The Quest To Understand "The People"

This podcast is part of the Democracy Group. This is Larry Lessig. So we're going to start a thread on this podcast. The thread is about understanding, understanding us Americans, understanding how we came to view the things we came to view that climaxed in this most recent contest over the election. And I'm not sure quite how we're gonna figure this out, but I've got a clue about where to start. And we're gonna start today with an old friend who I knew in college and I knew in graduate school and I've known on and off for the last 40 years, Frank Luntz. Frank, of course, is quite prominent and has been quite influential in the arc of conservative thought, or at least understanding the populist or people's views in the arc of conservative thought. He was in the early stages of his career, very close to Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Newt Gingrich. He even did polling for Rudy Giuliani. And I've seen Frank, over the many years, since the early 1980s and 1990s, develop in his understanding of the problem and his understanding of where America is. And I'm not going to say we agree, we don't. And many of the values he has may have been values that I once thought I had, but are not my values today. But the thing I know about Frank is that there's an integrity to him as a person. And that integrity is something we're going to trade on in this conversation as we begin to understand exactly how it is we come to the place where 40% of America views an election which was not stolen as stolen. So, Frank, it's wonderful to talk to you. We've been speaking for many, many years. As I've explained in the introduction, we were at the same university and we saw each other when we both went to England. And bouncing off each other over the arc of American politics, modern American political history. We've been friends and I to this day consider you a dear friend, though I don't get to see you enough. But when I do, I reminded of the integrity and love of friendship that we've always shared. What I particularly like about you is the reflection that you've brought to the evolution of American politics. And you've had an incredibly important role, role in American politics on the right, or you've been a player, part of that, your early career. You worked with Buchanan, Perot, Gingrich, even did polling for Giuliani. I want you to help us understand how do we get here and where are we? And is it possible to imagine America Together again.

Well, the first thing I'd say, Larry, is that I knew you at the University of Pennsylvania. You were a year ahead of me, a member of Sigma Chi, and someone who I always looked up to from the very beginning, of course, when I knew you, you were beacon of light from the right. And now you become a beacon of light from I don't quite know where. Sometimes it's the left. Sometimes that's a bad characterization of it. It's just not what it used to be. And you and I have actually gone through an interesting change. You went through it much before I did. You point to a sense of reflection that's been my life for the last 2012 months and to a great degree over the last four or five years. You went through it much before I did because you're much smarter than I am. And you are what I always wished I could be. The truth is, so much of what I've done in politics and messaging and language is because I'm not you, is because I don't have the intellect. I don't have the ability to see things that others don't see. I can hear them. I can put words together. I understand the soundtrack of America because of the skills that I have to listen very carefully and to learn very quickly. But I never became a policy person, and you became one extraordinaire. And I consider you, at this point in our relationship to be a conscience. Maybe not mine. Although when you say something, we have a mutual friend who I say, when Larry speaks, I listen. And I reconsider what I think, because I think that you know more than anybody I know you're an expert in areas that are recognized by the Supreme Court and absolutely blow me away. All I've got is the public opinion of the American people. And I try to listen and learn to them, learn from them. I do focus groups. I do surveys. I'm actively gathering where they stand. And I think you're an optimist. And what you're about to find out, because you and I have not had this conversation since the election, is that I've probably never been as pessimistic as I am today. I've never believed as much as I do that we have reached a point of no return, that it's not just the players, it's not just the money, it's not just the corruption, it's not just the election laws and all those things that you and I have discussed and debated for years now, that it's now the system itself that has been polluted that is toxic. And I don't see a way out before you.

Okay, that's a great start. And so I forgot to tell you about the rule. You can't say anything nice about me on this podcast. Okay, well, then we've gone through a lot of that.

Then you have to follow the same rule.

Okay? No more nice things about Frank. But that's a great way to frame it, because let's take this phrase that you. I mean, this is what you do best, this phrase that you've offered the soundtrack of America. And you're right, sometimes I'm optimistic, but lots of times recently, I've been deeply pessimistic. When you talk about the system. What is the system now? It's not just the government. Right. When you think about what are the components to what's poisoning the capacity for us to do anything, what are the components?

