a weird way to run a railroad but thats also how you have the legitimacy crisis is not just that Mitch Mcconnell could say it iss true in 2014 he had a much better claim to the majority they one that substantially but over time he doesnt there is an allied of democratic legitimacy. It is reliant on people accepting the norms of american politics. But it continues to diverge will democrat standing behind the popular vote majority continue accepting not being able to convert that cracks maybe or maybe not. You dont just have the divide but also the geographic warping of our system which plays out very sharply in one partys favor and that is the internal stress of the structure. Makes the current polarization bad is the combination of rickety old system that we are headed to the legitimacyit crisis either now or later when there is a handful of states can only have eight senators representing a part of the population running a massive crisis. So your book doesnt have any solutions for this crisis. [laughter] im not insulting the book but by design. How do we think about things in ways that help deal with the crisis when it comes quick. By those solutions dont take them seriously because they will not happen. I could solve this i just dont. The argument i make in the book is that when people think of american politics, under conditions of polarization the system breaks down. The place they normally go is lets turn back polarization. The simple truth it is possible something will happen to turn back in the next 30 years i cant predict maybe there is a war with china and that external enemy but things like that happen i hope we dont go to war with china but we cantn put the genie back in the bottle the second half is institutional feedback and how you get into those groups with the media and how elections areow one and they make polarization worse so focus on world on the other part of the way the system works in the primary thing that i say wouldrk help and i do think it would help to make the system governable is democratization. The majorities of the country should be able to turn their popular vote majority into political power and govern that i think the country should judge them if that is good or bad. When you say this people say thats crazy that we are a democracy not a republic or republic not a democracy. [laughter] the opposite. It has so much contempt i could not get it right. [laughter] w that sentence does it mean that people think it means. Not that it is supposed to be but we give one party a popular vote of power it is so weird the argument people make. Anyway that if they could wield political power than you would have the incentive for both parties to compete for the majority the very bad thing right now is the negative incentive structure that if it was to continue to rule through minority rule that sees democracy as a threat to republican interest at all levels of the power structure. And then to see that in gerrymandering. And you see that and to be competing for the 50 percent majority. With that political divide and that we love the filibuster in the minority that that other agenda is bad then you should be positive. But i just dont think it is a concern to say healthcare is important in peoples lives and it would be meaningless to peoples politics i dont think it works that way. So the way it should work the public should vote in a party to govern to pass the agenda and then the public is for someone to govern but if they do not pass the agenda and then that political system if you are implemented. With that argumentation. And it would be governable. On that point we will move over to questions. Thank you. [applause] to be a tough moderator to encourage you to ask a question. If i have a sense it is not happening i will let you know. [applause] is aware that plays. And that it is functionally about the way this side of the spectrum of the outlets to have incentives. So who do democrats trust cracks it is cnn. And then they just did a study of those outlets that remained and bright bar and Rush Limbaugh and hannity or Something Like that. Had you get out of that quick so i dont know. And it has its full dynamic it alsoso has a lot to do with the culture of choice and competition. So on the other side of the divide and if that is a sociological question. So i dont think there is a policy you could do that would end it. So the good way to make information matter. And then to see it and react that plus governance is very hard to see the outcome and blame fairly. And thats the stuff that we should do is what i said before. And talk about how the identities so it is the big difference between engage voters and non engage voters how is thisct affecting the country so vastly clicks most are not engaged or paying attention to everything thats going on. So one is that it is polarizing in a soft way. So there is a study i talk about in the book with the decline of the floating voter it is so crazy and that that voter are the first is the noninformation voters. And then the donkey and a mule. Fit with that Convention Platform it says and then to have abortion on demand with that difference of opinion in 1896 and that sounds like donald trump today it does not sell me the Democratic Party. Because its not as different. That the other thing that i will say is that its a place that the reason these things xatter with the hyperpolarized. The reason we have the impeachment trial today is