5 Burst results for "Frank Fukuyama"
The Blog of Author Tim Ferriss
"frank fukuyama" Discussed on The Blog of Author Tim Ferriss
"They're doing this with some frequency especially with the experimentation that is happening on mass right now if you just look at say and tees and so on which is much people might ridicule them for the surface level appearance of silly j. pegues. There's a lot underneath. That that i think is deeply interesting and will prove valuable any book you might recommend for people who want to roll up their sleeves as possible crafters of constitutions governments. I agree with you. That francis fukuyama frank. Fukuyama is amazing on this. He's especially good also on how things fall apart. He's very very good on what he calls the decay as well as being very very good on the building of such institutions. I actually had him on my podcast. Recently he's just totally spectacular on. His work is also even though. He's a very scholarly person. The books are written in a very readable and accessible way. Is there a starting point. You might recommend of his books. One of his most recent books is this kind of grand grand book political order and political decay. It's an amazing book. It's not a short book. And i don't know if i would recommend it. The whole book has an introduction. Could read the first part of the book which is sort of a book on its own and get a really good account of how political order comes into existence and then take a deep breath and then read the second part of the book about how it falls apart on the other side. So i think if i was going to pick one of frank's book it would be it would be political order and political decay another book which is a bit shorter which i have found credibly helpful for me is a book called democracy and the market and it's a polish born political scientist. Whose name is adam. Schefter ski and spell his last name. Because it's not how it sounds. It's pr z. E w k cheval. It pronounced devorski. Because that's how languages role and cheval sqi is just also just completely fascinating fascinating person. Who was very influential on me. When i was trying to figure out how you design governments and one of the things that he talks about in democracy in the market is about how the creation of democracies is intertwined with the operation of capitalism when we study in school how democracies come into existence. We usually don't really think about how they interface with the organization of.
The Tim Ferriss Show
"frank fukuyama" Discussed on The Tim Ferriss Show
"United States, hotels were racially segregated in the large parts of the country, integrating in the process of integration had a lot to do with hotels, some folks may have seen the movie, the green book, which literally refers to the physical book that African Americans had to carry with them when they were traveling around the segregated south, so they would know where they were legally allowed to stay. So the process that shows you, you know, the fundamentally transformed in nature of desegregation so now your air-b-n-b you've disrupted this industry, it would have been plausible and easy to predict I would even say. Maybe easiest too strong a word, but possible to predict that air-b-n-b would face challenges around racial discrimination by their users both by people who are renting out air-b-n-b some people who rent them. Because they were inheriting this industry. And so the social challenge that had faced that industry wasn't going to disappear when it passed into this new industry. And I think that's a nice concrete example of how looking at the past can actually help you make predictions about what the challenges are going to be in the future. And then those are actionable predictions. Then you can say, well, if we're going to design a disruptive technology for hotels, we need to build in protections against forms of racial discrimination that we think are wrong. And air-b-n-b eventually got around to that and did do that. But that's an example of where you can look to the past, and you can learn a lot about what's going to happen in the future. Another concrete example would be political polarization, which is something that I think all of us have had to spend a lot of time thinking about over the last 5 or 6 years. And it doesn't really matter whether you're thinking of it because you care about politics or you're thinking about it because your business is a business that inevitably interacts with the public, and the public is polarized. We live in a world where it's not just politicians we vote for who are becoming polarized, but our views about science are polarized. And if you're about medicine or polarizing, there are brand choices or increasingly polarizing a range of ways. So we all have to think about it one way or another. There you could look back to past instances of polarization in our society, which have in many cases been devastating. And you can look at the ways we crawled out of those. And you can take advantage of the things that worked. When we did crawl out, primarily