The components, the end user is the person, is the individual. So 330Americans. So what goes into that? The government, the media, the courts, social media, and the web. Technology beyond that. And everything is conspiring against us. There was a time when everything worked in our favor. And I was remarking to friends just a couple days ago how technology has made everything so possible that at the very moment that we get shut down with COVID is the moment that we discover the ability to purchase everything from our meals to our comforts, everything we can now buy on the web so we don't have to go to the store. That at the very moment that our schools are at their worst in educating us, and that's a key component of the system. At the very worst, we now have the ability to engage in master classes. We have the ability to learn from people across the country. Country and across the globe. At the very moment that our technology shuts us down, we have the ability at home to repair it. We've never had more opportunities to have a good and great life, and we've never had more aspects of it that are destroying that great life. At the same time, just as we are in a rush to save ourselves from COVID can we get enough needles into enough arms to protect us from this virus? We're in the same rush to overcome the challenges that technology is leaving us. We are in the same rush to find hope for a future from a population that believes that everything around them is collapsing. Everything they once knew is proven to be untrue. And those things they once had faith in, they now have no faith at all. We are in a rush to. To get to the other side as the world around us is in a rush to bury us and to drown us.

So let's take parts of this. Let's put the government to one side for a second. I want to understand how you're thinking about media these days, because when you first got into this business, media was very different.

Okay, I'm going to jump in this right now because part of what I do is to think about this. You, I won't do the compliment. You see things that others don't see. I assume you know Tristan Harris, who focuses on social media. I focus on politics. It occurs to me that we're going to have this conversation right now. You can edit it, I don't mind. I trust you. But there are five or six people that have the ability to resolve, to have the ability to have this conversation as wide and broad as it needs to be, that it's simply not having right now. We are so compartmentalized, we are so specific in what we focus on that we don't see the consequences of our actions. We can solve the traffic situation by building up rather than building out so that everyone works close to, everyone lives close to work, but that creates its own set of problems. We can say that we're not going to use coal anymore, that we're not going to put carbons in the air, but that creates its own set of problems. No one is looking at the big picture. I would suggest as I'm talking to you right now, because I've been having these conversations, that there are six or seven people that do see the bigger picture, that do have this understanding. The problem is we don't come together with enough people watching. Enough people can make a difference. The truth is, you and I and Tristan and a half a dozen others like us have ideas that can make a difference. But the people who do the legislation, the people who do the communication, the media, who's supposed to see this either doesn't or chooses to focus on one aspect of it without seeing the bigger picture. If there ever was a time when we all need to sit down and explain what we know, what we know well, and bounce it off of other people, not for the sake of political gain or monetary gain, but for the sake of humanity, this is that time. Tony Blair is another person like that. Why don't we all share together? You can't do it in an hour. It's a two hour conversation with a clear agenda. And I'll propose, I keep raising it, but I'll propose six people. Because of zoom and the technology, six are very Large for two hours to have this global conversation, and we'll share it with our relationships across the country and across the globe, and we'll deal with some of these issues, because you and I, having this conversation only goes so far.

Okay. I. I'd love to be part of that, of course, But I do think, you know, something particular that Tony Blair and Tristan and I don't know, and that comes from the discipline of, like, 40 years or 30 years learning how to listen, not to talking heads and not to professors, but to people. And what I'm trying to understand is, as you think about what you've heard over the arc of those 30 years, what has surprised you, like, what have you, what leads you to be, as you put it at the beginning, so pessimistic, given that in a certain sense, the thing that's supposed to have been constant in this is there's an American people, and they're supposed to be understanding their democracy.

I never dreamed that we would be susceptible. In fact, not only did I not dream it, I dismissed it. That we would be susceptible to what Donald Trump has created. I laughed it off. Then I rejected it with resentment. How dare you say this? This is the. Calling him a dictator and saying that. This is describing what I could not foresee. January 6th. I could not foresee a violent takeover of the Capitol. And I'm still shocked to this day. And we're now approaching a month later when I see more and more video that's coming out of absolute chaos and anarchy and a takeover, an attempted takeover. I will not use the word coup because it's not appropriate, but a takeover is appropriate. And, Larry, I said this was impossible, and I probably used dismissive language to respond, and it happened. So you ask me, what am I most surprised of? That we are so uneducated and so uninformed and so quick to dismiss that we will cancel people who should be heard, and we will follow people who should be canceled. And that is my greatest learning, and it's crushing for me. I have a feeling that this podcast is going to take a very dark turn for me if you keep pushing this line of questioning.

So where were you on the 6th?

