For decades, capitalism seemed to have won the economic day. Today, that consensus is showing cracks. Just 54% of Americans now view capitalism positively, the lowest level Gallup has recorded. At the same time, concerns about inequality, corporate power, and economic opportunity have fueled renewed debate among everyday Americans over whether the system still works for them.

The shift is especially striking with the rise of Democratic Socialists’ political power. While socialism remains politically controversial, with 57% of Americans having a negative view, Democratic voters now view socialism more favorably than capitalism by 24 points — 66% to 42%.

However, 81% of Americans have a favorable view of free enterprise and 95% of small business. When asked what capitalism gets right, 35% point to opportunity and upward mobility, while 29% cite innovation, competition, and efficiency.

Our debaters this week, venture capitalist and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer and chairman of President Obama’s economic council Jason Furman, both believe in capitalism, but where they disagree is in its current functionality and outcomes. Does it need a more human-centered overhaul, or are its critics blaming the system for problems that better markets, competition, and smarter policies could solve? Listen to the debate on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube, and cast your vote below.

Arguing YES:

Nick Hanauer, Entrepreneur and Venture Capitalist

“We now have entire industries whose business model is human suffering, who monetize humanity's deepest vulnerabilities… Capitalism has been telling us for fifty years that this isn't just fine and normal; it's our only option. They told us greed is efficient, that if someone's willing to pay for it, it must be good by definition, that a market price is a moral verdict. That is nonsense. I love markets, and they are indispensable foundations of prosperity in free societies, but understanding that markets work is not the same as understanding how and why markets work or how to make them work better.”

Arguing NO:

Jason Furman, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government

“From a material perspective, if you had a choice to be living in the year 2026 or the year 2020 or the year 2010 or the year 1970, pick your number: 2026 would be the year you would choose. It's the year in which you have far and away the most material abundance, and that's true not just for the wealthiest Americans, but for people in the middle class. It's also true for the poor.”

Vote Now: Is Capitalism Broken?

After you’ve listened to the debate, let us know where you stand on the motion! Vote before Friday, September 4 at 4 pm ET.

VOTE HERE

We will reveal the results of the vote in our Substack newsletter on Saturday, September 5th, so make sure to ⁠subscribe⁠.

Invest in the Future of Real Debate & Become a Paid Subscriber

Support our nonprofit mission to bring open, nuanced dialogue and diverse perspectives to the pressing issues shaping our world.

Upgrade to Paid

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. A tax-deductible subscription gives you:

• Unlimited access to our full archive of 350+ in-depth debate recordings

• Exclusive invitations to live video discussions, private debate recordings, and early ticket access

• A voice in our debates through online community chats and audience Q&A’s

  ---

In the Headlines: CTE and Its Effects on Football Athletes

A study came out in The BMJ on Tuesday revealing that at least a quarter of NFL players who passed away between 2016 and 2021 had the neurodegenerative brain disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) present. Since CTE cannot be diagnosed until death, these results depended on brains donated by players or their families. The study also explored the link between CTE and dementia, finding that more than 90% of samples of the most advanced stage of CTE, Stage 4, were also diagnosed with dementia.

The NFL Players Association has since responded, saying, “The findings should serve as a call to action across the entire football ecosystem. We all share a responsibility to advance research, improve access to care, develop better treatments, and support those affected by the long-term impacts of the game.”

In this clip of our debate, “Should We Ban College Football?” bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell and Jason Whitlock discuss the disease and its potential prevalence in football players:

We’re keeping a close eye on this story and are planning deeper coverage; stay tuned.

In the Headlines: A Major Settlement for Kids on Social Media

This week, Meta, which runs Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, reached a landmark settlement with multiple states and agreed to pay up to $17.1 billion in penalties and make changes to its products. The company had been accused of harming children by designing its platforms to be addictive and has called on other social media platforms like TikTok and YouTube to support it in empowering parents and supporting teens with similar measures.

In the past, we debated the question “Is Social Media Bad for Kids’ Mental Health?” Watch the debate now.

In the News

The most important election no one is talking about

Danny Danon | August 26, 2026

Watch Danny debate whether America got the Middle East right

The madness of Trump’s Canada trade war

Michael Lind | August 25, 2026

Watch Michael debate whether for a better future you should live in a red state

There’s Really Only One Way to Stop Students From Cheating

Adam Grant | August 26, 2026

Watch Adam’s conversation on the power of debate and knowing what you don’t know

Of Debt and Deficits and the Dollar System

James K. Galbraith | August 24, 2026

Watch James debate whether we should stop worrying about national deficits

Why Political Moderates Are Losing

Matt Stoller | August 25, 2026

Watch Matt debate whether the U.S. government should break up Big Tech

Rural America keeps blocking data centers it desperately needs

Blake Hurst | August 25, 2026

Watch Blake debate whether organic food is marketing hype

Democrats’ Key To Winning The Midterms: Breaking Up Big Medicine

Howard Dean | August 26, 2026

Watch Howard debate whether liberals hold the moral high ground

No, Street Vagrants Are Not “Our Neighbors”

Heather Mac Donald | August 24, 2026

Watch Heather debate whether policing is racially biased

Arguing Yes: Nick Hanauer

Arguing No: Jason Furman

Moderated by: John Donvan

Cold Open

Nick Hanauer (00:00:00):

There are plenty, plenty, plenty, plenty of low road operators who rip their customers off, rip their employees off, and prosper.

Jason Furman (00:00:09):

You’re just gonna pass a law and say every American company now needs to be nice.

Nick Hanauer (00:00:14):

No.

Jason Furman (00:00:14):

That’s gonna be your law.

Nick Hanauer (00:00:15):

No, no, no. I’m not-

Jason Furman (00:00:16):

Like, that’s just a ludicrous-

Nick Hanauer (00:00:17):

But Jason, but Jason, Jason-

Jason Furman (00:00:18):

... ludicrous, naive idea about how a company functions.

DEBATE STARTS

John Donvan (00:00:25):

America’s economy runs by capitalism. That is a fact that some celebrate and others lament. But now, even some fans of capitalism are looking at how it’s working in the U.S., and they are asking, “Is capitalism broken?” I’m John Donvan. This is Open to Debate, and that’s the question we’re gonna argue. Our debaters — Nick Hanauer, an entrepreneur, an investor, a thinker who made billions under capitalism. And Jason Furman, an economist, a professor, also a thinker, who helped guide economic decision-making during the Obama administration. Nick and Jason, welcome to Open to Debate.

Nick Hanauer (00:01:00):

Thank you so much.

John Donvan (00:01:01):

I wanna say now to anybody who liste- who is listening, do not assume that you know who is taking which side, because you’re probably-

Nick Hanauer (00:01:07):

(laughs)

John Donvan (00:01:08):

... going to be surprised. Nick Hanauer, Nick Hanauer, you who have done so very well under capitalism-

Nick Hanauer (00:01:13):

I have.

John Donvan (00:01:14):

You are the one here arguing that capitalism is broken. The floor is yours, Nick, to bring us your opening.

Nick Hanauer (00:01:21):

Thank you, John. L- let me start by saying that markets are the greatest social technology ever created for creating prosperity. Nothing else comes close. I’ve founded, funded, or managed over 40 companies creating te- tens of billions of market capitalization. I feel very confident I understand them.

(00:01:39):

So let’s be precise about what’s actually on trial today. It’s not markets; it’s capitalism. Markets are a technology for solving human problems. Market capitalism is an ideology defining who that technology serves. And it’s right there in the name, capital-ism. Capitalism is an ism, a belief system, an ideology that is taught in every school that’s under our tax code, labor laws, trade agreements, that has long defined our norms and expectations about who gets what and why.

(00:02:12):

The textbook t- definition of capitalism isn’t what’s being debated today. What is worth debating is what is happening in the real world and what the capitalists believe, the rich and powerful people who capitalism serves and what they want all of us to believe about how markets really work.

(00:02:30):

If you take them at their word, capitalists believe that the sole purpose of the corporation is to maximize returns to shareholders, not to customers, not to workers, not to the community or the country. Capitalists believe that people earn exactly what they’re worth, that market outcomes, however unequal or absurd, are always both moral and efficient.

(00:02:51):

Capitalists believe that regulating corporations kills growth, that raising wages kills jobs, and that cutting taxes on the rich creates prosperity for everyone. Of course, there is no empirical evidence for any of this, yet this is the capitalism that has guided our nation’s policies more than 50 years, a half-century over which the bottom 90% of Americans lost $79 trillion to rising inequality, 3.9 trillion in 2023 alone, enough to give every American worker a $32,000 a year raise.

(00:03:23):

In the 1970s, wages were about 51% of this economy. Today, they’re about 41, the lowest share ever recorded. Corporate profits went the other direction, rising from 6% to 12.4%. And what are we doing with those profits? This year, American corporations will spend roughly a trillion and a half dollars, 4.5% of GDP buying their own stock back, which was illegal until 1982.

(00:03:50):

Americans are now $79 trillion poorer, less secure, and less resilient than they would have been had capitalism not concentrated wealth at the very top. For example, in 1985, it took Amer- a typical American 40 weeks of work a year to afford housing, healthcare, transportation, food, education, and the other essentials of the middle-class life. By 2022, it took 62 weeks. Last time I checked, there are still only 52 weeks in a year.

(00:04:18):

So it should come as no surprise that 65% of American voters now say the system is rigged against them or that only 12% think our democracy is working well. This is not an economic system with some policy problems. This is a failed ideology that is taking our republic down with it. So has market capitalism failed? Of course it has, but don’t let Jason or anybody else tell you that the only alternative is socialism.

(00:04:45):

I’m here to argue that markets can be built to serve human beings, not just capital and capitalists. I’m here to argue for a paradigm shift to what I and my colleague, Oxford University economist Eric Beinhocker, and I call market humanism, the emerging new economic science that teaches that the more people we fully include in the economy, the faster and more prosperous and more innovative it grows. Market humanism is what you get when you build an economy around the proposition that the purpose of the economy is human flourishing, not returns to capital. And all of the evidence suggests that when we do that, the economy grows faster and our democracy grows stronger. Thank you.

John Donvan (00:05:24):

Thank you, Nick. Uh, Jason, now it’s your turn to convince us capitalism is not, in fact, broken.

Jason Furman (00:05:30):

So it’s great to be with you again. Um, it’s great to be with my friend Nick. I actually agreed with an awful lot of what he said, and we’ll try to come to some of that. Um, but I wanna start by talking about housing. Um, that’s an issue that is important to every American, to every person, um, in the world. Um, everyone needs housing.

(00:05:51):

Um, let’s look at what’s happened to housing over the last 50 years. We’ve gone from a situation in which the typical family had fewer rooms than people to one in which it has more rooms than people. Indoor plumbing has become universal. Air conditioning, almost entirely universal. Um, extreme overcrowding is almost entirely, um, a thing of the past. And you even look at the last 10 or 20 years, and there are more children that have their own bedroom today rather than having to share than was the case even 10 or 20 years ago, more square feet per person than 10 or 20 years ago, and better and more, um, appliances.

(00:06:36):

In one sense, housing tells the story of the success that we’ve had, notwithstanding every bit of negativity Nick said, from a material perspective, if you had a choice to be living in the year 2026 or the year 2020 or the year 2010 or the year 1970, pick your number, 2026 would be the year you would choose. It’s the year in which you have far and away the most material abundance. And that’s true not just for the wealthiest Americans, but for people, um, in the middle class. It’s also true, um, for the poor.

(00:07:19):

Now, the system we have is very far from perfect, and housing is a very good example of that, um, as well. Housing is still too expensive. It’s something too many families struggle with. It was, I believe, one of the essentials that Nick listed that it now takes you, uh, 60 weeks or whatever it was, a year, um, to get to.

(00:07:43):

And an awful lot of why that is, is because we haven’t given capitalism in the housing sector, um, a fair shot. We pass laws that limit and ban building of larger houses, of apartment buildings, building houses closer to each other. We have a permitting process that makes it take forever to build new construction. And then in some of our cities, we’re increasingly saying that we’re gonna do things like rent control when the evidence is overwhelming that that leads to less building and higher prices overall and less supply, um, in the long run.

(00:08:27):

And so, on this very fundamental core area of the economy, first of all, today is the best time ever to live. But second of all, if we want to continue to make more progress, it’s going to be with that institution that Nick cited, which is, um, markets, and we could even call it capitalism.

(00:08:51):

One thing that I don’t think capitalism does is guarantee that you share income in the way, um, that you would like. It pays people something roughly related to their marginal product, what they produced. That’s an economic fact, but not a moral one. And the way to solve that is not with punishment, not with trying to undo and countermand markets, um, but is with a more progressive tax and transfer system. Um, that’s one we’ve successfully built up over the last hundred years in the United States, um, and one that we can do more to build going forward.

John Donvan (00:09:29):

Thank you very much, Jason. Um, so we’re gonna get to the back and forth in a moment, but before we do, let’s share with our audience a little bit more about your journeys to this point and, um, why you’re thinking about this question in the way that you do. Nick, you are, I wanna say first, a returning debater to the program, so welcome back.

Nick Hanauer (00:09:45):

I am. Thank you.

John Donvan (00:09:45):

Um, you, you advocate for things like raising the minimum wage, uh, taxing the wealthy with your organization, Civic Ventures. Um, you have a book that’s about to be released called Markets Built for Humans, which you co-authored with Eric Beinhocker. You have a podcast; you have a newsletter called Pitchfork Economics. You’re also, as I alluded to, a very successful entrepreneur and a venture capitalist -

Nick Hanauer (00:10:06):

Yeah.

John Donvan (00:10:06):

... with some pretty impressive credentials over your, under your belt, including aQuantive, which you sold to Microsoft in 2007 for [$6] billion. And even before that, way back, you were an early investor and advisor to Amazon in the 1990s.

Nick Hanauer (00:10:19):

Yeah, the first non-family investor. Yeah.

John Donvan (00:10:21):

S- so that worked out. Um, my, my-

Nick Hanauer (00:10:23):

Yeah.

John Donvan (00:10:23):

... question to you is, considering that the system has worked for you so well, how often does the question come up, uh, are you asked, are you a traitor to your class? Do you, do you, do you get that question a lot?

Nick Hanauer (00:10:36):

Yeah. I-

John Donvan (00:10:36):

And how do you respond to it?