forms of compromise and forms of recognition of the other side as having more in common, than actually separates us. And you can try to self consciously build on those models to try to figure out how to make the future somewhat better than it otherwise might be. And you can also look at when we failed. You know, the Civil War being the biggest example where our polarization just failed. And we split in two, and you can try to avoid the problems that helped create that failure. I have so many questions. I feel like I feel like a little kid who's so excited to jumping up and down, trying to tug at a parent's sleeve to get attention because they can't contain what they want to say. I'm just going to try to spit these out one at a time. All right, so the first is do you have any recommendations for books that could be your own? For people who want to study, and I'm not sure exactly how to separate or define these things. But the creation of governance and maybe state building, the name Francis fukuyama comes to mind because a friend is recommended his work over and over and over again. I know that Patrick Collison when he was on this podcast, we talked about, I believe I'm getting the name right Lee kuan yew. Am I getting that right? Sure. Who transforms Singapore into what it is. I mean, just an incredible, incredible story. But for people who are for practical purposes trying to get a grasp of this. And I think about, for instance, blockchain and dows, these new organizations, man, man, our lawyers are going to be busy. But putting that aside, there are people right now who are crafting constitutions. They're doing this with some frequency, especially with the experimentation that is happening on mass right now if you just look at say NFTs and so on, which as much as people might ridicule them for the surface level appearance of just like silly jpegs. There's a lot underneath that I think is deeply interesting and will prove valuable. Any books you might recommend for people who want to roll up their sleeves as possible, crafters of constitutions and governments. I agree with you that Francis fukuyama Frank fukuyama is amazing on this. He's especially good also on how things fall apart. He's very, very good on what he calls decay, as well as being very, very good on the building of such institutions. I actually had him on my podcast recently and he's just totally spectacular. And his work is also, even though he's a very scholarly person, the books are written in a very readable and accessible way. Is there a starting point you might recommend of his books? One of his most recent books is this kind of grand grand book. Political order and political decay. It's an amazing book. It's not a short book. And I don't know if I would recommend it, the whole book as an introduction, but I think you could read the first part of the book, which is sort of a book on its own and get a really good account of how political order comes into existence. And then take a deep breath and then read the second part of the book about how it all falls apart on the other side. So I think if I was going to pick one of Frank's book, it would be, it would be political order in political decay. Another book which is a bit shorter, which I have found incredibly helpful for me is a book called.
Techmeme Ride Home
"frank fukuyama" Discussed on Techmeme Ride Home
"To get started. Today interesting take them seriously. Family seems to be in violent agreement. Yeah i agree with all of that. And the other thing i would add here. Is that a lot of a lot of what you are. Just kind of running through as the potential like future state of facebook is so much in this in the futurist realm which ties back to something that you said earlier chris about not not being able to predict the downside. Right of the technology like how it will be. What's the black mirror rate and the question. We have a couple of seasons of these gonna right like we're not in a place where we're like. Oh is there going to be a black near now. We've seen that. There will be like pretty much. Always and product teams need to operate in a way that assumes that is the case and and be structured in a manner that is is looking for and ready to respond when that happens so when. I'm what i'm getting at here. Is that part of. If they were smart they would want to collaborate with government because if what they do is build something that has a a really bad scary black mirror side to it. The government is going to come for them at some point right. it doesn't matter who's in power at some point. Someone is going to intervene in some way and it is so sure about that. I mean like it. Just it feels like to a dollar short delay all that i mean it might be but the issue is like isn't it better for the government to write regulations that are actually like useful and implementable rather than right regulations and policies. That you then have to like bend yourself into bizarro. I wish we could get that first thing out right. I mean even facebook. I listened to a lot of podcast and the number