I was here in Washington. I went outside. I live three blocks from Pennsylvania Avenue. I walked down the Pennsylvania Avenue, started walking down with all the people heading to the Capitol, and got to the Capitol. I saw people climbing over barriers from a distance, and I could not believe what I was seeing. I'm getting texts from people who are seeing my photographs because I'm posting them Saying, get away from there, that really bad things are happening at the Capitol. Go home. And of course, I'm going to ignore it, because I've always ignored stuff like that. From the very time that I got to know you. I ignored the wisdom I of people who said, be careful, because I need to see it, I need to experience it, I need to question it. I'm following a woman who's got a big sign in front of me that says, unlike liberals, Trump supporters don't riot. I took a picture of that. I've been putting that out on Twitter again and again, reminding people who say, no, this never happened. Yes, it did. Did. And these are Trump supporters. And I know that there are anarchists involved. There's all sorts of people involved, and it was horrible. And I have friends who to this day dismiss what happened as not being either significant or in some way not trying to justify it, because nobody does, but trying to suggest that they weren't responsible for it.

Okay. But I feel like nobody's really done enough to kind of defend the normal person who was there and who rioted. You know, I mean, I asked my friends, what if it were the other way around? You know, what if on January 6th, Mike Pence had done what the President wanted him to do, which was to say, no, he wouldn't have.

I'm going to stop you. He wouldn't have. Mike Pence. Okay, I agree. I agree. Wouldn't.

What I'm asking you to think about is if you actually believed that your government was being stolen, what is the appropriate thing for a patriot to do if you actually believe that? Now, you and I didn't believe. Don't believe that. So we gotta put ourselves into a hypothetical. That's not reality. But my point is, many of those people did. And if you honestly believe your government has been stolen, I don't know what the right response is. I mean, you know, when we see it in other countries and you see people riot and take over and, like, claim their government back, we praise it. So if you believed that about this, why is what happened on January 6th the wrong response?

Because it was Jefferson himself who said, a little rebellion from time to time may be necessary. And these people bought that. We are a different society today. We do not have the same norms, the same values. Just as we have rejected separate but equal, just as we have rejected bloodletting as a way to save someone's life. Even if you think that country, the government's being stolen, that is no excuse for you to attempt to by force, by Violence, take it back, that we have other ways to do it. We have courts, we have laws, we have elections. I am not a revolutionary. I'm the opposite. I have spent my life over the last year, and I think you're aware of this, trying to find common ground. I reject these divisions. My life has been to find a way to address them, not to enhance them. When I knew you at the beginning, I was a populist. I was someone who said, fuck it, the system is broken. Fuck it, let's change the system. Now I'm an incrementalist, and maybe I become. Gingrich accuses me of being the establishment. I'm not. I'm hostile to the establishment. Trump became the establishment. I don't believe that we should be fighting as much as we are. I don't believe we should be yelling as much as we are. I don't believe we should be seeking to divide ourselves as much as we do. We are pulling ourselves apart. It used to be because of talk radio, Then it was because of cable. Now it's because of social media. I am the person who's trying to work as fast as I can to sew a tapestry that unites us, that binds us together at the very moment that there are so many people trying to blow us apart.

Okay, so that's great, because I think a year, a year and a half ago, when we had a conversation, at that point, you seemed to have just given up. You were like, there's just nothing to be done. So the fact that you've committed yourself to this idea of rebuilding, I think is great. But here's the part I want to understand, bracketing and like, footnote. It's astonishing. I would have been violent if I thought my government was stolen. I am a revolutionary in that sense. But it's the reality that our government was not stolen on January 6th. And what I want to know is, when you talk to people on the right, which you do, that's your job. You spend times, hours and hours with people who are good people, honest people, people who genuinely believe what they believe. Did they really believe that literally the election was stolen? Do they really believe that?

We did a survey on 11 January, and they believed in the argument that those people who stormed the Capitol were patriots. They believed what you just said to their core, because they're told to believe it. It's what they see on the news. It's what they get on social media. We've had this conversation many, many times. Probably the greatest problem right now in breaking this this cycle of ugliness is that we get our information to affirm, not to inform, so we have no contrary contrari evidence seeping into our brains. We have nothing that challenges what we believe and everything that confirms our biases and our worst. Our worst nightmares. And the worst part of it is now it's been weaponized. So everyone is a traitor who we disagree with. Everyone has betrayed the things we believe in. If they try to. If they say that, that. I've seen the light, I've changed my point of view. You're now. You betrayed your people. You can't get anywhere. Instead of rewarding people who look at the facts and say, you know what? I made a mistake. We punish them. We kill them again and again, and we don't stop until they're dead. And the outgrowth of this, which I consider to be the most horrific of all, is that it's one thing when we refuse to believe, when we refuse to acknowledge facts. It's something even worse when we seek to cancel those, to shut them down if we disagree with them. And that was why, for me, the single toughest decision was what to do with Trump and Twitter. Because Donald Trump was feeding lies on Twitter. They are lies. I would look at him. I would look at the people who work for him and say to them, they're lies. You are lying. You did not win this election. Even if you overturned Georgia, you'd have to overturn Wisconsin, you'd have to overturn Arizona, you'd have to overturn Pennsylvania. This is not 2000, when hundreds of votes separated the two candidates in a single state. We're talking about tens of thousands, up to 100,000 votes. The election was not stolen. It is a lie. And right now I'm trying to figure out whether or not I should advise Senate Republicans to demand that Donald Trump acknowledge the truth about the election, or they will vote to convict him. Because in the end, the combination of Trump and Twitter and an acquittal is the potential to create the same shitstorm yet again. Because if he's acquitted, he's going to scream, you see? I told you I was innocent. The Senate has proved me innocent. It's run by Democrats, and they prove me innocent. And then we gotta have the same crap again.