Nick Hanauer (00:10:37):

I do. Uh, uh, so I, I am continually called that, and I don’t, but, but I don’t think it’s fair. Uh, I, I think that what we are witnessing in the United States right now is capitalism eating itself. I mean, the, the rising inequality that it characterizes our economy isn’t ... I think this is the most important point. Isn’t merely an economic inconvenience for the people that it affects. It is, you know, most insidiously what shreds the reciprocity norms that makes social cohesion possible and hence democracy. And that’s the thing that is so dangerous.

John Donvan (00:11:22):

Jason, I think this is actually your seventh debate with us going back-

Nick Hanauer (00:11:26):

Oh, wow.

John Donvan (00:11:26):

... several years. Could that be right? Uh, so we’re delighted-

Nick Hanauer (00:11:29):

A ringer.

John Donvan (00:11:29):

... to have you back again. (laughs)

Nick Hanauer (00:11:30):

(laughs)

John Donvan (00:11:33):

Just a good debater.

Jason Furman (00:11:34):

You’re not managing expectations very well here, but go on.

John Donvan (00:11:37):

Yeah. You worked under, uh, President Clinton. Uh, you, as I said, you were an economic advisor to President Obama. You were chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. Uh, you played a big role in shaping his economic agenda, including the response to the recession and the stimulus package. Currently, you teach economics at Harvard. Uh, you’re defending capitalism for us. And I’m wondering, uh, are you surprised that that question is even on the table to being asked to defend capitalism nowadays?

Jason Furman (00:12:03):

I’m surprised by the growth of that question. And, you know, I do think there’s different reasons that we could explore for why it’s grown. One model was the one that Nick is implicitly arguing, which is that for 50 years, living standards have stagnated, inequality has increased, and so people are becoming growingly discontent.

(00:12:27):

I think that doesn’t exactly fit the facts. If you look at after taxes and transfer, inequality rose a lot through the year 2000, but it’s pretty much leveled off since then. If you look at wage inequality, the largest wage gains have been for workers at the 10th and 20th percentile, not workers at the 80th and 90th if you look, um, over the last 10 or 15 years. So there’s actually been a narrowing of wage inequality.

(00:12:54):

I think part of the discontent people have is we had a horrible financial crisis, then we had a horrible bout of inflation. And historically, when you see that, and I lived through both of those, as we all did, um, in my case as a policymaker for one, a policy commentator in the other. And so, you know, I think we’re going through a moment in our country where the fallout for that is, has all sorts of collateral damage for the way people are thinking about the world.

John Donvan (00:13:19):

All right, thank you. Um, I wanna just tell you what I’m hearing in terms of your opening arguments.

(00:13:43):

Nick, uh, and I, and before I even say that, I wanna be clear. Both of you are capitalists. You believe in capitalism. You both support a well-functioning capitalism. This debate right now is whether capitalism in the U.S. functions in a mostly desirable way. Nick, you’re arguing it absolutely does not. That the assumed priorities of capitalism as it now functions of letting markets, uh, and, and the drive for efficiency decide what investment should be made, where wage, what wages should be, even what moral choices prevail, has led us to, uh, what you’re describing as a woeful place of extreme concentrations of wealth and power, um, and as consequence, a, a broken American spirit.

(00:14:24):

Um, Jason, you a- a- acknowledge that things are not perfect. You even say they’re far from perfect, but you still were describing a concept of capitalism, uh, as the greatest economic driver of human flourishing the world has ever seen. You make an example of housing. You say, look at how big houses are now, how, how many more rooms they have, how much, how technologically sophisticated they are, that at any time in the past, you credit capitalism with that.

(00:14:50):

You also point out that capitalism can be hobbled and has been in the case of solving the housing problem by, by wrong, wrongheaded government intervention, uh, implicitly, I think, jumping ahead to where Nick might be going with some of his arguments. So that’s what I’m hearing from the beginning. There’s a lot for us to dig into as you’ve already both started doing.

(00:15:10):

Um, I wanna take this to, to you, uh, Jason. We heard Nick make the argument that markets, great, great dr- engine, but under the current system, they are not there to serve human beings, that they once did and they should again. But that they’re not serving human flourishing with, with, with references to things like health and security and dignity, purpose and work, functioning economy, a healthy world, healthy environment, that markets aren’t m- making those d- decisions in the right way about those issues and that an economy should be geared towards that. And that’s where capitalism, as it’s now practiced, fails. What’s your response to that?

Jason Furman (00:15:56):

My response to that is at its core, markets are about a voluntary transaction. One person has something, the other person has something else, and they trade. Maybe it’s time, maybe it’s money, maybe it’s products, maybe it’s some combination of those.

(00:16:14):

Uh, as a strong presumption, not a universal one, and I’ll talk about some imper- important exceptions, we should think of that as probably likely to make both sides better off and thus most likely to make the world better off. And for an awful lot of things, you know, what type of music I listen to, what type of cookies I eat, what type of clothing I wear. Letting people make those choices, having markets serve them, produce the variety, produce the things they like, um, is a wonderful thing.

(00:16:46):

Now, there’s certain important exceptions to that. Markets produce too much carbon, and that’s why we need policies with respect to that. Uh, markets produce d- goods that are overly addictive. Um, we need things related to that. But my starting presumption would be that in most spheres, they let people do, you know, what they want and provide enormous variety catering to the enormous variety of our tastes in a way that it’s hard to imagine any other system could possibly accomplish.

John Donvan (00:17:16):

Nick, do you feel your argument has just been refuted?

Nick Hanauer (00:17:19):

Uh, n- no. Um, so, uh, the, you know, we ... So I am in violent agreement with the proposition that markets as a social technology are the best thing humans have ever devised to generate prosperity, novelty, and innovation. There, there’s, there’s nothing that comes close, but m- markets are not what we are debating here. We are debating capitalism and, and, and, and markets can be arranged in a million different ways. Uh, they can ... And, and the form of markets that we have adopted, that capitalism has clearly failed the majority of citizens.

(00:18:04):

Now, i- is it a better alternative than communism? Of course it is. And has capitalism generally served the world well? I, I would acknowledge that it has, but we have outgrown capitalism, uh, because it is, uh, it is, it is an ideological framework that intrinsically, uh, makes it difficult to address things like inequality, things like climate, and things like a functioning democracy. And I believe that we can do better. And it, it, it, we can’t ...

(00:18:36):

And, and, you know, what Jason said reflects this very orthodox way of understanding what markets do. M- w- w- what markets are is institutional arrangements that enable cooperation, which is humanity’s superpower. We, y- you know, th- there’s this idea that markets work because they allow competition. It’s not true. Lions are very competitive, but lions cannot build guitars. The reason markets are an unmatched social technology is that they are evolutionary systems so they enable groups of people to cooperate at scale because prosperity in human societies isn’t GDP or money. It is the accumulation of solutions to human problems. And that is why markets are the unmatched social technology.

(00:19:28):

And when you understand it thus, it becomes very, very clear that you wanna organize markets in ways that it promote human flourishing, not capital appreciation. And, and, and I would suggest that all of the empirical evidence suggests that when we organize markets to benefit the broad v- the broad sort of the, you know, the typical citizen, not only does the typical citizen do better, but the, but the economy grows twice as fast as well.

Jason Furman (00:19:58):

I wanna get to competition. Uh, for me, you know, there’s two models of the world you could have. One is we would like corporations to be nice. We’d like corporations to look after people. We’d like corporations to do the right thing. And I heard Nick talking about that in the opening. I confess I’m extremely cynical about it, and no amount of, you know, talking about, um-

Nick Hanauer (00:20:24):

Cajoling.

Jason Furman (00:20:25):

... you know, socially conscious corporations is gonna change them very much. So what will change corporations is competition.

Nick Hanauer (00:20:30):

I agree.

Jason Furman (00:20:31):

It’s just competition. So, you know, a corporation would love to pay someone, you know, $15 an hour, but if the business next door is gonna pay them $16 an hour, then they have to pay them 16. If the one next door is gonna pay them 17, they’re gonna have to pay them 17. How high will they go? Well, they’ll basically, if you have proper competition in the labor market, and we can talk about where we do and where we don’t, but if you have proper competition in the labor market, you’re gonna end up having to pay someone as much as they produce for you as a company, otherwise you’re gonna lose them to the business next door.

(00:21:08):

So for me, um, competition is absolutely central. And then we can ask, “Where do we not have enough competition? Where do we need to architect things so that we can have more?” So for example, in labor markets, we might have, right now, occupational licensing. To be a florist, um, you need to, you know, get some occupational license to prove you’re not gonna harm somebody through your floristry. Um, I support occupational licensing for surgeons. Um, I don’t support it for florists and interior decorators.

(00:21:41):

And so letting things that get in the way of competition, um, go down. Having more competition is, to me, basically being realistic about what companies are like rather than basing your policy on a, on a pipe dream.

Nick Hanauer (00:21:56):

O- okay. But look, I, uh ... Look (laughs), um, what, what Jason says is in theory true. With perfect, perfect competition, you get better outcomes, but who, what is the, what is the barrier to more competition in our markets? Capitalists. Like the, the one thing capitalists hate more than anything is competition.

(00:22:25):

Like the ... Why don’t we have, why have our industries consolidated? Why are wages so low? Why is inequality so high? Capitalists, lobbying, organizing the society to make it harder to achieve those goals. This is the problem. Uh, like, our entire society is organized around this outrageously absurd proposition that the only legitimate purpose of the corporation is to enrich shareholders. This is nuts. This is craziness. And the problem is-

John Donvan (00:22:57):

Let me jump, let me jump in. Is, is that nuts, Jason? Is that, is that nuts?

Nick Hanauer (00:23:00):

It’s crazy.

Jason Furman (00:23:02):

I, I mean, I’d say several different things. Nick, Nick threw so many things at me at once.

Nick Hanauer (00:23:06):

(laughs)

Jason Furman (00:23:06):

I don’t know which one, which one to take on.

Nick Hanauer (00:23:08):

That’s my strategy, Jason. (laughs)

Jason Furman (00:23:09):

I mean, first, uh, first of all, I think it was very telling that he started talking about capitalists because, there, I agree. My favorite economics book title is a book by Raghuram Rajan and Luigi Zingales with the ti- ... It’s an excellent book too, but the title is outstanding, um, which is “Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists.” Uh, and it is true. You look at large CEOs; they don’t like competition. Moreover, they run their businesses internally a little bit like Soviet Central Planning.

Nick Hanauer (00:23:39):

Yes.

Jason Furman (00:23:39):

And so I love capitalism. Um, I don’t think every capitalist loves capitalism quite as much as I do.

Nick Hanauer (00:23:47):

No.

Jason Furman (00:23:47):

And that gets to all my examples of ways in which people sort of engage in rent seeking and try to rig the government to stop competition and to stop markets and why I think we need more capitalism and more markets.

(00:23:59):

Um, when it comes to inequality though, I don’t think Rick, Nick has a very good model as to why it’s increased. There’s been an awful lot of empirical research on this. And the majority of the increase in inequality is well explained by a combination of technological changes and educational changes. We reduced the number of people getting college degrees or the pace at which it was increasing at the same time technology changing. There is also a role for-

Nick Hanauer (00:24:27):

Not true.

Jason Furman (00:24:27):

... other factors. There’s other role, there’s role for other factors like monopsony.

Nick Hanauer (00:24:30):

(laughs)

Jason Furman (00:24:31):

But if you look at the consensus of hundreds and hundreds of economics papers, there’s lots of different causes of the rise in inequality, but it, the majority of it is related to just old-fashioned technology-

Nick Hanauer (00:24:43):

Okay.

Jason Furman (00:24:44):

... and education.

John Donvan (00:24:44):

Let-

Jason Furman (00:24:45):

And by the way, that says we can solve it. We can solve it with education.

John Donvan (00:24:49):

Jason-

Jason Furman (00:24:49):

We can solve it with taxes.

John Donvan (00:24:50):

J- but Jas- Jason, we are getting away from the, from the, the statement that Nick made that the purpose of a corporation being seen as increasing the value to shareholders is crazy. Do, do corporations have any other functions, roles, responsibilities?

Jason Furman (00:25:05):

Well, I think it’s completely unrealistic to believe a corporation is gonna do anything other than that. So in some sense, I agree with Milton Friedman. That’s what a company is going to do. Whether you wanna think they’re going to or not, that is what they are going to do. So then what do you need to do? You need to use the tax system, for example, have a carbon tax so that as they pursue their, uh, profits, they don’t emit too much carbon.

(00:25:28):

You need a corporate tax so that as they’re producing the profits, some of those benefits get shared more broadly than their own shareholders. Um, so you need regulations and taxes, and then you need to accept-

John Donvan (00:25:40):

All after the fact, though.

Jason Furman (00:25:41):

... that you need ... Uh, after the fact, and then you need to accept that you are going to create a system such that when they pursue their shareholder interest, 90% of what they’re gonna do by pursuing their shareholder interest is good. Amazon’s created trillions and trillions of dollars of benefits for consumers, but we can help them-

Nick Hanauer (00:25:59):

And k- and killed millions of jobs.

Jason Furman (00:26:01):

Our unemployment rate is the lowest now that it’s been in the last 60 years. Over the last decade, the average unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been in the last 60 years. So Amazon created jobs and it destroyed jobs, but that’s silly to think of it as losing jobs. The Fed is in charge of the unemployment.

Nick Hanauer (00:26:19):

Look, here, here’s the thing. When you formally, uh, when you basically commit yourself as a society to making the purpose of the corporation shareholder va- value maximization, you, you permit all kinds of, uh, o- of behaviors that just aren’t good for the society at large, like lobbying Congress with the money you make to make it ever harder to raise wages or impose standards on corporations.

(00:26:48):

And this has just become a runaway effect, which has allowed a huge amount of corporate consolidation. It has allowed corporate profits to rise from 6% of the economy to 12%, while wages have diminished by almost exactly the same amount. That has nothing to do with economics. That has nothing to do with education or technology. It is simply a consequence of a change in how much power workers used to have relative to capitalists. Power is what defines what, who gets what and why. Not some magical, not some magical economic theory.

Jason Furman (00:27:26):

But I think you had this fundamental premise that somehow left to their own devices, corporations just do really bad stuff. And I think fundamentally-

Nick Hanauer (00:27:36):

Well, clearly that’s been the case. (laughs) Clearly.

Jason Furman (00:27:37):

That is sometimes the case. And that’s why-

Nick Hanauer (00:27:38):

It’s often the case.

Jason Furman (00:27:38):

But in a mean-

Nick Hanauer (00:27:38):

That’s why we’re having this conversation. (laughs)

Jason Furman (00:27:43):

Correct. But here we are sitting in the year 2026 with the lowest unemployment rate our country has had in 60 years. And where do all these jobs come from? They come from the private sector. Where do they-

Nick Hanauer (00:27:55):

Of course.