donald trump the president and they spent a lot of time promoting the weird theory about hunter biden and ukraine and thete people around trump were so invested in this that was bubbling up and is incredibly impeachment trial so the political elites create the system if they are in the hyperpolarizeds basis. And thats within the bracket of what they call constructive. Do you see the problem of the majority quick. You should have constitutional protections i dont think we should have the filibuster with a blockade on anything that should be easier absolutely i dont think the majority rule in politics is necessarily a tyranny of the majority. T like canada or britain. So you should have minority protectionct and with those fabric of rights and how the olpolitical structure. And with that opportunistic move and that is the tyranny of the majority and you can do that without tyranny. Its ordered to deal with the negro problem so we know people vote against their own best interest when it comes to race politics. Theres a couple of things here and one thing i want to key in on is i dont think theres s a line on the left people understand is the grou growth gg to remain dominant and i think it ends up based on the sea peoples interest boiled down to too much about resources in terms of getting these larger cross Party Coalition we need to start with a sense of interest is much larger. One of the things im trying to do in the book is to get a rigorous account of how identity affects politics so people acting in the politics can build a more inclusive. One of the things that i think tends to narrow politics and confuse people they understood something wil only the marginald groups have it so theres a kind of constant tussle between politics and voting trying to get people to both the material interest. If you want people to vote on the politics instead, you have to do a better job of building an identity around class. People have to understand that Health Care Policy so you have to build things more around the identities and we see this happening in the rising left. Part of putting a rose next to your twitter account is a signal to the world the way of collecting the results into a group and so to the extent of what is expected just the politics and more Research Distribution to carry them through, i think one of the reasons it hasnt it is how people vote explicitly to vote their identity and they understand the identity as the group is rising in the status and falling in status. This debate for [inaudible] [laughter] have yo have you ever seen an actual celebrity . [laughter] you are an actual celebrity. Im seeing one right now. Now i have a question. [laughter] so recently the headlines have been dominated with action taken or not taken by google, facebook, twitter on political acts so im curious from your perspective how do you view micro targeting and other technological advances as a method of accelerating . Spinet id really caught on this one. I dont believe it works. I dont believe Cambridge Analytic had any influence whatsoever and i dont in general believe the control in the network i think that the hacking but im not convinced the social Media Operations which influenced the elections was a tiny dump in the bucket of what people were seeing for the micro targeting. I just dont know. I cant tell you for sure but it allows us to be more specific and it does put people to identity groups. Most of the Political Science research on advertising says that it matters a little and it became superfast. What will happen is even if you really nail people down with advertisements that do them like three weeks later it, sort of everything ive been saying before now in the discussion suggests to me that it is hard to make peoples identity around for that is wha what youre dois reinforcing what they already have, so the other thing that i will say is theres a lot of research now on who is polarized both here and internationally at the people that are the most polarized or the older voters who are the least exposed in the online micro targeting campaigns. Its entirely plausible as the micro targeting gets better so that it will develop a capability to influence actions but have you ever seen online advertising, it is beautiful and super highquality and thats great, but if you are anywhere else, anywhere else on the internet, its like ive seen recently you bought a bike. Would you like to buy another bike . And the more fundamental divide it is reasonably easily that to run the simulation in my mind. And the real answer is that there is an argument that to accountability and the political system primarily based in the system. And if recession hits but in the oval office but something that wasnt just partisanship. To be voting more and another interesting study now that this jogs my memory from the previous questioners that people that are not that engaged or one and politics what do these policies do for me and then people are even more invested into politics is that they tend to vote in a different way and to use more costcutting groups. And as a National Political journal with those political identities and i have a lot of evidence about this in the book but i urge people ready worse highly engaged or not to move that Political Action and one is cross cutting boise or des moines or new york or major cities is just different but also the different set of information is more nourishing and a lot less