of ads. That i've heard where facebook is like calling for regulation is more than one. It's been going on for a while and yet we still don't have that so i i don't want to be like the the contrarian but it's just as you said the right people are not at the table the incentives are not there. I mean if if people were. I don't know if it's money or like what it would take to get the right people the right table to right the right regulations. That would actually bring about the things that you're describing. You know what i mean like. He just feels like the tech companies are the ones that are making all the money and are offering these lavish lifestyles. And you know you've worked to the government and it just doesn't seem like that's the case there this is. This is actually a really interesting. There's an interesting proof against that aca. And that is that. I am one of them. Many of my colleagues at the us digital service and eighteen f and who have gone to work for the for various parts of the government including the ftc are people who left those lucrative jobs and the bottom line is once they went into government. They saw the saw how much further their skill skillset could go in the public impact. And it's not for everyone. But i think there is. I think it's safe to say that. There is a pretty sizable cohort of disillusioned technologists of all strikes right products. Data programmers designers who the people leaking stuff to the wall street journal. They should go get him job with the usgs they are the they are the people chris like those. If any of you are in the audience like dm me we need you right like So those are the people who can make the biggest difference because they've had their hands on these products so if they're tired of what. It looks like go help people who want to do the right thing. Do the right thing because right now. They're kind of bumbling along and they need your help totally well all right. I feel like metaverse thing wasn't exactly been which is fine because it's the future and who knows and we've got a lot of stuff to deal with today and right now i did pin one tweet from justin's tech policy press on an upcoming event on october seventh. Just do you want to promo that well. Yeah christi opportunity We're gaining advantage on october. Seventh one pm to four thirty eastern Which is on the issue that you raised earlier the or the paul raise. I suppose From recommendations Looking at the idea Unbundling social media You know what would happen if we had more. Decentralized or unbundled Social media networks components and you mentioned block party The founder block party is one of the speakers along with a bunch of other interesting people. Core dr a friend. Frank fukuyama Stanford political scientists. daphne keller at stanford natalie miracle Richard reisman ramesh. Trina vossen Joan donovan just a handful of folks that are going to kind of think through some of the kind of policy idea issues around that Set of proposals but also some of the legal and and kind of commercial complications And kind of look at what how that might happen or how it could happen. What the obstacles are and think that through so That's also pinned at tech policy prosper. Anybody on twitter awesome. Well i think that's a pretty good place to end here. I wanna re-extend at emily tavern. Tv if you wanna talk to actually going into the government and helping to become part of the solution to the problem. I believe that she's ready willing to help you do something which i think is great and i think we'll end it there. On behalf of brian. I want to thank everyone for honoring his anniversary. Because i support their marriage and matrimonial bliss hosting this myself on this show may not go out immediately this weekend because we actually have the second episode of the world cup of entrepreneurs coming out which is a super fund super great episode. But obviously this stuff is timely. And anyways i wanna think just in. I want to thank paul. I want to thank emily for coming up here. We've been going at this for over an hour now and we could go on in definitely. I would love to have you back on some time. When we've got some of these things you know written down in terms of how you wanna see this happen. And then i don't know the whole metaverse thing. It's interesting any any parting thoughts. Anything you guys want people to check out you know. Obviously the event is one. We're actually paul. Where can people find this report. I go to the home page of the center for business and human rights at nyu and right on the homepage. There's a banner across the top. You click on and takes your right to the report is there is a short link or something really not sure what you mean sources address. The landing page of the report is not a long length. Spite quite modest like okay tweets be. Hr dot stern nyu dot edu. Okay that works. Great okay guys again. Thanks so much for being here. Thanks everyone for listening. This is another episode of the tech ride home experience and we will see here next week thanks everybody..