Jason Furman (00:27:55):

Why do companies hire people? They don’t hire people as a charity project because they want to be nice.

Nick Hanauer (00:28:01):

No.

Jason Furman (00:28:01):

They hire people because their shareholders benefit from them hiring, um, those people.

Nick Hanauer (00:28:06):

Correct. Correct.

Jason Furman (00:28:07):

And that’s a system that has worked a whole lot better than any other dream you could sort of put together on a whiteboard that’s either, you know, untested or counterproductive when it’s met with, you know, the realities of the real world. So I would say start with people as they are, and then yes, absolutely use things like taxes to help channel the outcomes you want. But fundamentally, the gains from trade are positive enough that most of the time it’s going to be, um, a good thing.

Nick Hanauer (00:28:40):

Again, markets are fantastic, but the purpose of the corporation should not merely be to enrich shareholders. The purpose of the corporation in a, in a democratic society should be to solve human problems in a reasonably fair and sustainable way. And profit is the reward for doing that. And if you cannot, for example, run a large enterprise while paying your workers enough to live in dignity without government assistance, then maybe you should find a different job.

Jason Furman (00:29:14):

So this is a, this is a place where we violently disagree. I get government assistance. The government gives me tax subsidies for my retirement savings. It gives me tax subsidies for my healthcare. The idea that we would think it’s an indignity that somebody else might get government assistance for food or for housing, um, that’s basically buying into what was a traditionally very anti-government, anti-social welfare premise.

(00:29:40):

I’d like to have a capitalism that looks a lot more like Denmark, a country that doesn’t interfere very much in labor markets, doesn’t interfere very much in product markets, but doesn’t view it as an indignity that people pay into a system, in their case through things like a value-added tax, and then they get supported through, um, that same system.

Nick Hanauer (00:30:01):

But Jason-

Jason Furman (00:30:02):

So moving to that type of thing, rather than treating it as an indignity to get something from the government, that’s almost offensive and playing into the hands of the people that are constantly trying to do things-

Nick Hanauer (00:30:12):

(laughs) But Jason-

Jason Furman (00:30:13):

... like cut back on nutritional assistance.

Nick Hanauer (00:30:15):

But Jason, in Denmark, no one is paid so little that they can’t afford to live in dignity. The minimum wage is like $26 an hour. Like, they have organized their societies so their businesses pay people enough to get by without food stamps. Uh, look, here’s the thing. You either believe in capitalism in markets or you don’t. It cannot simultaneously be true that we have a great system and that it will come tumbling down if capitalists are required to pay their, pay their workers enough for them to get by without government assistance. But-

Jason Furman (00:30:50):

Oh, that, that’s because not everyone produces ... You, you seem to think, not everyone produces enough that, for what they should get. And I don’t think they should be penalized for that. I don’t think they should be hurt for that. I think that’s why there’s an incredibly important role for the government.

Nick Hanauer (00:31:06):

No.

Jason Furman (00:31:06):

So I believe in markets.

Nick Hanauer (00:31:08):

No, Jason, you-

Jason Furman (00:31:08):

But I don’t believe that mar- ... Uh, you seem to think markets can solve every problem.

Nick Hanauer (00:31:11):

No.

Jason Furman (00:31:11):

I don’t think they can.

Nick Hanauer (00:31:12):

Definitely not.

Jason Furman (00:31:13):

I believe in a robust social safety net and don’t think we should be denigrating that as somehow undermining people’s pride. And that’s not the way people think. No one who gets things like social security, gets Medicare, feels as if some indignity has happened. Why don’t the companies keep paying people through 80? Why don’t they give them a large enough pension for the rest of their life? They’re not gonna do that. That’s why we think it’s important for the government to do that.

Nick Hanauer (00:31:37):

But, but-

Jason Furman (00:31:37):

You seem to think you wanna put this all at the hands of companies-

Nick Hanauer (00:31:40):

But like, Jason-

Jason Furman (00:31:40):

... um, but this is not gonna work.

Nick Hanauer (00:31:41):

Jason, Jason, corporate profits have doubled from 6% to 12%. Should we let them rise from 12% to 18% while the percentage of the economy that goes to wages falls from 51% to 40- 41% to 30%? Like what kind of economic system is that? It’s, it’s ludicrous. Like, that, that extra-

Jason Furman (00:32:04):

I mean, adjusted for inflation-

Nick Hanauer (00:32:05):

That extra 6% isn’t profit because it needs to be or should be or has to be. That 6% extra in profit is profit because powerful people manipulated the system to create that outcome. That 6% could be wages today and once was. We’re spending four and a half percent of GDP this year on stock buybacks. This is nuts. It’s crazy.

Jason Furman (00:32:29):

I don’t know why-

Nick Hanauer (00:32:29):

It’s crazy.

Jason Furman (00:32:31):

I mean, I think it’s crazy ... I think it’s crazy to not want stock buybacks when the alternative is the companies would just get bigger and bigger by buying other companies.

Nick Hanauer (00:32:39):

No, the alternative is-

Jason Furman (00:32:40):

You don’t get ... Nick, you don’t get to decide what they do with their money. They’re gonna decide what they do with their money.

Nick Hanauer (00:32:44):

No, you absolutely get to decide what they do with their money because we live in a democracy and we can constrain these organizations in ways that make them pro-social. That $1.5 trillion could very easily be spent on wages.

(00:32:57):

Instead, it’s, it’s spent on lining the pockets of Wall Street and the executives who are giving, who are doing those stock buybacks, by the way, to wash out the stock incentives that the, the dilution created by the stock incentives that they get. I, I have done stock buybacks. I doubt you have. I know why people do them. They’re not doing them for any social reason. They’re not doing-

Jason Furman (00:33:23):

Of course they’re not. I, I-

Nick Hanauer (00:33:23):

... f- for any economic reason. It’s self-dealing.

Jason Furman (00:33:26):

Of course they’re not.

Nick Hanauer (00:33:26):

And it was illegal until 1982. And it is one of the canonical examples of why the system we have adopted is broken. That $1.5 trillion should be wages. And if it was, the economy would be growing faster, our democracy would be stronger, and everyone in the country would be happier. And that is an option which is available to us.

Jason Furman (00:33:49):

I mean, if you look at the highest wages adjusted for inflation, the highest wages we’ve ever had in American history were in February of this year. They’ve gone down a bit since then because the Iran war and, uh, gasoline prices have spiked.

Nick Hanauer (00:34:04):

(laughs)

Jason Furman (00:34:04):

The second-highest wages we had in this country’s history adjusted for inflation was in 2025. The third-highest was in the year 2024. They’ve been rising faster for people at the 10th and 20th percentile than they have for people at the 80th and 90th percentile. An awful lot is working, um, in our economy, Nick.

John Donvan (00:34:23):

Nick and Jason, hang on. I, I have never had less work to do in a debate. The two of you are doing very well together.

Nick Hanauer (00:34:28):

(laughs)

John Donvan (00:34:29):

But I do have this question. Because of the implications that you made at the beginning, Nick, that, uh, the, the public is losing faith in capitalism-

Nick Hanauer (00:34:37):

Yeah.

John Donvan (00:34:38):

... I just wanna get your take, both of you, on the, the recent apparent rise in some areas of, uh, the, uh, the concepts of socialism and whether you think ... You know, what, what, how do you process what’s going on in that regard? Why don’t you go first on that, Jason?

Jason Furman (00:34:54):

I mean, this gets back to what I was talking about in the beginning, which is people are very, have a lot of discontent right now. One theory of the discontent is 50 years of economic problems and they’re fed up and they wanna change it. I think that’s Nick’s theory. Don’t think that matches the evidence.

Nick Hanauer (00:35:08):

(laughs)

Jason Furman (00:35:09):

To me, those things like the rise of social media have changed the way people see the world, have increased polarization, have magnified certain voices. And there’s the fact that we’ve always seen coming out of things like financial crises and inflation and pandemics, and we’ve had all three of those in the last 15 years, all sorts of dislocation and discontent in our society.

(00:35:35):

Um, and then finally, Nick and I both understand how horrific communism was as an economic system, and he hasn’t disputed that. And I’m not accusing him of trying to install co- communism in America. But for a lot of people who are younger, that memory has just faded increasingly, um, over time. So I broadly think that, that’s where things are.

Nick Hanauer (00:35:56):

Uh, so I have great sympathy for people who are talking about, or at least some of the people are talking about socialism because I ... Well, I strongly disagree with Jason about the reality on the ground. Uh, you know, I think it’s pretty common for, uh, fancy economists to look at the numbers and say, “Y- this is fine. You should be happy with this. The beatings will continue until morale improves.” You know, some version of that.

Jason Furman (00:36:22):

You should absolutely not be fine with it.

Nick Hanauer (00:36:23):

(laughs)

Jason Furman (00:36:24):

You just shouldn’t want solutions that throw the baby out with the bathwater. But go on, Nick.

Nick Hanauer (00:36:27):

But, but socialism is ... I mean, if you take the word seriously, and it is akin to communism, it’s state ownership of, uh, of, uh, private enterprise, that’s a terrible idea. But all ... What socialism does is it, it, it, it, it, it’s very good at, um, uh, more fairly, uh, more fairly sharing existing prosperity, but it has nothing to say about how you create more prosperity in the future. And that’s its great Achilles heel, which is why we should move beyond the, the, the version of markets that we have adopted, which we now call capitalism, we should reject socialism, and we should move on to what my, my co-author and I call market humanism, which is a market-based, which is a market-based system that is devoted to human flourishing and organized around that proposition. And if you do that, you’ll have more economic growth, more innovation, and a much more stable, secure, and happy society.

John Donvan (00:37:35):

And now we’re gonna bring in some other voices to ask some expert questions of our debaters. We’ve had just some, uh, some people who, who know the topic, who think about the topic, uh, joining us. And, um, we have asked them to think, uh, to, to gauge where we are in the conversation and come in with some questions.

(00:38:07):

And the first person I’d like to welcome is journalist, financial journalist, and writer, Mary Childs. Mary, thank you so much for joining us. You were a co-host of NPR’s Planet Money for nearly seven years, so I’m thinking-

Mary Childs (00:38:18):

Yeah.

John Donvan (00:38:18):

... people are gonna recognize your voice. Uh, you now have your own podcast. It’s called Mary in America, where you grill interesting people. So you’re an interesting person, and this is an interesting debate, so we’re delighted to have you here. Please come in with your question.

Mary Childs (00:38:33):

Thank you so much. I’m so excited to be here, and, uh, it is an honor to get to grill such interesting people. Um, I have been thinking-

Jason Furman (00:38:40):

If it’s grilling, can you do Nick first?

Nick Hanauer (00:38:41):

Yeah. (laughs)

Mary Childs (00:38:42):

Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, for sure. Um, (laughs) you’re the ringer, right? That’s the, the dynamic that’s established. Um, well, I’m curious because, Nick, I think you’ve been so rhetorically successful in, in, in building a lot of these points and, and identifying where people are upset, but what I’m failing to hear is what you would actually do about it.

(00:39:00):

I think I’m confused about the forcing mechanism because as far as I know, it’s market response and government, and that’s kind of it. So you can regulate, you can legislate, you can tax, you can use the tools of government to cause a corporation-

Nick Hanauer (00:39:14):

Yeah.

Mary Childs (00:39:15):

... to act in a way or another.

Nick Hanauer (00:39:15):

Yes.

Mary Childs (00:39:17):

And consumers can pressure corporations to act in one way or another, but we seem to not quite be doing those. I mean, it’s, it’s like not working. So, uh, to your point-

Nick Hanauer (00:39:26):

Yeah.

Mary Childs (00:39:26):

... for, for conditions to be is-

Nick Hanauer (00:39:27):

Because of capitalism.

Mary Childs (00:39:28):

Okay, but what do you mean? Like, how do you change it then?

Nick Hanauer (00:39:31):

The de- ... Uh, y- y- you, you, you profoundly change how you see economic cause and effect. So we are living in a paradigm that describes how the world works, which I think is profoundly mistaken. Like, if it was true, the economy was a Pareto optimal equilibrium, then it would be true by definition that when you raised wages, it killed jobs. The problem is that is not what the economy actually is. It is an ecology. It’s an ecosystem. It’s a complex adaptive system. It’s characterized by increasing returns, not decreasing returns.

(00:40:10):

So claiming that when wages rise, jobs fall would be like claiming that when plants grow, animals shrink. That is just not how the system works. And as a consequence of that paradigm, we have organized ourselves in ways that has slowed economic growth, concentrated wealth at the top, uh, threatens the democracy and makes it very difficult to, to address other existential challenges. And I could go on and on about the way in which that paradigm has, has shaped us.

(00:40:40):

But for, for example, the idea of home economists, the pe- the idea that people are reliably selfish. If that was true, then it would be true by definition that selfishness is the cause of our prosperity. And that is not true because we are homo sapiens. We are reliably, reliably, uh, relational, moral, and cooperative. And what that means is that cooperation is the cause of our prosperity. And if you think that, then you organize the society in a very different way.

(00:41:10):

And so yes, we have to, we have, we have to use the power of government, democratic governance to reorganize how we purpose markets, how we constrain them, and how we ensure that they work to better the society, not simply make a few people richer.

Jason Furman (00:41:26):

I teach an introductory economics class where we teach ways in which people are rational, ways in which people are so-called behavioral or psychological and differ from the textbook model that thing you might assume is the textbook model, but no longer actually is the textbook model.

(00:41:44):

Um, we talk about the ways in which people are pro-social and trust matters. But fundamentally, I’d say for the most important decisions we make, if you go, have the option of buying things at two different stores, you’re gonna buy it at the cheaper store. If you have two similar jobs, you’re gonna take the one that pays more. If you as a corporation have two business plans and one has a higher profit and one has a lower profit, you’re gonna adopt a higher profit one.

(00:42:09):

And so when it comes to the economic sphere, the majority of the choices that people make as consumers, as workers, and as businesses actually are financially motivated. We can lament that. We can think it’s bad. I think a lot of good things have come out of it. Um, but to some degree, I don’t think you can actually fundamentally change human nature.

Nick Hanauer (00:42:31):

Y- yeah.

Jason Furman (00:42:31):

Instead, you have to work with it and channel it. And that’s what markets and competition do, and that’s what a backstop of things like government policy and taxation does. And I would finally say, um, in some sense, I think Nick didn’t really answer the question because I’ve still heard a lot of rhetoric about what we’d like a better world to look like with almost nothing resembling a specific as to, you know, how his government takeover of corporate financial policy is gonna work.