Okay? I mean, we don't know enough to know how to characterize Donald Trump, but we do know enough to know how to characterize the people who fed these lies. I mean, you yourself have spoken to these people who you know know differently, and they refuse to acknowledge what they know is True. I don't. Without naming names at the level of the media, you know, when you look at like Fox News, let's bracket Oan or Breitbart. But Fox News, do they believe what they're saying or do they believe that saying this is what helps Fox News?

I believe that Tucker Carlson believes what he says. I believe Sean Hannity believes it. I believe that. I believe that Chris Wallace believes what he says. And Neil Cavuto and Brett Baer, that you've got a battle for the heart and soul of Fox between arguably three of the best interviewers and journalists. Brett Baer's got the best evening news program of them all. It is, is the most substantial. Chris Wallace has got the best Sunday show. He's the most likely to hold everybody accountable. He's not looking for cheap shots like some of them do. He's not looking to make partisan points. He's looking to get at the truth. And Neil Cavuto, from a business perspective, is the most likely person to stand up. I was on the show when he said Donald Trump was speaking. He interrupted Trump speaking speech to say that's simply not true. Neil Cavuto is risking his job and his audience. These are three people who I could not respect more. And then you got people who absolutely believe. I believe Sean Hannity believes what he says. I don't agree with it. Tucker, I have to be careful about watching Tucker because he's got a. He's got a way to get into me. He's got a way to take tap concerns that I have.

He's smart.

He's very smart. And he says he frames it in ways that I appreciate and often I agree. The problem is they take it too far. They go too far.

Okay, but if they believe that, if they believe it, I mean, that's fine. The question then is why does Murdoch allow people who believe things that are plainly false to dominate the most prominent slots in Fox News lineup? I mean, you know, who's responsible for the falsity? If they believe it, it's not them. But then who is?

Because. And I respect him tremendously for building this network. And it was he who stepped in and say, stop this crap about COVID What you're saying is not true. Stop it or you're off my air. That because Covid, that's a matter of life and breath, life and death. This other stuff is a matter of opinion. Fox News is not news from 8 to 11pm it is a pinion. Fox News is news at 4pm 6pm and at and The Fox News Sunday. And Rupert does not intervene on opinion. He does intervene on fact. And he did challenge them directly on something that that mattered to our health.

Okay, but wait, there's a fact about the mat. There's a fact of the matter whether Donald Trump won the election or not. And 800 and sometimes Sean and Tucker and Laura repeated the statement that Donald Trump won this election. That's a falsehood. You've acknowledged it. A falsehood. Now, you can't excuse it just by calling it opinion, can you? I mean, who's responsible for producing the attitude that led many good souls to march on the California believing they were saving their democracy?

Donald Trump.

Only Donald Trump.

Because they got their information from his Twitter feed, which is why. Which I am abhor. And the very first times that you and I discussed this 40 years ago, both of us were complete advocates of freedom of speech. Unfiltered, unmitigated. Just. You get to say whatever you want to say. Just don't yell fire in a crowded theater. I'm no longer that way. I believe, and it's a 5149 decision, that the single best decision that was made since the election was Twitter kicking Donald Trump off because he can't add to that ugliness anymore. He can't keep telling people who get their news, not from the New York Times and not from Fox, but from Trump himself, he is no longer able to poison them. I think that was the best decision, as much as I hate it, because I know that Twitter is going to close off other people on the right and going to say that, well, their opinions are dangerous, are not factual, I'll take that risk. For now. I'll fight that battle. Because having Donald Trump every single day telling the public and just riling them up and encouraging them to reject their government, that is a greater damage, that is a greater threat than silencing him at this point.