Deep Background with Noah Feldman
"frank fukuyama" Discussed on Deep Background with Noah Feldman
"M dot com everybody in from pushkin industries. This is deep background. The show where we explore the stories behind the stories in the news. I'm noah feldman this week were in the middle of a deep background miniseries on international power and the people who shape it in this episode. We're fortunate to have one of the world's best known public intellectuals to help us explore important aspects of these questions. Francis fukuyama is a scholar based at stanford university where he's a professor of political science and a senior fellow at the spo lee institute for international studies for thirty years. Now he's been writing fascinating influential books about democracy political order how it develops how it changes and how it can decay. He first came to global attention with an essay and book the history and the last man published just at the point that the cold war was beginning to come to an end since then he's published among other things to massive six hundred and fifty page books on the nature of political order from pre human times the french revolution and then on political order and political decay from the industrial revolution to the globalization of democracy. Most recently he published a fascinating book on identity and contemporary politics. Today we're going to delve deep into the question of what decay is. The united states is entering a period to k that is going to affect its global standing. Its relationship with other countries in the world and particularly china. sometimes controversial always provocative and frequently extraordinarily deep. Frank fukuyama is the perfect person with whom to discuss the trajectory of democracy in the world and in the united states today frank. Thank you so much for being here frank. Even before donald trump was elected in fact a good deal before you published one of your big books called political order and political decay in which you introduced the idea of a form of democratic decay and suggested that in a range of ways the united states was starting to enter a period of such democratic decay. Although not perhaps in every way i wonder if we could begin with the concept of decay and if we start with some definitions we might be able to jumpstart a deeper conversation about what is and is not happening with respect to decay in the united states and of democracy in other democratic countries shirt might teacher in graduate school. The sam huntington in his famous nineteen sixty eight book. A political urban changing societies talked about the process of typically carry societies developed faster than political institutions. People's expectations rose. The political system. Didn't meet those expectations that lead to instability. Mount concept is is based on that. It's it's similar but there's a couple of different directions sir. I do think the ability of a political system to meet expectations is critical for stability but the reason that they don't meet expectations oftentimes has to do with two factors one of remers just the excessive rigidity of the system. It's too hard to reform so that even though elites may recognize that the system is not keeping up with the demands placed on it they. They can't do anything to fix it. But the other run our which wasn't really so much in sam's framework. Was this idea of a political captured by elites used their wealth and power to basically grab hold parts of the straight and to rose parts to their own self interest. Both of these things were things. I start happening. In the united states we had obvious problems with our democracy that made it less responsive to popular demands. But we couldn't change it because we have a very rigid constitutional system. That is extremely hard to change our break. We also had this process by which very powerful organized interest groups were ensconced themselves in different parts of the state and burning it to their own wishes. And i think in ways that was one of the conditions that led to this upsurge of populism represented by donald trump that ordinary people felt the system wasn't serving them. So those are the sense in which i thought. The system was decaying frank building on what you just said about populist terrorism which in the us we had donald trump is our version but we got him out after one term so in global terms. That's actually a win in response to populist authoritarianism if you compare that to places like hungary or poland where pop this authoritarians have so far been more durable or certainly russia. Do you see populist authoritarianism. Then as just a symptom of decay that's actually caused by captured by elites that is the public a lot of members of the public. Feel like they can't get access and so they give you intern Trump for a viktor. Orban or is it. Also that is to say not just a symptom of the other causes of decay but also a contributor to the decay because at least in ordinary terms of the word decay. You have someone who's an authoritarian. They will undercut democratic institutions even further and make them seem illegitimate and even less responsive to popular demand. Yes all of those things. So i around big particular form that decay turk after two thousand sixteen with the rise of populist. Nationalists was not simply the resort. Rigid political systems in japan has a very rigid political system. But i don't think it's really suffering from the kind of decay that we're experiencing so there was something else going on in society which when combined with the rigidities of the system i think produce this populist upsurge it or those changes in society i think have to do with economics and society. The society was splintering into at least two very distinct cultural groups one of which was very well educated open to a cosmopolitan globalized world. Doing quite rural and the other part tended to live in a smaller towns and cities or in the countryside for active from all of the big associated economic and technological changes that had been a happening and that explains the particular resentments that emerged. That meant that the populous backlash. When it came wasn't just about economics it was also about culture. It was proud. People feeling that the elites in the country had sterling. The national identity transformed it into something that they weren't comfortable with that environment. The downplaying patriotism of religion of a lot of traditional social values. And sir i think if required thurs sorts of social transformations mixed together with the rigidities of the system and elite capture that led to our current situation as your question about which were the cazalet moves i think has in many phenomena moves in dirt direction so i think the external changes in the economy and technology promoted this kind of social fracturing that once the society fractured it fed back into the Decay because people felt that they were trapped in in in this unreformable system. I want to go. Deeper into the polarization.