Mary Childs (00:42:58):

I was, uh, basically just seeking to ... Like, it sounds like a hearts and minds campaign. Is that right, N- Nick?

Nick Hanauer (00:43:04):

No.

Mary Childs (00:43:04):

No?

Nick Hanauer (00:43:04):

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Mary Childs (00:43:05):

Okay. What is it?

Nick Hanauer (00:43:06):

Uh, I mean, so first of all, I don’t, I, I agree with Jason, you can’t change human behavior. Hu- humans are what humans are. But what they are not is reliably selfish and rational. And, and expecting the world to operate in that way, uh, uh, uh, uh, if you expect the world to operate in that way, both y- y- you know, y- you’re, you’re mis- misapprehending what’s actually going on.

(00:43:27):

You know, again, markets are an incredibly powerful source of technology because of the ways in which they enable us to cooperate. But I think, I think you’re ask- you’re trying... I think you’re asking a, sort of a harder question, which is what would I do?

Mary Childs (00:43:42):

Uh-huh.

Nick Hanauer (00:43:42):

Is that what you ... Okay.

Mary Childs (00:43:43):

Yes.

Nick Hanauer (00:43:44):

So the first thing I would do is I, I would, I would, uh, change, uh, the stated purpose of the corporation from just enriching shareholders to solving human problems in a just and sustain, in a fair and sustainable way.

Jason Furman (00:43:57):

Good luck with that mattering. Yeah, good luck with that.

Nick Hanauer (00:43:58):

Yeah, yeah. Hey-

Jason Furman (00:43:58):

Oh, go ahead.

Mary Childs (00:43:58):

Yeah, where is ... Uh, how would you do that?

Nick Hanauer (00:44:02):

Well, I mean, w- y- y- you would impose it by law. Now, what does it mean? And we could spend hours and hours de- debating what that means. It, it, it, does that create a utopia? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. And are there still gonna be tons and tons of people who operate in a way that, that rejects that or ignores that? Of course, of course, of course. But we wanna create norms in our society that we wanna create expectations for people.

(00:44:27):

I, I, I mean, I think just, I think it’s really sad that you think that the best we can do as humans is just assume the worst of one another. The, the, you know, the problem, the thing I dislike most about this sort of capitalism and neoliberalism is the way in which it confers, uh, a strategic advantage on the worst people, right? If you really, truly do not care about other human beings, about your customers, about the future in your society, you have a-

Jason Furman (00:44:55):

You’re gonna lose money.

Nick Hanauer (00:44:56):

You have a-

Jason Furman (00:44:56):

Businesses that behave that way lose money.

Nick Hanauer (00:44:59):

N- No. That is not true. That is not true.

Jason Furman (00:45:00):

No, no, no, but Nick, y- you-

Nick Hanauer (00:45:02):

That is ... Dude, I know a lot more about this than you do.

Jason Furman (00:45:03):

Okay.

Nick Hanauer (00:45:03):

I have run 40 companies.

Jason Furman (00:45:04):

Nick, Nick, you know what? You are incredibly biased.

Nick Hanauer (00:45:07):

That is not true.

Jason Furman (00:45:07):

You don’t know more about this. You can keep asserting you know more about this.

Nick Hanauer (00:45:11):

No.

Jason Furman (00:45:11):

You can keep asserting you know more about this, but that is a pompous move. And you can invoke it all you want, but I’m not gonna take it. I’m just not going to. So let me just say, you think ...

(00:45:23):

Okay, so here’s, here’s my question for you, Nick. Two models of a company. One company is ripping people off, selling them substandard stuff. The other’s making wonderful products, selling them at a low price. Do you think we’re in a world where the first one makes huge profits, but we should force them to be like the second? Or do you think what you said before of all good things go together and if you do the right thing, you’ll have more innovation and more growth, which sounded an awful lot like the second company would do better. My view is companies that develop a reputation for treating their customers badly, for treating their workers badly can actually end up being punished, um, in the marketplace.

Nick Hanauer (00:46:04):

In, in, in some cases that’s true, and in some cases, it’s not true. But there are plenty, plenty, plenty, plenty of low road operators who rip their, rip their customers off, rip their, rip their employees off, and prosper. And, and it is-

Jason Furman (00:46:19):

And some of our biggest and most successful companies actually haven’t behaved that way. They’ve been companies that, for example, have reliably delivered lower prices, greater variety and better products. That’s why Amazon is the way it is, not because it’s cut every single corner. Um, it could possibly cut, and you should know that better because you’re one of the people that invented that company. But you’re just gonna pass a law and say every American company now needs to be nice.

Nick Hanauer (00:46:46):

No.

Jason Furman (00:46:46):

That’s gonna be your law.

Nick Hanauer (00:46:48):

No, no, no. I’m not ... But Jason, but Jason-

Jason Furman (00:46:48):

Like, that’s just a ludicrous, ludicrous naive idea about how a company functions.

John Donvan (00:46:53):

Okay. All right. I, uh, all right. Time, time, time out. Mary, I wanna thank you for your question.

Nick Hanauer (00:46:56):

(laughs)

Mary Childs (00:46:56):

Thank you.

Nick Hanauer (00:46:56):

Sorry. Thanks, Mary. (laughs)

John Donvan (00:46:57):

Um, because I’m gonna ... Thank you for joining us. I just, I wanna say this, that I, one of my goals is to encourage mutual respect among our debaters, and I think some hackles were raised just now. And can we-

Nick Hanauer (00:47:12):

I’m sorry, Jason.

John Donvan (00:47:13):

Uh, t- thank you.

Jason Furman (00:47:14):

Apology accepted-

Nick Hanauer (00:47:15):

(laughs)

Jason Furman (00:47:15):

... because I do like you now.

John Donvan (00:47:16):

Thank you.

Nick Hanauer (00:47:16):

(laughs) I like you too.

John Donvan (00:47:16):

Thank you. Let’s move on. I wanna welcome into the conversation now Enda Curran, who is from Bloomberg News in Washington. Enda, uh, thank you for joining the conversation and for listening in. You cover and report on the US and global economy, which gives you, um, really a great perspective for this conversation and debate. So thank you for joining us, and please come in with your question.

Enda Curran (00:47:35):

Uh, thank you all, John, it’s a great debate. I am, I’m enjoying it. Jason, uh, just in terms of tangible examples, following up on Mary’s questions, if you had public support and congressional support, could you elaborate just w- what more you would do to boost competition in the US, please?

(00:47:51):

And Nick, similar question to you in terms of, you know, your dream law would be to stop corporations from enriching themselves as you describe it. Can you say, how would you s- ... I don’t want to paraphrase you, sorry, but how would you sell that to both the public and executives to get that across the line, please? Thank you.

Jason Furman (00:48:06):

Yeah. So one issue in competition is corporate concentration and large businesses. I think antitrust got too permissive for a while. I think it went too far in the other direction and actually became overly strict. And the goal should be about protecting competition, not protecting competitors. So for me, the goal of competition policy is not to have lots of small businesses, but it’s to have great, uh, great things for consumers and great things for workers.

(00:48:36):

Uh, the biggest places where I see lack of competition in a consequential place in the economy are places like the health sector, where to open up a hospital, you might need a certificate of need. To become a doctor, you need to be recognized, um, and certified in certain types of ways. Residency slots are limited. The way in which a European-trained doctor can practice in the United States, um, is limited.

(00:49:03):

Housing, I went through all the ways in which you can’t build. So for me, um, occupational licensing, we need a license to do different types of jobs. So I think there’s some traditional antitrust that plays a role here, but there’s a lot of other markets that are insufficiently competitive because basically the government has gone in, done the types of things Nick wants it to do, which is it knows better about X, Y, and Z, and does that basically to enrich people and the incumbents rather than to benefit competition in the future.

Nick Hanauer (00:49:35):

I mostly agree with Jason. (laughs) Uh, but, uh, w- uh, can you just rephrase what you, uh-

Enda Curran (00:49:43):

It was basically, Nick, how would you sell your idea about stopping corporations from enriching themselves? I mean, how would you-

Nick Hanauer (00:49:48):

So-

Enda Curran (00:49:48):

Yeah.

Nick Hanauer (00:49:49):

So, so just to be clear, I, I, I’m not arguing against corporations enriching themselves. I’m just saying it’s ludicrous to think that we should grant limited liability, uh, as the public to organizations that don’t serve a social purpose. And the social purpose of the corporation should be to solve human problems, and they should do it in a way that benefits the society broadly. And if they can do that, they should earn profit, and that’s it. That’s just ... It’s, it’s just a common sense proposition. And then-

John Donvan (00:50:20):

Nick, Nick, has it ever happened? Has it ever happened?

Nick Hanauer (00:50:25):

Well, I mean, I- I- I- not in history, but, you know, w- w- w- w- again, civilization is a verb. I, I, I, I don’t think we need to look back in history to find the answers to all our problems. One of the things that we can do is that we can hold ourselves in our society to successively higher standards. I am arguing for that.

(00:50:49):

I’m not saying that capitalism over the last hundred years has been a disaster. It, it, it hasn’t. In many ways, it has produced an, uh, as Jason has pointed out, it, it, it, you know, created more prosperity than anyone has ever seen in, in human society. But it has outlasted its usefulness, and we can do better. And the existing form is clearly broken.

(00:51:10):

And so, yeah, we should dedicate ourselves to solving one another’s problems. We should organize our, our standards in ways that requires companies to pay people enough so that they don’t need government assistance. We should find ways to make sure that corporations make money, but that some of it goes back into workers’ profits. Again, just look at the trend line, right? From 51 to 41. Is it okay if it goes to 31? How about 21? How about 10? How about zero? Right? Like, at what point do you say, “Enough is enough, guys.”

(00:51:46):

You know, corporations were very successful, grew very, very fast when their profits were 6% of GDP. And by the way, GDP was twice as high when profits were 6% of GDP. Why? Because so much more of the money w- went into workers’ profits, p- went into workers’ pro- pockets, which generated the demand which makes the economy g- go.

(00:52:10):

So I don’t ... There are no trade-offs to growth here. There’s no trade-offs to innovation. There will be a group of very rich people who will be sad with this new arrangement because it will not as clearly benefit them, but c- but the, but the economy will do better, people will do better, the democracy will do better, Earth will do better. And that is something which is available to us. We do not have to live with these 19th century ideas.

John Donvan (00:52:38):

Enda, thank you very much, uh, for joining us and coming in with your question. I, I have a question that’s come from the audience. The question is this, do you believe we actually have capitalism in the US, given the extent to which monetary and fiscal policies have consistently favored financial sector interests over the last 50 years? For example, negative real interest rates and preferential tax rates. Do we call it capitalism?

Jason Furman (00:53:01):

I mean, I actually disagree with the premise of that question. Um, we have a fiscal system that is very progressive. I’d like it to be more progressive than it is, but right now, if you are a millionaire, you pay a higher tax rate than if you make $50,000 a year. And then if you look at the transfer side of the equation, what you get from the government, the things that Nick was actually, has denigrated more than once in our conversation, um, then it’s overwhelmingly progressive. So what do you give in, what you get in terms of benefits like Medicaid, like nutritional assistance, like housing assistance, um, and the like.

(00:53:39):

And this is why, um, things like expanding the Affordable Care Act, expanding nutritional assistance, expanding the earned income tax credit, expanding the child tax credit, um, we’ve actually done that very successfully, pretty steadily for decades now. We had a setback, uh, a big setback, um, last year under President Trump with the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill, which cut Medicaid. But beyond that, at almost every stage, these programs have actually expanded, and that’s why inequality after taxes and transfers is lower now than it was 25 years ago, why we’ve actually made progress.

Nick Hanauer (00:54:18):

Uh, I, I heard a slightly different question there. Um, I, I, I think, uh, and if, if the way in which I heard the question was correct, um, I, I’d slightly dif- disagree with Jason. I, I think the, the, the, the, the question was more around haven’t we organized our, our capitalist economy to benefit financialization over everything else? And the answer to that is yes, we have. And I think in many ways, we don’t have a capitalist system in, in the pure form. We have mostly socialism for the rich. We socialize the problems in our society and we privatize the benefits, uh, in, in egregious and embarrassing ways in many cases. And I think that’s a big problem.

John Donvan (00:55:05):

Do either of you, in terms of the inequality issue and the concentration of economic power, uh, have any sympathy for the argument that, um, CEO salary should be, CEO compensation should be capped?

Jason Furman (00:55:17):

I personally don’t care what CEOs get paid. I care what they’re taxed. Again, I’d like to have a progressive tax rate. But, you know, if Nick makes his own private company and wants to hire a CEO and wants to pay a CEO, whatever, he can do that. If a public company wants to, I think most of that money is coming at the expense of shareholders and owners, not at the expense of workers.

(00:55:39):

And by the way, the difference between an extremely good CEO and the next best CEO can actually be quite large, um, for your bottom line. You don’t need the CEO of Apple, um, to be that different in ability for it to be worth an extra $50 million to pick one person, um, over another. So I think the whole CEO pay is a distraction. Um, there’s a grand total of 500, Fortune 500 CEOs in America. You could cut all their pay by 90% and you’d barely make a dent in any of the issues, um, that we’ve talked about here.

John Donvan (00:56:13):

I, I, I asked the question having, inspired by having read an article you recently published in which you, you bemoan the fact that CEOs can make 300 times what their workers make. So, uh, again, uh, is your point that they should be capped, or something else?

Nick Hanauer (00:56:29):

Yeah, no, no. I, uh, I- I- I- capping is complex. W- w- w- my prob- my problem with CEO pay is how corrupt it is. Um, having been in this world and just knowing how it works, uh, it’s completely disconnected from performance. Uh, and, um, there is this racket of consultants that go around in every board me- room in America, and they, they do these spreadsheets which prove in every single case in which they present their material that the executive team is underpaid and needs a big raise. Uh, what they never say is, “Y’all make twice as much as you should, and we should cut your pay by 50%.”

(00:57:12):

And so we have adopted sort of culturally, morally, and technically, a set of standards and processes which create this upward ratchet on CEO pay, but there is no similar force (laughs) on, on worker pay, right? And so you end up in this circumstance, because Jason, of course, right, you could cut all CEO pay by 90%, won’t make a, won’t make a bit of difference at the end of the day.