Well, I think it's a harder decision than many people think. But I agree, that's yelling fire in a crowded theater. And it was an appropriate reaction given exactly that moment. Let's shift away from the media a bit. Let's talk about, talk about the other adults who could have been in the room. I mean, you're close, you're friends. And again, I don't want to name names. But you're friends with lots of Republican leaders.

Yes, you do. You absolutely want to name names.

No, I don't want to because I, you know, our friendship, you know, I'm not going to. I'm not going to try to corner you on it. But I want to ask, I want you to speak in general. Like when were you surprised when you saw the potential adults in the room not acting like adults? I mean, I don't think you know Josh Hawley and I've become famously virulent about the outrageousness of what Josh Hawley did. So I'm happy to talk about Josh Hawley in particular. But you know, when a guy who is a former constitutional law professor educated at Yale, completely lies about the capacity of Congress to second guess what the states did with their electoral votes, it's just an outrage. And he does it only for his own personal interest advantage. Is that pattern of behavior something that surprised you too? Or did you think this is just the most you can ask?

Because I was there in the night, I actually was in the Capitol the night of the riot and I got a chance to ask a number of the elected officials were they going to change their votes. And they were able to explain to me what was going on, what they were seeking to accomplish. And it was not to overturn an election. It was to analyze a vote vote. And I believe them because at least a half dozen members, I'm under underestimating it. There are at least a dozen members that I have conversations with about this who are torn that they desperately wanted to count. They wanted to look at the system, they wanted to open it up and expose it is a fact that the legislatures are supposed to be be responsible for setting election laws and the bureaucrats administer them. The Secretary of State is not a law making person on the state level. They are an administrator. And the governors cannot get in and get involved in this. It is a legislative decision. And they wanted to point to decisions that happened in state after state, some of them Democrats, some of them Republicans, that were not appropriate for the this election cycle. How votes were tabulated, the decisions to accept some ballots and not accept others. The most egregious example is to allow votes to be counted when they don't even follow the election laws, such as signing the back of your ballot. So there are ways to track it. Decisions were made to count those ballots. That was what a lot of these people were doing. That is a fact. I know this because they show me their statements and they walk through it with me. You may choose to dismiss it. And these podcasts, there's no visual so the listener will not see that you were moving around and clearly frustrated by what I was saying. But I say it because I want you to get a picture of this conversation let's just be clear about one fact. That is what they were doing.

Here's a fact we have to be clear about.

Okay, go ahead.

I'm accepting what you're. I'm accepting what you're saying they were thinking they were doing. But here's the. They had no right to second guess what the states did. Our law, our federal law says if the states run an election and they have a system for contesting the results, and that contest is finished six days before the Electoral College votes, and if just one slate of electors is presented to Congress, then Congress promises it will not second guess those results. So I'm happy to say that we ought to be talking to people in the states about what their process was like and questioning their process. And there were 60 lawsuits filed in the states to challenge the process. But the whole point is, once the result was certified, they didn't have the right to question it. It's like saying, did the Kansas City Chiefs win the super bowl last year? You can see I did research because, you know, I know shit about sports. Did the Kansas City Chiefs win the super bowl last year? And the answer is they did. And if I said, well, you know, in the Vikings, there was a call in the game with the Vikings that was really close, and it could have. It should have gone the other way. And if it had gone the other way, they would have lost the game with the Vikings and then they wouldn't have been in the playoffs in the way that they were. You would say, that's totally fucking irrelevant. It doesn't matter what happened in the game with the Vikings at the Super Bowl. The question is, who got the most points? And that's the same thing here.

Didn't they remove the trophy from the Chicago White Sox back in 1919 for cheating? Didn't they actually undo that?

Yeah, you know, you caught me. Because of course, you know, I don't know anything about the White Sox. But the point is the. I do know about the Electoral Count act, which was explicitly passed because everybody realized you can't trust Congress when we're counting the electoral votes.

Then why did they challenge George Bush's election? A whole bunch of members challenged it. Did exactly the same thing. Did not have the votes.

No, no, no, not Exactly.

Back in 2000. And they did the same thing in 2016.

No, there were not. There were not contests that had joined between a congressperson and a senator. There was not. There was not. And even if one thought there was a question raised about the process, it was raised. I'm not going to defend the Democrats back then. All I'm saying is, in the middle of a moment when the president is. And it was rejected, you got to stand strong.

Congress rejected this attempt. They said it was wrong, just as they rejected the attempts back in 2000 and 2016. So this is not the first time. Yes. A lot more people voted this time. A lot more people said, wait a minute, let's stop and take a look at this. But they challenged it in 2001 and they challenged it in 2017. So this is not the first time that has happened. Correct.