Between The Lines
Has Trump broken the 'rules-based international order'?
"Today on the show discussion with a renowned expert about the so-called rules based international order. It's been grabbing headlines vs. Now, how often have you heard that term, the rose by store is not perfect. We are rallying the noble nations of the world to build a new liberal order, that prevents war achieves greater prosperity for all. I have never heard. I Chinese leader commit so explicitly to rule based international order. So what do you think it actually means now for many politicians and journalists the world in which we leave the institutions of governance, the rules norms, all that, that's largely inspired by the kind of allegedly but nine global leadership that the United States. Is exercise for decades. And yet, would you believe it? The rules based international order itself has become a popular expression, only in recent times, did effective research, such of the world's newspapers and news wise. And it shows these things that in the three decades from ninety five to twenty fifteen the expression was used on three hundred nineteen occasion. That's three hundred eight times in thirty. That's all, however, get a lot of this in the past four years since Donald Trump announces presidential campaign, the term has been used nearly six thousand times six thousand times in the past four years. And about three hundred and twenty in the previous thirties, extrordinary now to me, the logic is simple. Western journalists scholars politicians policy makers, they all too often refer to this Liberal International order rules. Based international order. Why? Because it's demise is primarily blamed on one Donald Trump from this day forward, it's going to be only America first America first. Now the conventional wisdom goes lock these ball rising tariffs weakening alliances withdrawing the US from international agreements and supping with the devil, from Kim Jong Hoon that Singapore to Ladimir Putin hill, stinky, the US president has lifted void in world leadership. This is the argument as a result, Trump has undermined Feith in the open free, international order of the post Cold War era. But Trump alone really, to blind for the unraveling of the Liberal International auto or was this rules based order. So beloved of the western elites was at bound to file will my guest today has spent a lot of time. Thinking about this issue, John Measham is no stranger to this program. He's professor of political science at the university of Chicago. He's the author most recently of the great delusion liberal, drains and international realities published by ya'll university, Chris. And he's article bound to file the and full of Liberal International order that appears in the current issue of the academic journal, International Security, John joins us today from a studio on campus. The university of Chicago. Get I John welcome to the program. Thank you, Tom. I'm glad to be here now. It seems that this rules base Liberal International order is in trouble is Trump to blind. No, I think it is the conventional wisdom among the foreign policies. Tablet meant here in the United States, and probably in Australia that Trump is responsible for wrecking the Liberal International order. And once he is disposed of in twenty twenty and we get a new president someone like Joe Biden, we'll go back to the old way of doing business in the Liberal International order will survive. I think this is a deeply flawed way of thinking about what's happening with regard to that order that order was in deep trouble before, Trump got elected, just think the Iraq war, the Afghans, STAN war, the fiasco and Libya defeat. Lasko in Syria to Gasco over Ukraine, to two thousand eight financial crisis, the euro zone crisis Brexit, just a name of few of the problems. What Trump did when he ran for president in two thousand sixteen was he pointed out all these failures. He said, the Liberal International order was bankrupt and he got away. Acted and he got elected because many voters, clearly understood that he was correct. So the argument that Trump is responsible for wrecking the Liberal International. Order is dead wrong by what distinguished Trump from a lot of the Republicans and Democrats in two thousand sixteen was he's belief that democracy was not an expo commodity, and you think about it, John thirty years ago. This she had the full of the Berlin Wall, the claps Ivy, communism and the consensus that ease ago, I roll friend Francis, Fukuyama democracy was the wife of the future, what happened. I think that would happened was that we came to find out that not everyone in the world likes democracy, you and I may think it is the best system. But the fact is that they're all sorts of other people world, especially if you go to a place like Russia today, who would prefer an alternative form of political system. And in this case, it soft the -tarian his, so if you're in the business of trying to spread democracy around the world as the United States was in its pursuit of liberal. Gemini, what