(00:57:42):

But it is, it, it does speak to the way in which w- what our values are as a society and how we think about our relative contributions in the world. And it is just not true that it, it, that CEOs create 500 times or 300 times as much value as the people, uh, uh, that they, that they employ any more than it is true that somebody makes $100 million a year on Wall Street securitizing imaginary assets is worth a million, uh, you know, whatever it is, a thousand times more than somebody who’s teaching algebra in a public school. It’s ludicrous.

(00:58:19):

And, and, you know, I believe that we have a right to push back on those claims. This whole idea of, you know, the marginal product is just, it’s imaginary. It was cooked up in 1899, right? There’s no, it’s not an economic fact, I don’t think, Jason. It’s a, it’s a, it’s a scam.

John Donvan (00:58:38):

Jason, I need you to hold on your, any response to that because we’re now pivoting to our final round. Our final round is where each of our debaters has one more opportunity to take the floor solo and make their case, either that capitalism is broken or it is not. Nick, you’re up first. Your closing statement on why you’re saying capitalism is broken.

Nick Hanauer (00:58:57):

Okay. Thanks, John. For, for most of this debate, we’ve been arguing about numbers, but numbers only tell some of the story because economies shape souls as well as bank accounts. My friend, Senator Chris Murphy, tells this cool story in his new book. His son plays youth hockey, a private equity firm bought the league and bought the rinks. And then they banned parents from filming their own kids’ games, not because filming hurt anybody, but because the firm had installed its own cameras and it wanted to sell you the footage back at 25 bucks a month. So now, parents pay a private equity fund for the privilege of watching their kids play hockey.

(00:59:34):

I think that’s just insane. It’s a small thing, but that’s why it matters because there’s nothing left in American life so ordinary, so decent, so personal that capitalism hasn’t figured a way to monetize it. We now have entire industries whose business model is human suffering, who monetize humanity’s deepest vulnerabilities. Social media companies that earn more the anger and lonelier we get. Betting apps, engineered to grab the compulsive gambler and never let go. Food companies that employ scientists to create products that are both poisonous and that you cannot stop eating. A drug industry that flooded our country with opioids under the banner of the free market. Private health insurers that make more money the sicker we get.

(01:00:22):

Capitalism has been telling us for 50 years that this isn’t just fine and normal. It’s our only option. They told us greed is efficient, that if someone’s willing to pay for it, it must be good by definition, that a market price is a moral verdict. That is nonsense. I love markets, but they are, and they are indispensable foundations of prosperity and free societies, but understanding that markets work is not the same as understanding how and why markets work or how to make them work better.

(01:00:56):

Capitalism, as it is practiced today isn’t just broken, it’s wrong. And market humanism, this thing that we’ve been working on, points the way to a better furt- future for everyone, even so-called capitalists. And if you wanna learn, learn more about that, what comes after capitalism, download our free booklet at marketsbuiltforhumans.org.

John Donvan (01:01:16):

Thank you, Nick. And I’m fine with the commercial. Um-

Nick Hanauer (01:01:18):

Thank you.

John Donvan (01:01:19):

... I, I, I recommend it. So, uh, Jason, you know how this works. You get the last word. Floor is yours.

Jason Furman (01:01:24):

Money isn’t everything. GDP isn’t everything. Growth isn’t everything. Companies aren’t everything. Consumers aren’t everything. But they are actually a lot, and it does matter. If you look at countries that are richer, countries that are growing faster, countries that are more innovative, uh, you tend to have people that are happier, that are more tolerant of each other, more willing to share, have lower maternal mortality, lower child mortality, higher degrees of, um, wellbeing in a whole variety of even more fundamental dimensions.

(01:02:09):

The United States right now, compared to almost any rich country on the planet Earth, is doing a better job of generating, um, economic growth. It’s why we’ve seen real wages rising consistently for all workers across the income spectrum for the last, uh, nearly, uh, 15 years. It’s why we’ve seen, um, the rise of billionaires as well. And these two things to some degree, um, have gone together.

(01:02:40):

Now, I don’t think we need to just accept all of this. And unlike Nick, I think the government has a really, really important role to play. I don’t think the government providing help with college, providing help with retirement, providing help with childcare, providing help with healthcare, none of that is any sort of indignity. I don’t expect companies, um, to do all of that. I expect them to do certain things, to be innovative, to serve their consumers, and to treat their workers, um, well. That’s gonna happen when there’s more competition.

(01:03:14):

I’d like to see more competition. I’d like to see more of these gains shared more broadly, but I do think we need to step back and appreciate that it really is the best point in history to have lived economically. And of the rich countries, the United States is among the very best to live in. And a lot of that really is because of the success of the markets. And, yes, I’ll call it capitalism as a system.

John Donvan (01:03:42):

Thank you very much, Jason. And that is a wrap on this debate. The arguments are over. After hearing what everybody had to say, we wanna know which side of the debate you fall on. Please cast your vote now. Go to opentodebate.org/vote, or scan the QR code on our screen. We will also be dropping the voting link in the episode notes and description.

(01:04:01):

Voting for this live stream is going to remain open until Friday, September 4th at 4:00 PM Eastern. We will reveal the results of the vote in our Substack newsletter on Saturday, September 5th. So make sure to subscribe.

(01:04:14):

Nick and Jason, you brought a lot of, a lot of energy to this debate. We even had an apology, which I appreciate, and a forgiveness, which I appreciate.

Nick Hanauer (01:04:24):

(laughs)

John Donvan (01:04:24):

Um, w- we-

Nick Hanauer (01:04:28):

I’m sorry, Jason. (laughs)

Jason Furman (01:04:28):

It’s all good, Nick. It’s all good.

John Donvan (01:04:29):

We appreciate you showing up a- a- and arguing that the way that, that you did, and for being thoughtful and making us all think. So as we like to say, thank you for being open to debate.

(01:04:37):

I, I also wanna thank, um, Mary and Enda for their questions. And finally, a big thank you to you, our audience, for tuning into this episode of Open to Debate. As a nonprofit working to combat extreme polarization through civil debate, our work is made possible li- by listeners like you, by the Rosenkranz Foundation, and by supporters of Open to Debate.

(01:04:56):

Robert Rosenkranz is our chairman. Our CEO is Lia Matthow. Andrew Lipson is head of production. Michelle Debreceni is head of marketing. Alexis Pancrazi is our executive producer. The Open to Debate team also includes Gabriella Mayer, Catie Perry, Gabrielle Iannucelli, Linda Lee, Scott Jacobi, and Julia Sirkin. Damon Whittemore mixed this episode. Our theme music is by Alex Klement. I’m John Donvan. We’ll see you next time on Open to Debate.

For decades, capitalism appeared to have won the argument, driving innovation, economic growth, and rising living standards. But for many Americans, that prosperity now feels increasingly out of reach. Dissatisfaction has reshaped American politics, fueling the rise of the Democratic Socialists of America and contributing to Gallup’s finding that only 54% of Americans view capitalism positively — the lowest level it has recorded.

Defenders argue capitalism remains the greatest engine of prosperity and innovation ever devised, and that government failures, restrictive housing and labor policies, and inadequate competition — not markets — are to blame for today’s challenges.

Critics counter that today’s capitalism increasingly rewards ownership over work, allows economic power to translate into political influence, and generates inequality severe enough to undermine social cohesion and democracy.

In this debate, a billionaire who has managed or founded over thirty companies who also advocates for addressing inequality faces a prominent Obama administration economist with a competing vision of the system to answer this question: Is Capitalism Broken?

After you’ve listened to the debate, let us know where you stand on the motion!

VOTE HERE

Vote before Friday, September 4 at 4pm ET. We will reveal the results in our Substack newsletter on Saturday, September 5th, so make sure to subscribe.

Arguing Yes

• Nick Hanauer, Entrepreneur and Venture Capitalist

Arguing No

• Jason Furman: Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government

Moderator-in-Chief:

• John Donvan: Emmy Award-winning journalist

From extreme heat and wildfires to droughts and floods, 2026 has many around the world questioning anew the impact of climate change and how to respond to it. Just this week, NOAA reported that this year’s El Niño phenomenon will grow into a “Super” level, which could potentially be one of the strongest we’ve seen thus far and lead to warmer-than-average conditions across the northern U.S., while the southern U.S. will become cooler and wetter in the winter.

Some remain skeptics, but humans countering these issues today are building seawalls, redesigning cities, developing drought-resistant crops, improving forecasting, changing where and how we build, and creating technologies to protect ourselves from extreme heat, floods, fires, and storms.

Can technology and human ingenuity allow societies to thrive in a warmer world, or are there limits to how much we can adjust? And as our debaters who hold varying perspectives on climate change and its potential effects question, can humans adapt to it? Listen to the debate now on Substack, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify, and as always, let us know what you think.

Arguing YES:

Bjorn Lomborg, Author of the Bestsellers “Cool It” and “The Skeptical Environmentalist”; Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center

“We're a very adaptive species. We live pretty much everywhere on the planet. We live in frigid Greenland and in hot, humid Singapore. We live where hurricanes hit or where floods strike. We live in the driest of deserts or in Seattle. We live everywhere. We live on ranges that are much grander than anything climate can throw at us, and that's because we already adapt. This is the stuff that we're really good at.”

Matthew Kahn, Provost Professor of Economics and Spatial Sciences at the University of Southern California

“Our collective imagination and ingenuity creates a thrust of entrepreneurship to help us to create the solutions we are going to need to adapt to this challenge. I believe that the world's entrepreneurs- and there's 7.5 billion of us on this planet- as we seek solutions, this demand creates a supply of this sharp entrepreneurial push.”

Arguing NO:

Michele Wucker, Economic Policy Expert & Founder of Gray Rhino & Company

“As we were talking about developing countries [being] most at risk from climate change, they are the ones who will benefit most from mitigation measures, and the mitigation measures in those countries as they grow and need more energy, will yield a huge, huge benefit. The questions we’re asking tonight are related to that. Are we okay with living in such a way that the rich countries can do what they need to adapt, but everyone else in the world can’t?”

Kaveh Madani, Environmental Scientist; Former Vice President of the United Nations Environment Assembly Bureau; Former Deputy Head of Iran’s Department of Environment

“The argument is that if you only count on our smartness and don't plan ahead — many investing in the power to adapt, investing in education, innovation, and all of these are a mitigation measure — if you don't do these things, you cannot adapt. So can humans adapt to climate change if there is no action today? That's the answer: no, and that's what we are defending.”

Debating Energy, Climate, and What Comes Next

From how we power our homes and cities to how we respond to a changing climate, decisions about energy and the environment come with difficult tradeoffs and challenging questions to answer. Explore more of our debates on nuclear power, fossil fuels, renewable energy, climate policy, conservation, and more:

• Does Your Electric Vehicle Help the Planet?

• The EPA Has Gone Overboard

• It’s Time to Expand Nuclear Power

• Fast Fashion: Shop or Stop?

• Hunters Conserve Wildlife

In the News

The End of the European Summer

Eric Klinenberg | August 17, 2026

Watch Eric debate whether dating apps have killed romance

Adam Smith’s Warning for America’s New Socialists

Mark Jamison | August 19, 2026

Watch Mark debate whether Amazon is good for small business

After a Scholar’s Awful Death, Mistaken Calls for Censorship
Michelle Goldberg | August 17, 2026

Watch Michelle debate whether Biden should step aside

The Fatal, Familiar Takedown of Jason Arday

Shaun Harper | August 17, 2026

Watch Shaun debate whether free speech is threatened on campus

Scapegoating Fauci Won’t Protect Us From the Next Pandemic

Lawrence Gostin | August 17, 2026

Watch Lawrence debate COVID vaccine mandates

Student debt: The hidden affordability crisis

Randi Weingarten | August 16, 2026

Watch Randi debate whether we should blame teachers unions for failing schools

Will the Gulfies dump Trump?

Reuel Marc Gerecht | August 17, 2026

Watch Reuel debate U.S. national security

How Alliances Survive

Kurt M. Campbell and Rush Doshi | August 18, 2026

Watch Kurt debate whether coronavirus will reshape the world in China’s favor

Desire is not the enemy. Neither is marriage.

Shadi Hamid | August 16, 2026

Watch Shadi debate whether religion is a force for good

Where Are American Children Supposed to Learn How to Become Adults?

Carolyn Gorman | August 13, 2026

Watch Carolyn debate love and sex in our Generational Divides series

For the Motion: Matthew Kahn, Bjorn Lomborg

Against the Motion: Kaveh Madani, Michele Wucker

Moderated by: John Donvan

Video Introduction

John Donvan:

The dangers of climate change are no longer over the horizon. Humanity may soon pass the point of no return. These are the phrases U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres used to describe what he called an “utterly inadequate response to rising temperatures.” But if we were to decisively restructure our global economy with the climate in mind, who would shoulder the burden? And where does climate change rank in the order of global problems? Should we accept a new reality and focus on working within it?

So, we ask: can humans adapt to climate change?

The Debate Begins

John Donvan:

In regard to the topic of climate change, a short parable on the words “adapt and mitigate,” with apologies to the author of the “Three Little Pigs” -- whoever that might be -- because in that story, when the Big Bad Wolf came for the smart pig, the smart pig was able to retreat to his house, which, of course, he had made of bricks.

And he survives. He knew that the wolf was coming. And by going with bricks, he had adapted to the impact of what was at his door, which was a wolf huffing and puffing. So, he survived by adapting.

But what if the smart pig instead had focused more on the cause of the threat, and he had just gone outside and shot the damn wolf?

Well, then he would have been mitigating the threat by directly addressing the cause. That would be mitigation. Both are important, clearly, and that is the choice that we’re going to be tonight in this debate, whether we should be putting more of our effort into adapting to what’s coming or more of our effort into mitigating the effects of what’s coming. It’s not all one or all the other, but where should we be putting more of the effort? What makes the most sense?

What will be the trade-offs? So, here’s our question. Yes or no: Can humans adapt to climate change?

John Donvan:

So, before we get started, I want to ask you to cast your first vote. As I described, our vote is going to go in two rounds. The first round happens now. We ask you to vote on the question, whether humans can adapt to climate change, and then we will have you vote again after you’ve heard what all of the debaters have had to say. And what we want to see is how many of you changed your minds, and in which directions you changed your minds. To cast your pre-debate vote, go to IQ2.US.org. And there, you will get three prompts on the vote. You can vote “Yes,” “No,” or “Undecided,” and we will keep that vote open for several more days, letting us learn which side has changed the most minds during this debate.

Can humans adapt to climate change? Let’s meet the people who are going to debate that question. On the team arguing that the answer is “No,” we start with Kaveh Madani, head of the research program at United Nations University and former deputy head of Iran’s Department of Environment.