And I'm happy to say that a whole bunch of those people thought that it was appropriate to challenge it. Josh Hawley didn't. Ted Cruz didn't. Those people know the law. They know there's no basis. They did it anyway. But again, forget that for a second. What I'm really wondering about is look at Mitch McConnell, who goes from this extraordinary moment on the 6th, his second speech on the 6th, where he calls out this whole process, and then after the sixth, completely condemns what the President did. Seemed to me an extraordinary recognition and acknowledgement, but now seems to have been backed back into the corner of accepting the position of the President when these are the sort of people who should have been able to stand up and say, this is crazy talk, and we're not going to allow the country to be guided by this crazy talk. The man is lying, as you said. He is lying, and we will not accept the lies. Instead of that, you saw many of them who allowed the bluster to be bluster and not calling the bluster, even though it seemed clear that it was leading into something quite, quite extraordinary. And so what do you. Why do they. Why do they do that? Why isn't there the remote courage, the remote corner of courage? I mean, there were a couple of people, they've been ejected. Why aren't the leaders able to exercise that courage in the context of where we are now?

You're asking the wrong person. I study the American people. I don't study them.

Okay. But no, no, no. They would say to you, they would say, frank, can I do this? Can I get away with this? And what would you say to them?

You'd need to get. You. You have a conscience. And I had several members who asked me what they should do. And I said, there's never been a vote more of conscience than this vote. This vote and sending young men and women to die are two votes that must have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with your conscience, your relationship with your constituents and your relationship with your God. And this is one of them.

Okay, I agree with that with the vote, but I'm just talking about the general response to the president. Were they constrained? I mean, you know, speaking as a pollster, would you tell them, look, if you take on the president, you're going to be primaried and you're gone. So just accept that reality. Is that the reality?

Yeah, it is the reality. Yes, that's reality. In most of these districts, if these 10 people who voted voted to impeach them, if they decide to run free election in the end, because some of them are pretty popular in their states and they'll be able to explain it, but in the end, at least three or four of them will lose a primary. So, yes, when you make this vote, you are basically saying, my service for my country, for my state, for my district is over because of this vote. And that's another reason why Donald Trump is, is why I blame him for all of this, is that not only is he destroying credibility in the electoral process, he's destroying the careers of just about everyone who comes in contact with him. He has embarrassed genuine heroes like, like Mattis. He had Kelly. Well, actually, both of them. He has wrecked the careers of people who've worked for him. He's people have done some despicable things on his behalf because he made them, such as Sean Spicer. These are all significant problems that he's responsible for. And it's why, as we get closer and closer to the Senate vote, I'm trying to decide what I should do and how I should react to this, because this is not America's fault. This is Donald Trump's fault.

Okay, so you've spent a lot of time around the world, and you teach around the world. I mean, you've become a teacher, and I've seen your class, and I can see the way your class loves you and loves how you teach. Okay, so imagine you're teaching one of your classes in the last one. Was it Abu Dhabi? Is that the one? Or Dubai?

I'm proposing to teach in Saudi Arabia eight weeks from now at the largest female university in the entire Middle East.

Wow. Okay, so imagine one of your students says to you, professor Lantz, here's what I don't understand. I heard you on this podcast with Lessig describing these amazing technologies that have now made it so we have access to everything.

His name is Professor Lessig. I would interrupt him right there and correct him. He's worthy of professor.

Okay, and you've acknowledged how the facts are just not as so many Americans believe. They believe what the President says, they don't believe what's true. And here's the question. How is it we can be, in this moment of infinite technical possibility, access to all of this information, and yet so systematically mislead such a huge slice of the American public? Why is that? And how should we fix it? Or how should we avoid it? I'm not sure Saudi Arabia is the best place to ask this question, but you can imagine a more hopeful context. Ask that question.

It's. You can't fix it. It's the problem. You can't require people to watch a different broadcast. You can't require them to go to a different website. You can give them all sorts of guidance. You can give the horse the water it needs to live, but you can't force it to drink it. We can't force people to take a vaccine, even though they were jeopardized their own lives and our lives around them. I don't have an answer to that. That is my frustration. That is what drives me crazy. That's what causes me to want to quit from time to time, because I see the problem and I internalize it. And people like you pressure me. And when I can't come up with an answer, I shut down.

Do you see places that do it better?

Yes.

Okay, where?