frustrating than to be on twitter or what you think of me. [laughter] so getting involved at the state and local level is good for everybody. I interpret the article as the geographic advantage so i shouldnt elected Democrats Campaign for a system. I think they should campaign to the point it is illegitimate because the house and the institution and what is would be proportional representation and Everything Else is a legitimate. Thats not likely to help the people the democrats need to help. Simultaneously politics is a game where the two sides collide for advantage it really is life or death but its not the only thing of politics but nevertheless the fact that we do have this constitutional continuity civil wars happen here and in other countries i think taking for granted that there is some power people want to see continuity and is something i urge people to do to distinguish between levels of trend the trend right now i think it is bad in terms of search for justice and equality right now theres not many times we were not more democratic or much less 100 years ago so to say right now it has turned against democrats i think throws too much out in a bid for short term advantage. I think in a plausible way this shakes out we were in a demographic and pretty quickly texas became blue. Because you have a majority capable of governing i dont have that crystal ball but the consequences of tearing down a system. And whether we were muddling through it was a very orderly at the moment it but i agree what we need what does it take to get the parties had we know of our democracy is broken. I do think we are still muddling through. And he definitely could if he has more of an attention span. [laughter] that is very scary so he jumps from thing to thing. They are muddling. Its not pretty or fun. I dont think the parties will do it they dont campaign against the legitimacy but they take it seriously enough and what that would mean in my mind and then getting into a bill they cant pass then they eliminate and then have a completely value base legitimate lot to make the system work better. [applause] thank you for the easy clap but that is a passable lot into a large extent democrats do not prioritize it because it would be a power grab if they chose to elect democrats. Its such a crazy situation i dont know what to say. You can get rid of the filibuster but one thing is that we will not get to a majority is a little less of the minority and that just means democrats coming into power and say we think this is the right thing to do. But in 2015 and then to be reinstated things do go back and forth a lot of this. Of the sixties up through 75 it was a two thirds majority. That they have to prioritize them. There is a very big difference from a party that comes into power 2021. We will do medicare for all without doing anything about the filibuster or anything then they will lose. Versus we try to make them governable before we govern. You can do that. But in the end. People prefer the outcome is taking as a nonpartisan political analyst they showed. [laughter] i dont want to let you off the hook you have a great thread through your content. And social media and access. There are others others but do u see as the intent of technology crack. We are a and a half inning people are thinking oh my gosh there will be traffic so take a photo of the room i would like to have this recollection that once i did a book event here. s of you could just hang out for a second. [laughter] hold on. Panoramic. Thank you for bearing with me. That technology seems to be the aggressive accelerant. The data does not fully backed me up. That cable news has an impact on the system is not at all clear all technology does and i am pretty sure it is polarizing and that makes every bed he hates each other for the politician that was donald trump i believe that polarization is clearly identity oriented. So by the book full price from your local bookseller. [laughter] and that was the identity based content. So the internet is an accelerant. And i dont thank you can look at politics on social media and thats one reason i am very pessimistic. You cannot look at where this conversation you could get banned from twitter. I am curious about your reaction how much of the Current Situation is our structure versus demographic. If you took the exact thing but the demographics were the same how different would that be . So number one, i dont know for sure. But if we were on the 2016 election donald trump is a republican nominee and they fight it out and as a reasonably weak candidate i dont know her email security is extremely lax. [laughter] but even so she manages to pull it out by the popular vote and she wins. And whether john k sikora rubio. You could see that the whole time but instead they elected a lunatic and lost. That the faction becomes increasingly discredited. It with that democratization with that exposure to the demographics of the era is a healthy discipline for campaigns and parties. Because then you have to change the message so i cant say for sure it isnt all political conflict to look internationally but the specific ungovernable system the legitimacy question and would be a healthier place if they werent. Thank you. [applause] ezra will be selling and signing books here. Thank you for joining us. Have extra copies of the book for sale in the lobby. [inaudible conversations] senator jeff late karl rove along with the moderator