He is appearing here -- I want to say -- in his personal capacity as a scientist and a university professor, not on behalf of the U.N. or any government.

His partner, also arguing “No,” Michele Wucker, economic policy expert and founder, Gray Rhino & Company.

Again, the question is can humans adapt to climate change? Let’s meet the team that says yes. First up, Matthew Kahn, provost professor of economics and spatial sciences as the University of Southern California?

And his partner, Bjorn Lomborg, President of Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.”

Ladies and gentlemen, here they are, our four debaters, ready to get started.

So, we are going to go in three rounds. And obviously, we begin with Round 1. And Round 1 is comprised of opening statements by each debater in turn. Those statements will be four minutes each.

Here up first, to argue “Yes” to the question -- that humans can adapt to climate change -- is Matthew Kahn. Ladies and gentlemen, Matthew Kahn.

Matthew Kahn:

Folks, good evening. It’s great to be here. Climate change is a real concern. So, why am I so optimistic about our future, despite the challenges we face? Climate scientists are making great progress right now, providing pinpoint predictions of the new risks we face, about the timing and the geography of extreme heat, fire risk, sea level rise, flooding, natural disaster risk.

As an economist, I celebrate this Paul Revere effect. Paul Revere lived a long time ago. The climate scientists are the new Paul Revere, giving us this heads up about these new challenges we face.

Folks, how do we respond to these new challenges we face? A fundamental idea from economics is that we’re not passive victims, right? I hope there’s some economists in the room tonight. I’m looking around. Oh, well, a few! A few! I’m married to an economist. My son is training in economics. And I want to convey just a couple of ideas from economics, which is the root source of my optimism and why I ask you to vote in favor of the recommendation tonight.

Economists reject the view that we are passive victims. We argue that we have strong incentives to adapt to the very real challenges we face.

I’ve written two books, and I’ve worked on the subject of the microeconomics of adapting to climate change. I’m looking around. Did anyone read “Climatopolis”? Ooh, tough room.

Did anyone read my 2021 Yale University Press “Adapting to Climate Change” book? Tough room. Well, all right.

Well, folks, here is the Cliffs Notes version of my book -- my work, three ideas I want you to take away. First, our collective imagination and ingenuity creates a thrust of entrepreneurship to help us to create the solutions are going to need to adapt to this challenge. I believe that the world’s entrepreneurs -- and there’s 7.5 billion of us on this planet -- as we seek solutions, this demand creates supply, the sharp entrepreneurial push.

Point number two. Economic growth is essential for adaptation. We don’t worry about Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk, of how they’ll adapt.

We’ve seen Jeff Bezos take his rocket into outer space. He has rejected me as a passenger for reasons you now understand. For people in Bangladesh, for people in India, for poor people in the United States, we need them to grow richer so that they can protect themselves from the real threats we now face.

A third reason I’m optimistic about our ability to adapt is government. Government plays an essential role, especially government which has economic growth behind it. We’ve learned from the Holland experience, of how the Dutch have protected themselves from sea level rise, with infrastructure which protected all of their people against these risks.

So, folks, why am I an optimist? I’m staring at the clock ticking down. I want to tell you about some of my graduate students at the University of South California. They are studying adaptation in rural Bangladesh and rural India, some of the poorest parts of the world.

These individuals are not passive victims facing these challenges. These rice-growing farmers have several strategies to adapt. They can move to cities. They can switch from rice farming to shrimp farming. They can switch from rice to seeds that are more resilient. My students are studying the adaptation challenge as cautious optimists and are teaching me in their work.

The future are young people working on these problems, and I’m betting on the young to help us to make the progress we need to make. So, please vote “Yes” on the initiative.

John Donvan:

Thank you, Matthew Kahn. Our next debater will be arguing “No” in answer to the question: Can humans adapt to climate change? That is Michele Wucker. Ladies and gentlemen, Michele Wucker.

Michele Wucker:

Good evening. So, everybody on this stage agrees on a lot of things: on the importance of ingenuity and creativity.

I think deep down we are all optimists; otherwise, we wouldn’t be working on this. We agree that climate change is real. It’s caused by humans. And sadly, we also agree that efforts to mitigate it, to reduce greenhouse gases over the years have been mothers’ rule.

So, why are we even arguing? It really, as we said, comes down to mitigation, if you excuse the wonk speak. Basically, reducing greenhouse gases to prevent more need for adaptation, which, as you hear, is protecting ourselves from the effects of climate change. My work focuses on big, obvious, high-impact crises like climate change. They’re the sorts of things that are right in front of us that we’re talking about, that we know are happening. Picture a giant gray rhino charging right at you and giving you a choice of what to do.

So my work has shown me, first of all, that humans are way worse than we’d like to think at both recognizing and acting on these great rhinos. We’ve got cognitive biases and perverse incentives that are really messing us up. But I’ve also realized that we are not condemned to ignore these things like climate change. However, there are really two extremes of people, and some in the middle. On the one end are the people who recognize it, who do what they can, who don’t need to know exactly the details, but they know that something is urgent and they deal with it. The other ones say, “Well, it’s not that serious. Oh yeah, we can deal with it. Oh, it’s somebody else’s responsibility.” And what I’d like you to consider tonight is sort of where you are on that spectrum. And of course, climate change is quite daunting. And I could cite studies until I’m blue in the face and you are all asleep.

I’m not going to do that. I’m just going to say that some of the world’s leading scholars and scientists have concluded that it’s quite possible for us to come to a safe point, too, to reduce global warming to a point where we can feel confident we can survive with as little as 1 percent of GDP each year. By comparison, the U.S. alone spent 27 percent of GDP and counting on COVID. Every year we spend 7 percent of GDP to subsidize fossil fuels, the very things that are causing the problem. So taxpayers are paying for the subsidies and then they’re paying to clean them up. So that’s the -- not quite okay. But if we were just to switch those subsidies, those funds and some of the financing, that’s right now going to dirty fuels, to clean fuels, we could prompt one of the biggest economic and social transformations since the Internet, since electricity, since the steam engine.

Our colleagues and us both agree that we need to invest in research and development. We also need to invest in installation of clean tech to bring the rest of the world who doesn’t have enough electricity onto the grid but through cleaner ways. This will reduce poverty. It will help us to be healthier and cleaner and safer. Adaptation is just basically spending money to stay in place. So what I want you to go away with tonight is to think about can we afford to risk that climate change won’t be as bad as expected? Can we afford to count on humans adapting as much as we need it? I think you know the answer for me is no. And I’m hoping that you all will vote no to come to the same conclusion. Thank you very much.

John Donvan:

Thank you. Michele Wucker. So we are halfway through the opening round of this Intelligence Squared U.S. debate. I’m John Donvan. We have four debaters, two teams of two fighting it out over this question. Can humans adapt to climate change? You’ve heard the first two opening statements and now onto the third. Here to argue yes, in answer to that question, here is Bjorn Lomborg. Ladies and gentlemen. Bjorn Lomborg.

Bjorn Lomborg:

So climate change is a real challenge. It is something that we should be concerned about. Neither Matt nor I are saying that we shouldn’t also be cutting carbon emissions. But that’s not the question in front of you. The question in front of you is, can humans adapt to climate change? And the overwhelming answer is yes, because we’ve done so in many different ways before. We’re a very adaptive species. We live pretty much everywhere on the planet. We live in frigid Greenland and in hot, humid Singapore. We live where hurricanes hit or where floods strike.

We live in the driest of deserts or in Seattle. We live it everywhere. We live on ranges that are much grander than anything climate can throw at us. And that’s because we already adapt. The history shows very clearly that we can adapt. Look, over the last 150 years, sea levels rose about a foot. Did anyone notice? If you ask a very old person who lived through most of the 20th century -- likely to be a woman -- and ask her what were the important things that happened in the 20th century, she’ll talk about the world wars, maybe antibiotics, maybe even the IT revolution. But she will not be saying, oh, and sea levels rose. Why? Because we fixed it. This is the stuff that we’re really good at. We know this across a wide range of areas. So we have good studies that show that we adapt to all of the negative impacts from climate change. So both for heatwaves, for droughts, for storms and for floods. We’ve become better and better at handling these problems.

That means that the damage costs, both in terms of debt and in terms of impact, have gone down, both for rich and for poor countries. Why? Because we adapt. But of course, my esteemed opponents are going to say, sure, maybe we could adapt, but it’s going to get much worse in the future. No, that’s not what the models show us. So take, for instance, hurricanes. We know hurricanes are going to be more ferocious because of global warming. That’s absolutely true.

But because we’re also more resilient, because we’re also richer, because we know how to deal with that much better, the models show that we will actually see less damage: 10 percent of GDP by the end of the century because of hurricanes, actually about half. And we know this across a wide range of areas is actually true. So take, for instance, the U.N. estimate that by the end of the century, we will be much better off as a civilization. If you take the middle scenario, the middle of the road scenario, as they call it. The average person in the world will be 450 percent as rich as he or she is today.

That’s a fantastic achievement, but that’s without climate change. So what will climate change do? Well, we know because there’s lots of people who spend a lot of time looking at this. And what they found was, if you take a look at the models that underpin Biden’s climate administration’s arguments, or if you take the only climate economist who’s ever won the Nobel Prize in climate economics, they show us that, yes, climate change will mean we will be less well-off. So instead of being 450 percent as rich by the end of the century, we will only be 434 percent less rich. That’s a problem, but it’s not the end of the world. Actually, it’s still a much, much better world. And this underlines the fundamental problem and the point that we need to tackle here today. Yes, global warming is a problem. Yes, we should also deal with it through mitigation and smart cutting of carbon.

But the question in front of you is, can we adapt? Can humans adapt to climate change? And the simple answer is, not only have we done so, the models show us we will do so. And so the answer is yes, we will. Thank you.

John Donvan:

Thank you, Bjorn Lomborg. And our final debater will be answering no to the question “can humans adapt to climate change?” Here is Kaveh Madani. Ladies and gentlemen, Kaveh Madani.

Kaveh Madani:

So I’m probably one of the very few people in the opposite camp of typical discussions that Bjorn gets into who agrees with a lot of points, he says. And that’s costly for me and my community. But the reason for that is because I come from the developing world with a lot of different perspectives based on experience. But when it comes to conclusions, my conclusion is different because my field of study is different.

I model complex systems. I use math to model the systems that involve humans and nature to advise policy, tell the decisionmakers what to do, how to deal with tradeoffs, how to avoid unintended consequences. The first thing I learn in complexity is that we don’t know a lot of things. The uncertainty is huge. Not only we don’t know a lot of things, but also we don’t know that we don’t know a lot of things. Now, how do you manage something that you don’t know much about? We hear that people have been able to adapt. For a person coming from an area which is a little -- maybe a few thousand years older than the United States or Europe. I tell you that there are civilizations that have gone away. We don’t know about them. Historians and archeologists find them one after another and including some in Iran.

There are the people who didn’t adapt, who couldn’t tolerate, who didn’t -- were not able to adapt to a long drought. And they went out, you know, their civilization was washed away. They’re gone. You don’t hear about those who didn’t survive. This game when you -- we can in this game talk about the narratives that we like. The reason that we don’t have a common narrative today is complexity. In a complex system, no one knows exactly what is going on. So now I can pick and choose the narratives I like, and 180 degrees are different from what we hear from our opponents or say the things they say. The reason that both sides might be correct is because we don’t know what’s happening. Within complex systems, what we need to do is to manage and navigate through complexity.

Tonight is the night of managing uncertainty while valuing ethics. This is a -- is a decision which is related to ethics. This is a decision related to your social system and value system. Go two years back. We can argue that if all those people who contracted COVID had died, not much could have happened to our GDP. Still, we could make improvements, right? And quality of life is better right now. Social distancing, masks, staying at home, they were all mitigation measures that could have not been needed. We would have eventually adopted, we would have eventually discovered the vaccine, and the life is better today than what it was before. But if you go back in time, would you make a decision of no mitigation and all going all for adaptation?

That’s a question of ethics.

So people die. Yes. Old people would have died from COVID. They have lived a happy life. So it doesn’t matter much. What you don’t hear is how this statistic is different across nations. Who would suffer the most from the decisions that we are making here as the rich? I come from a place where people don’t even have the bandwidth to talk and think about a lot of things that we are talking about today. So if you’re responsible, you should say mitigation is also needed and the answer is no.

John Donvan:

Thank you, Kaveh Madani. And that concludes round one of this intelligence squared U.S. debate, where the question being debated is can humans adapt to climate change? And I’m going to ask you to keep in mind how you voted at the top of the evening. As you listen closely, we’ll be asking you once again, I’ll say this to vote at the conclusion. And it’s the difference between the first and the second vote that tells us which side changed the most minds.

Now we move on to round two, and in round two, the debaters will be taking questions from me and from you, and they can address one another directly. It’s more of a conversation and they can challenge one another as well. But I just want to summarize a little bit of what we’ve heard. The team arguing for the motion: Bjorn Lomborg and Matthew Kahn are -- they make the argument that adaptation makes sense because it’s got a proven track record, that humans are good at it, that entrepreneurs will rise to it, that they’re not arguing against mitigation. No team on this stage is all or nothing on either side, but we’re looking at it on balance. Where should most of the effort, where should the policy, where should be the funding primarily be challenged? And so that’s what we’re hearing from the team arguing, yes, we can adapt. The team arguing that we can’t adapt, they’re arguing that we’re not very good at reading the future, that the risks are enormously high, that there’s a possibility of great catastrophe potentially, but we just don’t know because systems are so very, very complex.

I want to go to the side arguing first in support of the motion and go to you, Matthew Kahn, when you said we are not passive and you believe that humans are capable of being active and smart about adaptation and doing that well, why is that not also just as true of mitigation?

Matthew Kahn:

So the difference between adaptation and mitigation is a free rider issue. The United States right now has not passed a carbon tax. I don’t know if it would pass in the room. So a distinction needs to be made. To mitigate carbon, the world --

John Donvan:

Can you -- just for people who are not familiar with the concept of carbon tax, take 15 seconds on that?

Matthew Kahn:

Higher gas taxes, how many folks vote in favor of that?

So I can’t -- look -- so mitigation would be for the whole world to agree to raise the price of gasoline by two bucks a gallon.

That would be a carbon tax. That would accelerate the electric vehicle push. Folks, the world has not enacted Greta Thunberg’s agenda. I have worked for 25 years now on climate change adaptation because I’m so worried that the world has not solved the free rider issue that everyone hopes that everyone else will mitigate. In contrast with adaptation, to protect our families, to protect our loved ones, we have incentives to be proactive in seeking solutions to heat fire risk, flood risk, for any of the plagues that can be named by climate scientists. We have strong incentives to seek solutions, and that creates a market incentive. The invisible hand focused on adaptation.