The uae. It's not a democracy. They don't have elections, they have appointments, they have some account, they have tremendous accountability, but not to the average voter. I think that that government, at this point, I've been told, don't say it, don't say it. You're going to get yourself in all sorts of trouble, you're going to end up losing, you're going to hurt yourself. And I'll say it on your part podcast at this moment, the government of the UAE is better than the government of the US that actually their commitment to their people, their commitment to honesty, integrity, accountability, their commitment to a better future, is better. More is richer and deeper and more and broader and more compassionate and more understanding and more accurate than ours right now. So, yes, they do do it better than us. Not many people do. A lot of people have gone through the same stuff we've gone through, but that's an example where we could learn something from them.

And if you could turn dials in America, I agree, you know, it's the reality. You can't control what people consume. But if you could persuade networks, for example, or politicians, how they could behave slightly differently, what would you. What Would the persuasion be like what would you tell the equivalent of Fox or msnbc? I'm not talking about, you know, one side about how they should run news to make it.

So I've done it.

Okay, what would you say?

I've done it for three networks. I've actually done this research to help them establish greater credibility, viewer trust. The first thing is don't give your opinion, give the facts, present it. These networks would present at an all time low for this administration. Donald Trump today held a press conference where he came roaring back at his enemies. Instead of beginning that way, you begin with the press conference itself and, and you allow the present to speak unedited, unfiltered and unanalyzed. And then you give your point of view. If you let your, your focal point speak without this editorializing, that's number one. Number two is that all opinions aren't equal. You don't have to present if someone says that fascism is great, you don't have to have to promote that just because you're trying to make a balance. But if someone does something good right about it. In the entire time of Donald Trump's presidency, he did not get a single positive editorial from the New York Times. I need to go back because the one time I do need to look at is what they said about the Abraham Accords.

Yeah, no, that, what's his name, the foreign affairs editorialist wrote a really strong pro Trump thing then.

Tom Friedman.

That was very important. Tom Friedman.

Yeah, but he's not the editorial page.

No, I agree, but he was very strong about it.

They will not. They did not. There's some stuff that Trump did. We have a lower unemployment rate. We had low unemployment where African Americans, Latinos, women were working the economy before COVID was really humming that there are, that he had to hold China accountable. Maybe the way he did it was wrong, but the fact that he did it with the damage that they've done to our economy and with the damage frankly they did because of COVID Trump sought accountability measures with them. There are aspects of his presence presidency that were quite good, surrounded by many, many more that were horribly damaging. If the media wants to regain credibility and trust, they have to accept the good with the bad. And there is no one, you cannot turn on a channel other than CNBC right now that is truly balanced. And Bloomberg, I'd say, but nobody watches Bloomberg. Bloomberg and cnbc, the only two places where you can get an accurate read of what's going on.

Okay, but so this sounds like you could do something to Produce a more accurate understanding in the public, like bracketing the effect of, like the President's Twitter feed. So do they not do it because it just turns out not to be as profitable to play that game.

The New York Times saved itself by going all in against Donald Trump. And they became the mouthpiece of the opposition movement, of the resist movement. I think a much better approach was done by probably the most important publication, daily publication in America today, which is the Wall Street Journal. In the Wall Street Journal, you would see them trash Trump, praise him on the same page, you'd see two different takes of the same story. I think the Journal is the best publication, the most important publication in the world today because it does the most news, the most stories that matter, the least amount of fluff and absolute crap that really doesn't matter. And they do it in a way that when you read it, you can be assured that what you're doing getting is the truth. I would then say the Financial Times is also pretty good in the Economist. And what do they all three have in common? They're all business publications because in the end you can editorialize politics, but if you editorialize business, people are going to lose their life savings.

You just, okay, but broadcast, is it more profitable in broadcast to be like CNBC or to be like Fox?

I'm hoping that somebody will find a way to broaden the appeal of CNBC and broaden the appeal of Bloomberg so that we can have the CNN that we once had 20 years ago. The fact is, CNN's election night coverage is the best of all because they're analysts and they're telling you exactly what's happening and why it's happening. And they're doing it in great detail and they're doing it using numbers, using facts. And CNN's what I Want watch on election night. Trying to watch CNN any other time is impossible because it is the anti. It's just the anti Trump, anti Republican, anti right of center News Network and people who used to be very straightforward. Some great journalists, journalists on that network have thrown themselves all in believing that they're doing the public a service. But it's as bad on the left as Fox is on the right. I'm looking for a Neil Cavuto. I'm looking for a Chris Wallace. I'm looking for a Bet Baer. Where are they? I don't see them. Even Brian Williams has allowed himself to get pulled in that direction. And there was a time when I thought Ryan was the best anchor. He's still the best anchor. But he's now an anchor with an asterisk around it.