you discover is an extremely difficult task and it's an especially difficult task. If you use military force to spread democracy. In other words, you try to spread democracy at the end of a sword. And this, of course, is what we tried to do in Afghanistan. And in Iraq, it was with the Bush doctrine was all about, and those ended up being close. Oh failures, you'll critics will say though. Not standing all these setbacks that isn't it inevitable that as human con progresses than the prospects for democratization, and universal peace are enhanced and that, you know it was seeing this right now. There's still talk that China will eventually become a liberal democracy in these protests in Hong Kong that we've witnessed in the past fortnight that shows that eventually, China will buck, and become more liberal, democratic signed thing for Russia. How'd you respond to that? I just don't think it's inevitable. I mean, I want to be very clear, I think democracy is the best political system, and I think it would be a good thing if every country on the planet was liberal democracy. But the idea that that is inevitable as simply wrong. The fact is that Uman beings find it very difficult to agree on questions of what is the best life? What is the best political system, and would Frank Fukuyama and others? Assumed when the Cold War came to a conclusion was that everybody in the world. Wanted to live in a state, that was a liberal democracy. And therefore, with fictive -ly had the winded our back in our endeavour to spread liberal democracy, all across the planet, but that assumption has proven to be wrong. The fact is that the spread of democracy is not inevitable. And by the way, if you go back to two thousand six fast forward to the present what you see is that the number of democracies in the world is decreasing not increase. I think the New York buys freedom house's documented that. It's come down something like ten percent in the last ten or so years. Raw joan. It has. And that is regrettable. But it just points out that this is not inevitable. And again, if you get into the business trying to sprint liberal democracy when it's not an edible. And there are viable, alternatives, you're going to run into a whole his just as a conventional wisdom's are often wrong guy back to that consensus at the end of the Cold War that democracy was the wife of the future. One orthodoxy, that's also Baynes smashed in the last that he is. John is argument that nationalism was a thing of the past on the eve of the European parliamentary elections as Jordan, Claude Juncker. He's a leading European bureaucrat. He was asked about the growing reactions about, you know, against Brussels and the AU and the rise of nationalist movements across Europe. This is from CNN in general with the with the EU elections coming up, the euro skeptical right-wing forces seemed to be very strong in many countries. How does how much does that concern? You why do you think that is what's wrong with the what's your? We'll just. And if that wasn't tone-deaf enough, he added these populous necessarily stupid necessarily his day, I love the country and they don't like the others. Join me Sharma. What do you make of comments? I think it's a remarkably foolish comment. The fact is that virtually every leader of a western democracy is a nationalist just take, Madeleine Albright, who was once secretary of state here in the United States and is viewed as a canonical liberal. She's also a nationalist at heart. She wants famously said that America is the indispensable nation. We stand taller and we see further if you think about her words, she is saying, America is the indispensable, and I underline the word nation. That's at the heart of nationalism virtually every leader, whether it's an Australian or. Japanese or German leader feels that his or her country is something very special in their deeply devoted to that country. That's what nationalism is all about. And what you had in the post Cold War, period up until very recently is a situation where liberalism and nationalism coexisted, but hardly anybody ever talked about nationalism. But once the Liberal International order began to crumble people began to talk more and more about nationalism. And they felt at a lot of those liberal policies in fringed on national policies and on nationalism and ways that they didn't like, and the end result is, you got Brexit and Britain, and you got Trump and the United States and you know what you have in places like Poland and Hungary as well. So in nineteen states clash with multilateral institutions, nationalism, always Trump's liberalism that show alone. My view is that liberalism and Nash. Nationalism can coexist. But when particular liberal policies begin to bump up against nationalism, nationalism will be liberalism, every time because we are all ultimately social animals. We are all alternately very tribal in our nation matters to us greatly. I think virtually every Australian cares greatly about Australian sovereignty just like every American cares about American sovereignty.