John Donvan:

Michele Wucker, so what I think I’m hearing is different interpretations of human nature, where your opponent, Matthew, is saying that mitigation is just not something people want to buy into, would be good at, would participate in.

And your argument goes very much in the other direction about what human nature is about. So why don’t you take that on?

Michele Wucker:

Yeah, well as far as adaptation, we know that sea levels are rising, that the places like Miami are in danger. We know that there are more wildfires. California in danger. What if we had more and more and more people moving to coastal areas and to areas that are vulnerable to wildfires. That to me doesn’t sound like really proactive adaptation, but maybe I got that wrong. And, you know, as far as the carbon tax or not well, you know, taxpayers are paying for fossil fuels right now, not once, but twice. We’re paying with the subsidies: 7 percent of GDP a year, according to the International Monetary Fund, when it would cost 1 to 2 percent of GDP a year to mitigate greenhouse gases. So, you know, are we talking about a couple cents at the gas station or are we talking about billions and billions of dollars every year that taxpayers are spending?

So fossil fuels aren’t cheap. We only think they’re cheap because we don’t see how we’re paying for them.

Bjorn Lomborg:

Can I just very briefly say the --

-- the IMF study that you’re suggesting, just so everyone knows, there’s some real studies on what the subsidies for fossil fuel are, and that’s about $5 billion. And that’s the International Energy Agency that looks at what’s actually being paid. The IMF, very few people respect that estimate. It basically, for the U.S. says, you don’t pay a VAT or anything like that, a sales tax on gasoline; you should and that’s a subsidy that you don’t. They say that you should be paying a huge carbon tax and you don’t. And that’s a subsidy because you don’t. That’s just changing words to a political agenda. It has no truth to it. You’re not paying for this. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have a carbon tax, but I’m simply saying that’s a discredited study that nobody ought to be using.

Michele Wucker:

The International Monetary Fund [inaudible] totally discredited study. Okay.

Bjorn Lomborg:

Yes, it’s a working paper at International Monetary Fund.

Michele Wucker:

And, you know, you can cherry pick studies from now till next Tuesday. But I think that all sorts of studies show that we are paying a lot of money. Right now, we are subsidizing R&D and we should be subsidizing a lot more into clean energy or even just getting rid of the money that we’ve been paying to fossil fuels or look at the money that we’ve paid over years and years and years and years to make sure that fossil fuels are as cheap as they are right now.

John Donvan:

Kaveh, jump in. We haven’t heard from you.

Kaveh Madani:

Yeah, one thing here, because, you know, when we signed up for this, it wasn’t whether we were saying it’s more mitigation and less adaptation. We’re saying both are needed, and if this is the agreement, let’s vote no and talk about what we can do better. So, no, because it means that we got to do more mitigation. Even investing in adaptation policies and thinking about adaptation is a mitigation measure, by the way.

So what we-

John Donvan:

That’s going to really confuse things.

Kaveh Madani:

It is, though, the truth. But the point here is that there are lots of scientists who say different things. It’s because the uncertainty is huge. The gentleman sitting next to Bjorn has done his study published in 2021. I was asked to review an earlier version of it by one of your coauthors. Tell us how much is the loss of GDP by the end of the century without mitigation and with mitigation.

Matthew Kahn:

So Kaveh is right that we -- I don’t love predicting out to the year 2100, but we -- our estimates are in line with what Bjorn presented, that we predict that at the end of the century, world GNP would be 6 percent lower than it would have been. And so think of yourself, if you weighed less are you feeling thin?

And so I’m grateful that you read the paper, but I viewed it as a -- rare -- I view this as in line with what Bjorn presented a couple of minutes ago.

John Donvan:

Matthew, you are so grateful for every word of yours ever read by anybody. It’s very charming actually.

Kaveh Madani:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if their mitigation policies are implemented, then what is the loss?

Matthew Kahn:

So your -- so I like your point, but there would be costs incurred for achieving that benefit and so we have to do a cross benefit analysis.

Kaveh Madani:

So what was the number you said in the paper? On percent. So if mitigate -- if you stand by the Paris Agreement -- and Matt is the first author of that paper. It’s one percent. Matt, if you add variability within nations, the cost, the GDP loss would be 13 percent. Read that paper, please. So 13 percent are lost. That’s not my point, that if you’re right or Nordhaus is right, it’s we are all wrong because models are wrong.

Model depends on our assumptions. What we don’t tell you is our assumptions. And we make all these assumptions. Go you two years back. Tell me one model in the world that has projected the future of COVID-19 crisis correctly. Just one model. All of those models were wrong, but they were useful because they created a sense of urgency to convince the political leaders to take action. People were dying in China, Italy, and Iran. Still, we were dismissing it in the United States, saying that this is like a flu, this is a third world problem. This is a mismanagement problem. When it hit us, when people started dying here, then we took action. Now you want to gamble with the future. You can’t do it.

John Donvan:

Let me let Bjorn get into the conversation here. And Bjorn, I’m not sure if you want to take this directly from where Kaveh left it, but I’m interested in the point he made in his opening, which I think he was just now actually fundamentally referring back to that systems are so complex that your optimism about adaptability, it reflects a naivete about just how bad things could get because we just don’t know.

Bjorn Lomborg:

Yeah. And I’m also a little surprised about that. We want to use our ability to do good policy in COVID as a way to showcase how we should be doing it. And so I think we all agree that I think most governments came out really badly in pretty much all of this. I don’t think modeling came out particularly good, but -- and this is very important -- what really mattered in both covered and in what we’re going to do with climate is how resilient we are as societies. So what we found, for instance, for COVID was that it really mattered that we trust each other, that we have good information systems, that we have good understanding of what are the health parameters that we need and that we can get that implemented.

What that really tells us is, it’s again about adaptation and that goes to your question and really Kaveh’s point in general. He tries to tell you, look, the world is so complex, we don’t really know things could go really well, but they could also go really terrible. So you better just give me all your money

Kaveh Madani:

That’s what I said.

Bjorn Lomborg:

And that makes good sense. I mean, a lot of politicians will tell you this, but the trick to remember is climate change is not the only thing we don’t quite know. Do we know what we’re going to be doing about Russia and Ukraine? Do we know what we’re going to do about North Korea? Do we know what we’re going to do about China? Do we know what we are going to do about the next pandemic? Do we -- I’m sorry. We could go on until Tuesday talking about all the other things and the very same argument carries, namely that because we don’t know, you need to spend all the money there. You need to spend all the money on North Korea.

John Donvan:

Are you -- are you making such an argument?

Kaveh Madani:

I think the audience is smart enough to know not that that was not my argument.

Bjorn Lomborg:

But it’s the implication of your argument.

Kaveh Madani:

No, no.

Bjorn Lomborg:

I just --

Bjorn Lomborg:

The fact is that --

John Donvan:

Wait, I just want to say I’d love Michele to get into the conversation here. If you want this opening, Michele, to jump in or you can yield to Kaveh.

Michele Wucker:

Absolutely. Well, this this really is about decision making and action under uncertainty. I mean, if you if you see smoke coming out of a house, you don’t know if it’s going to burn down the whole building or the temperature or all these other little details. But you know that you shouldn’t run into the house unless you’re a fireman with a fire hose. And there’s so many situations where we’ve got enough of a warning that we know we need to act. And as humans, we tend to either be overconfident about our ability to handle something or if it’s so big and overwhelming, we just say, okay, well, someone else can deal with it. Let’s just think about something else.

It’s -- these are biases that everyday get in the way of dealing with things. And no, we don’t know what’s going to happen. But what I’m pretty sure of is that if we want adaptation to work, we need to be doing a heck of a lot more mitigation right now because if we’re not doing more mitigation, the odds that we’re going to be able to adapt to those much higher temperature swings and extreme weather is going to be much, much lower.

John Donvan:

Does the example that Bjorn cited of the Dutch -- of the Netherlands, having figured out how to keep the sea back as a community, does that not blow you away as an example of adaptation?

That’s an amazing scale against a very, very serious challenge and helps make his point that we can be really, really, really good at it when necessary.

Michele Wucker:

Well, you know, I’ve used that example quite a bit in talking about Gray Rhino threats from, you know, from weather. But I’ve also read recently that some of those systems that were built are now being revisited because they’re not sure that the something that was built for a 1,000 year storm is actually going to be every thousand year storm.

Storms are getting stronger and stronger and stronger. So, yes, we need to be doing some of that adaptation. But if the temperatures rise as much as the world’s leading scientists think they are, then Netherlands is going to have to, you know, go back and redo its system.

Matthew Kahn:

John, can I jump in?

John Donvan:

Yeah, please do, Matthew.

Matthew Kahn:

So no piece of capital, including this building, lasts forever. We’re always rebuilding housing, roads. Our knowledge increases every day. There are so many educated people in the world, the world’s more and more people are becoming educated in the developing world. If we have sufficient imagination about the challenges we face, including what Michele just outlined, there’s going to be innovation and experimentation. If we know that we don’t know the resilience of these dams, we have incentives to engage in stress testing of these.

People who own real estate, protected by that, have strong incentives to ask for this testing, to learn about the threats they face to protect their families and their real estate. We are not passive victims here. The -- our opponents are trying to shift the debate to what’s the optimal carbon tax.

Michele Wucker:

What? Did we say that? You’re putting words in our mouth. We did not say that at all. You can’t do that. That’s cheating.

Matthew Kahn:

So Kaveh in discussing my paper talked about what is the tradeoff of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, of what are the benefits and costs and said that it passes a cost benefit test. To an economist that’s an equivalent of put of what is the right carbon tax.

Kaveh Wucker:

No, I tried to say that your narrative scientific paper is in contrast is --

Matthew Kahn:

No, that’s false. It’s exactly aligned with Bjorn’s.

Kaveh Wucker:

What were your number you said Bjorn GDP loss by the end of this form

Bjorn Lomborg:

4 percent.

Kaveh Wucker:

--you have said in your paper 13. That’s a big number to me that, you know--

Matthew Kahn:

That’s not an existential loss.

Kaveh Wucker:

Did I use that word?

Matthew Kahn:

You’ve emphasized that it is what I’m debating tonight is can we adapt to climate change by choice and whether GNP -- Bjorn, what are the numbers at the end of the century?

Bjorn Lomborg:

450 percent and 434 percent.

Matthew Kahn:

So my point here was that we have all narratives because we run different models.

Kaveh Madani:

You are a professor of the University of Southern California, right. And you cited another professor who was my, you know, I was a colleague of at Yale. But my point is that because of the complexity in the system and a lot of assumptions we are making, our narratives are not --have different values.

John Donvan:

Before you move on to that point, you’ve just made a really important point. I just want to know how it landed with your opponents.

Is Kaveh right that you can pick your model and -- well, I’m not saying that it’s motivated by looking for an outcome, but the different models can have dramatically different outcomes. And you got to go back to the model, you got to look at the assumptions. Is that -- should that be something that the audience built into their understanding of how all of this research is done and how these conclusions are reached?

Matthew Kahn:

Bjorn, can I go first? So in writing that paper, which Kaveh kindly cited, I actually disagreed with my coauthors of taking our historical findings from 1960 to the present and extrapolating out 80 years. I actually asked my coauthors that we not include that in the paper because --

John Donvan:

So he is right the assumptions --

Kaveh Madani:

Matt you are the first author of that paper.

Matthew Kahn:

No, economics is alphabetical but John, our study what our study

Matthew Kahn:

What our study was up to is asking when it’s been hotter in the recent past, what has happened to economic growth? And Kaveh’s right, the economic growth is slower, but it’s not negative.

It’s at the margins that Bjorn sketched. I was uncomfortable extrapolating out 82 years. FDR was our president roughly 82 years ago. Would he imagine the Tesla zoom or night to night? And so the world changes because of innovation? And so I was very uncomfortable with that extrapolation out to the year 2100.

Kaveh Madani:

And I was too when I read your the first draft of your paper. And by the way, you have a coauthored name with name H like Hoshino Pizarro [spelled phonetically] and so isn’t an H before K? Your last name --

Matthew Kahn:

It’s on last names.

Kaveh Madani:

Yeah, but anyway, let’s not get into that discussion. My point is not about -- it’s about these methodological differences. The problem is that none of us knows how to extrapolate and talk about something that the world when we were on it hasn’t experienced.

The human species have not experienced this. Now, another thing we don’t talk about is how people suffer differently. You were saying back in Bangladesh, people adapt. I manage water in Iran. There are people who lose jobs and get unemployed and migrate to cities and they don’t have anything to do. Tell me who the Middle Eastern terrorists are, the farmers who lost jobs, lots of them.

John Donvan:

You’re saying owing to climate change?

Kaveh Madani:

No, no, no. I’m not saying so. I’m saying loss of jobs and unemployment can lead to this. It could a simple drought that you’re not prepared for --

John Donvan:

All right. So Bjorn, your side did make an argument that people can move, people can change crops, can contain seeds. And that migration is an option. And I think your opponents are really questioning the whole migration is an option. I mean, it’s an exceedingly disruptive option, I think they’re saying.

Bjorn Lomborg:

And I’m not arguing that that this is about migration. I haven’t even talked about migration. I’d be happy to do that.

But I think I just want to come back to the point that I was making here, because you’re being told a story. First of all, there’s a lot of different conversation going on here. You’re being told that climate change is bad, so you need to vote no to that we should do adaptation. What?

Michele Wucker:

No, no, no, that’s not what we said.

Bjorn Lomborg:

Okay, tell me what they’re saying. I’m not sure.

Michele Wucker:

Well, I actually just wanted to go back to the Tesla.

Bjorn Lomborg:

No, no, no. Please tell me what it is that you’re saying.

Matthew Kahn:

What is the motion?

Michele Wucker:

The motion is can we adapt --

Matthew Kahn:

Without --

Bjorn Lomborg:

No, there’s no without. I’m sorry.

Michele Wucker:

Just a minute. I just want to get very important point. You mentioned Tesla. So you talk about all these costs of mitigation. Well, Tesla is an example of mitigation. And I -- leave out the last couple of weeks of what’s happened in the market with Tesla. But at Tesla, all of these other innovations are things that are actually creating jobs, creating value.