Yeah, but if you sat on the board of these networks and somebody made the pitch, we're just going to fill it out with Neil Cavutos. Would your obligation as a board member be compromised if you voted to do that rather than vote to maximize the revenue to the network?

Larry, you tell me, because that's a question for you. You're the moralist. You're the. You're the ethics guy. Okay, let me rephrase that, because moralist has a negative connotation. I don't think anyone in. In the world that you're in is a better ethicist for your area than you. Whether or not I agree with you, I believe you. You're going to provide the ethical approach. I'm not. My job is to read public opinion, tell you what the public thinks, and maybe even influence it, move it in a certain direction. But making that ethical decision, that's not me. That's you. That's what you do.

But the ethical is informed by the factual. So I'm asking a factual question. Would revenue increase if we multiplied the Cavutos on the network?

If you gave me a chance to build a network of Cavutos and Bears and Wallaces and Williams', I could do it. Yes. I could do it, particularly in this environment. But no one's gonna give me the right to do that, because everyone's gonna go to their corners. Everyone's gonna try to milk whatever advantage they can get with what they're doing. And so there's no interest in this. There's no desire, there's no demand for this. But I could, if you ask me, could I create it? Yeah, I could.

Wow. That's the most hopeful thing you've said. Frank, this has been a really fun conversation, and I'm grateful for your friendship, but also for this time.

It's not fun, by the way, for the record, it's not fun for me. And it's not. It's. You are bringing up some very harsh truths, and you are laying them at my doorstep for me to make conclusions in some cases that I'm unwilling to make. In probably 80% of these issues, you and I agree. In the ones I don't, I'm prepared to say that you're right, I'm wrong, I'm just not willing to go there. But all this does is it just agitates me and it confirms it to me that we are so hopelessly broken and the solutions are so far away right now that I don't know where we go from here. And I know you don't want to end on a negative, but that's the way it is. Sometimes stories do not have a good ending. I have some very close friends, two very close friends who are dying of cancer right now. They are probably. I will. One of them is in Israel, and I will not get to see him. And he was very involved in a major reason why I was so active in that country. And I can't get in there because of COVID because the Israelis, like the Americans, didn't take it seriously. So he's going to die without me seeing him. We can't fix everything. We can't solve everything. And you and I have to figure out a way to come to grips with that, that maybe not everything is worth fighting over. When that fight is sure to end in a loss.

Give me the names of two people who could be more hopeful that I should talk to.

The people that I know that I'm going to try to put together in this set. Jonathan Carl. From ABC News, White House Corporation correspondent Tony Blair. We talked about. Tristan Harris. We talked about. These are people who see the big picture. Frankly, no one sees it better than Gingrich. But I know that you see him as a cause rather than a solution. But he has the intellect, the capability to see the consequence of everything. Maybe he doesn't belong in this, but I'm. I'm still thinking that. That there's got to be a way, because he's brighter than that. Mike Milken, who is the smartest business person I've ever worked with, Lorraine Pound jobs, who is seeking to address education and immigration and climate and all the issues that are having a systemic impact. Impact on us. She's absolutely amazing.

Did you know her at Penn?

Yes. She was one year. She's two years behind. Year behind you. One year behind me. And she was so far above my league. She was on my floor. She was on Jesse's floor.

Really?

Yeah. And she was amazing in every possible way. The best historian of all, Doris Kearns Goodwin. I would. I think that you need to bring someone like that onto this because they have a perspective that's brighter than mine and potentially even in historic ways will add something to your perspective.

Okay. I've taken the time you've given me, and I'm grateful. Thank you.

And I'm going to have you talk to my students, but you only have to do it by zoom. We can't travel, but they're gonna come up. I'll reach out to you later on this semester.

Of course, I'd be honored. Thanks. This is Larry Lessig. That was a conversation with Frank Luntz. It's the first in a series reaching out to people whose views are different from my own and who have a reflective sense of what's going on and why things have developed as they have. If you have ideas for people who would be a good part of this conversation, please share them on our website at Equal Citizens Us anotherway. If you have feedback or suggestions, you can do that there. If you are willing, please help share this podcast broadly. So many can join in this conversation. These podcasts are produced by Equal Citizens US and we will continue to explore the struggle over HR1 and the fight for a reformed democracy, but we will thread that conversation into this conversation as well. So it's a mixed season, kind of bipolar, but that's the nature of America just now. This is Larry Lessig. Thanks for listening. Sa.