Re: In wartime, does trust in the executive strengthen or weaken democracy?
Question: In wartime, does trust in the executive strengthen or weaken democracy?
Peter Beinart: That’s a very interesting question. I don’t think one can say as a blanket statement that America . . . that American . . . I think there are perils in both. There are . . . There are perils in too much trust in government. And I think you saw that to some degree in the 1960s with America’s legacy and intervention into Vietnam. And even to . . . I think to a slightly lesser degree, you saw that with the way . . . of Iraq after a period . . . particularly after 9/11 when Americans were more trusting of their leaders and wanted to believe and then follow their leaders. So there . . . Excessive trust can be dangerous, particularly when it leads to the Congress, and the judiciary, and the press being complacent in their . . . in their acceptance of the official version of events. On the other hand, too radical a distrust can prevent government from being able to function effectively; that public leaders . . . public . . . You want public leaders to earn their people’s trust by being honest with them; by being effective in what they do. Because unless the government . . . the government is able to earn some degree of public trust, it is not able to bring Americans along the hard decisions. So it was very important in Franklin Roosevelt taking America into World War II that he was able to bring . . . to develop the trust of the American people. Obviously Pearl Harbor made a . . . made a big difference in our entrance into World War II; but the . . . Franklin Roosevelt was very shrewd about recognizing the degree that he had to build trust in the American . . . amongst the American people, and even amongst people of the opposing party, which is why he systematically brought Republicans and political opponents in to work with him on foreign policy in order that he could maintain the trust to bring Americans to do something which is very difficult, which is to send our troops again into a European war.
Recorded on: 9/12/07
Excessive trust in executive power can be dangerous.
Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.
No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.
Research by neuroscientists at MIT's Picower Institute for Learning and Memory helps explain how the brain regulates arousal.
The big day has come: You are taking your road test to get your driver's license. As you start your mom's car with a stern-faced evaluator in the passenger seat, you know you'll need to be alert but not so excited that you make mistakes. Even if you are simultaneously sleep-deprived and full of nervous energy, you need your brain to moderate your level of arousal so that you do your best.
A disturbing interview given by a KGB defector in 1984 describes America of today and outlines four stages of mass brainwashing used by the KGB.
- Bezmenov described this process as "a great brainwashing" which has four basic stages.
- The first stage is called "demoralization" which takes from 15 to 20 years to achieve.
- According to the former KGB agent, that is the minimum number of years it takes to re-educate one generation of students that is normally exposed to the ideology of its country.
When these companies compete, in the current system, the people lose.
- When a company reaches the top of the ladder, they typically kick it away so that others cannot climb up on it. The aim? So that another company can't compete.
- When this happens in the pharmaceutical world, companies quickly apply for broad protection of their patents, which can last up to 20 years, and fence off research areas for others. The result of this? They stay at the top of the ladder, at the cost of everyday people benefitting from increased competition.
- Since companies have worked out how to legally game the system, Amin argues we need to get rid of this "one size fits all" system, which treats product innovation the same as product invention. Companies should still receive an incentive for coming up with new products, he says, but not 20 years if the product is the result of "tweaking" an existing one.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.