They’re going to in the future, they’re going to reduce the maintenance of cars, they’re going to reduce energy costs and things like that. And so when you’re calculating the cost benefit of mitigation or adaptation, you need to look at mitigation as investment is something that’s going to keep paying off into the future. And adaptation, you know, you put a bunch of rip rap along the shores or whatever it is that you do. You know, there certainly is resilient infrastructure that I think is really fantastic, but a lot of adaptation is basically just scrambling to stay in place. And so the Tesla reference, I think is really, really relevant to what we’re talking about here.

John Donvan:

Bjorn.

Bjorn Lomborg:

Alright. I didn’t hear what you were actually saying, but no Tesla’s if you haven’t noticed, we have to pay people about $10,000 across the world to buy these electric cars. Norway is leading the world because they’re actually giving you so much money -- they have money because they have oil -- that they are paying -- so there’s a choice between buying a gasoline power car that costs what it would cost here in the U.S. or an electric car that basically is free.

Not surprisingly, most people choose the free car, but most people free.

Matthew Kahn:

$150,000 is free --

Matthew Kahn:

-- $150,000 to buy Teslas?

Bjorn Lomborg:

No, no, it’s for electric cars. Most of the cars in Norway are not Teslas. Some of them are. And they still pay. Yes, but the average cost is --

John Donvan:

All right.

Bjorn Lomborg:

Can I just come back -- because I think I was actually trying to make a point --

John Donvan:

Make that point and then I want to go to audience questions.

Bjorn Lomborg:

So, the argument was that we live in a very uncertain world where we don’t know what’s up and down. Things could be really bad, so we better do something about mitigation. And my point was, well, that happens to be true for all different investments also in China and Russia and Ukraine and North Korea and all the other challenges that we’re facing. But there’s one thing that we know would actually work for all of these. That’s adaptation and that’s why and sorry, I’m just a stickler for words. I thought the question that we were talking about tonight was, can humans adapt to climate change?

And the simple answer is not only can we, but that is the way that we’re going to save our --safeguard ourselves when our opponents are telling you that it could get really bad. There is no point in saying that, that doesn’t mean we should make sure we adapt even more. That is the way that we make sure our kids and grandkids are safe. That’s the way that we can make sure --

John Donvan:

And I think I think they’re saying that we may be in a situation where the situation becomes beyond adaptation. Am I correct? All right. So the point would come where adaptation might not ever be enough.

Bjorn Lomborg:

And --

John Donvan:

That you’re living in the house made of straw and the wolf does blow it down.

Kaveh Madani:

So the argument is, is that if you only count on our smartness and don’t plan ahead minute, you know, investing in the power to adapt, investing in education, innovation and all of these are a mitigation measure. If you don’t do these things, you cannot adapt. So in the future -- so counting on this is -- so can the humans adapt to climate change if there is no action today?

That’s the answer no. And that’s what we are defending. Otherwise, I mean, why would I come here and say, as a climate change person who is pushing for climate change adaptation and saying that we have to take action, we say we cannot adapt so -- we all have -- our efforts are useless.

John Donvan:

Alright, we’re going to get audience questions now right over here and then I’ll come over here. So down in the front, front, front, row down the steps. Now I want to say again, I need you to really ask a question. I need it to be terse. I need it to be on point. I need it not to repeat material we’ve already covered. You’re going to be great, right? And can you tell us your first name or last name?

Ed Cooke:

My name is Ed Cooke. I’m a professor at the University of Richmond. I teach decision making under uncertainty. And you’ve talked about that. My question is, given that it’s all very uncertain, how do we go about making a decision whether or not we’re going to spend $1 trillion, 100 trillion or a million trillion on this problem?

John Donvan:

That was such a well-formed question. That’s the model. Who would like to take it first. Either side.

Michele Wucker:

I’m happy to.

John Donvan:

Go for it.

Michele Wucker:

Well, I think the biggest thing is, is, you know, what are you getting on your return for that investment? And I think you’re going to get a lot bigger return on your investment in mitigation right now, because if it’s something that’s clean tech, it’s going to clean the air, it’s going to make energy transport much less expensive, that it’s going to address some health problems from the reduction and particulate matter in the air. And that’s going to go on into the future. And that’s going to make it more possible for people who want to adapt. Adaptation often just stops with what you do. And then the next time the sea levels rise further than that doesn’t work anymore. So I would look at the total return on your investment and mitigation, is it.

Bjorn Lomborg:

And Michele is exactly right. Unfortunately, she is exactly wrong on the numbers. I mean, we know these numbers. Most of the stuff that you spend on mitigation will have very little impact far into the future.

So you’re fundamentally saying, all right, let’s spend an enormous amount of money. So, for instance, the Bank of America estimates that going net zero will cost us about $5 trillion a year. That’s a lot of money. Of course, nobody’s actually going to come up with that money. But $5 trillion a year. And yet the net benefits will only start towards the second part of the century.

However, if you invest in adaptation, you can help people now, and especially, of course, when you worry about poor people, the question is, do you worry about helping poor people now, or do you worry about helping them ineffectively in 100 years when they’re much richer? And the overwhelming estimate is that you should help them now with the things that they actually need, much of which is adaptation, but also many, many other things like not dying from tuberculosis and malaria and all these other things.

So again, there is very good evidence and I totally agree that we should look at what’s the cost and the benefits, but it gives you a very different answer.

John Donvan:

I want to remind you that we are in the question and answer section of this Intelligence Squared U.S. debate. I’m John Donvan, your moderator. We have four debaters, two teams of two debating this question, can humans adapt to climate change?

Beth Silverman:

I’m Beth Silverman [spelled phonetically]. And my question is, how do you define success in this question of adaptation? You know, I think that’s important for each person to answer because I’ve heard so many different perspectives.

John Donvan:

I’ll go, I’ll take rather than four because it’ll shoot up time, I’ll let each side go to it. But again, great question.

Matthew Kahn:

A paper that I really like written by some economists, not by me, studied on when it’s extremely hot in summer, back in the 1930s, many more people died, they didn’t have air conditioning then in each subsequent decade. And this has been shown in the United States and now in India with the penetration of air conditioning, with more and more people having air conditioning, there’s no longer a relationship between summer heat and deaths in those states experiencing this heat.

Of course, there continues to be the tragedy of deaths when it’s hot, but this sharp correlation that used to exist before the air conditioner has converged to zero. That’s my benchmark. As Mother Nature punches us, are we suffering less? And in the case of deaths from heat waves, this correlation, if I can be a boring social scientist, has fallen sharply.

John Donvan:

Other side?

Kaveh Madani:

So this is a brilliant question and a very timely question from a person who thinks twice about what success means. Economists have told us that GDP is the definition of success. So they narrow down things and reduce things down to GDP and how much your country is earning per capita.

The world is now discussing if this is whether this is a right model of setting development goals or not. Would that -- would the better GDP determine the better quality of life, for sure or not? It’s -- what are the health considerations? What are the other measures for success, especially this after the COVID 19, when the discussions of green recovery came up? This came back into the discussion. How should we define the success of nations? Can we ask the existing institutions that try to maximize product GDP? And created all these problems to solve the problem using their existing thinking and their models are not. So that is that is something to think about. A lot of people think that you cannot ask the markets which created this problem to solve the problems using the existing systems that they have been using forever.

John Donvan:

We have a question that came in on Slido from Jeremy. I’m not sure where you are out there, but I want to take your question.

Do you support increased use of nuclear power in addition to renewables? If not, why not? In the light of dangers of climate change -- I feel like -- I feel that that’s a question more to your side.

Kaveh Madani:

Just because I’m Iranian?

John Donvan:

No!

Kaveh Madani:

Don’t profile me [laughs]. I get that question at the border every time. [laughter] Well, but listen this is --

John Donvan:

Michele enjoyed this question as well.

Kaveh Madani:

I told you that I have a lot in common with Bjorn when it comes to thinking. We have a lot of effective policies; we have a lot of biases. We reject a lot of things that we don’t like or have a bad memory of, or we rush into making some big decisions. Now, when it comes to nuclear, at least our studies show that when you consider their different footprints, water footprint, carbon footprint, land footprint and cost, by the way, carbon is -- should not be the only driver of making decisions.

There are also other footprints to think about. Nuclear can be a promising source of energy. Now, this is a scary thing to say because of the history of nuclear and what we have seen so far in different parts of the world. So what we have seen so far is that nuclear energy can be abused in certain ways. You know, I think -- if you --

John Donvan:

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Kaveh Madani:

You know, and then the issue of waste and ethical responsibilities and so on, the new generation of -- so when it comes to innovation and new technology and so on, there are -- there is a new generation of nuclear energy that at the microscale that is being promising. Still, we don’t know.

John Donvan:

Okay. Let me just take that to the other side.

Bjorn Lomborg:

Okay. So fundamentally, a nuclear is not dangerous, but it is very costly. And so in most, most places, new third generation nuclear is not particularly a good idea. We see that in the UK and Finland, many other places it become incredibly expensive.

But don’t, don’t, don’t shut down existing nuclear power plants. You’ve just paid for them. You’ve already commissioned -- you already committed yourself to paying the decommissioning cost. When they’re running, they’re incredibly cheap. So it’s very, very stupid to shut down like the U.S. and Germany has been doing. Please don’t do that.

John Donvan:

Another question from the audience, please? Sir. Blue shirt. If you could stand up so that they can find you and somebody is coming down from your right hand side with a mic. And again, if you could tell us your name, first name will surface, but we appreciate both of you want to.

Michael Keegan:

Hi, this is Michael Keegan. My question is for Bjorn. What mitigation or adaptions are you expecting that going that are going to help people in fires in Colorado or California, Oregon, wherever survive? And what mitigations are you expecting for people in India, Pakistan, etc., who are living in over 110 degree heat many days this week?

John Donvan:

Wow, this is a great group on questions. That was really well done. Thank you.

Bjorn Lomborg:

So, can you just repeat -- sorry, I had a hard time hearing wat.

John Donvan:

What mitigations and adaptations are you expecting to help California, Colorado, places with wildfires? And then the same question was applied to Southeast Asia, to communities with more challenges.

Bjorn Lomborg:

Yes. So for California, and Michele actually pointed to that, there’s something fundamentally wrong about the fact that we don’t have good -- what it’s called -- zoning, that we’ve allowed so many people to move into places to burn. That’s a really bad idea. Obviously, people shouldn’t have been living in paradise. Sorry, that sounds wrong. But in this city that was called paradise. And we should definitely make sure. So you’ve seen a dramatic upshoot of people moving into the urban fire interface, and that’s a really bad idea.

You should also have much better building codes. You should have better spacing of both buildings and the kind of growths that you grow there. We know that many of these things could have a huge impact, but mostly we should just simply not allow people to build there, just like we shouldn’t allow people to build where hurricanes hit, or at least we shouldn’t be subsidizing their insurance. If we do that, basically we will get rid of much of the problem. Now, if you want to help people in India and Pakistan, our intuition is to say, oh, we got to help them with climate change. But of course, if you actually ask them, they would like our help with tuberculosis, with bad food, sorry, no food or bad food and bad education and all these other things. But if you want to help them with but with climate impacts, like for instance, as you say, there’s huge amounts of heat wave possibilities.

Just remember that many more people, according to an academic study of India, many more people die from cold in India. Even in India, across the world, about nine times more people die from cold than heat. And one of the very important ways is to make sure that these people actually have access to heating. But for heat, which I’m assuming is your main issue, we should certainly make sure that they become richer so that, as Matt just pointed out, that they will eventually be able to also afford air conditioning.

John Donvan:

Michele, would you like to weigh in on that question or respond to what you heard? You’re good with it. Okay, sir, you’re alone in that section and the mic’s coming down from behind you in the aisle. If you could stand up, they’ll see you.

Sam McCormack:

Hey, guys. Sam McCormack, I have a question for the adapt team. So Dr. Madani alluded a little earlier to the conflict in Syria, which a lot of people think is one of the first caused by climate change, drought in this case. How worried are you guys, given the potentially unstable actors like Russia and North Korea who possess nuclear weapons, that more frequent conflicts could lead to potentially catastrophic consequences for us as a species?

John Donvan:

I’m not sure that that’s on -- do you feel, Bjorn, that that’s on topic right now? I think it’s not. So I’m going to go to one more question. Anybody else have anything? Okay, I have one that I’d like to get to from Lauren [spelled phonetically], who might be in the higher levels.

Kaveh Madani:

May I say just a few words to make sure that the narrative is right? I disagree with the studies that have been highlighted by the news, by the media, which say climate change is the cause of the Syrian conflict or the cause of a lot of conflicts, you would say, seeing in that part of the world. But climate change can act as a catalyst. The House is already on fire and we’re at --climate change is adding fuel to it.

Female Speaker:

So I’ve heard you refer several times to making poor people richer.

So can you explain to us how you’re supposed to do that when we’re not doing it now?

John Donvan:

Thank you, ma’am.

Bjorn Lomborg:

Yes. For instance, free trade, the opportunity of actually getting a good education, that’s dependent on both your parents not dying from communicable diseases, from you getting good food when you’re a little child, that brings up your brain development, having a good school or at least having a school that uses better teaching materials like structure, teacher plans or learning at the right level. We know that there’s a lot of things wrong with all of these institutions, but we also know that we have very low cost can achieve much of that. And then, of course, the access to enormous amounts of energy, which is what, for instance, lift people out of poverty in Bangladesh and many other places, because you can now have industry, you can have water pumps and agriculture that can actually make you not just above poverty level, but actually make you richer and start moving towards a lower middle income.

So fundamentally, it’s all these other things that will make the difference. And remember, if we think back 40 years ago, 40 percent of the world’s population were extremely poor. That is, they lived on what we typically call a dollar a day, right. Now, less than 10 percent are.

John Donvan:

Did you want to do a follow up here? I see you’re raising your hand again. That mic need to come back to you.

Female Speaker:

So that kind of goes back to what they were referring to earlier. You said we are intelligent and we know these things, but we’re not doing anything about it. And I mean, I can point to some things like right here in Richmond that we know that there’s a problem with the school system, we receive a lot of money, but we still have poor school systems. So we’re intelligent, but we’re not doing anything about it. So that’s not going to make poor people richer.

That means either we’re -- we don’t care, we don’t want to change things, but we haven’t been able to do it yet. So that’s the point that I’m trying to make. Thanks.

Bjorn Lomborg:

And I -- if I can just answer very quick, I sense that there’s something about Richmond that I don’t know. But clearly there’s another conversation going on here at the same time. But given what we’re talking about up here, which is really what should we be doing? I think it’s incredibly important to recognize that we really have two basic opportunities. We can focus on the things that we know work, that will work right now and that are fairly cheap and effective -- namely, adaptation. We could also try and say, “Hey, let’s cut carbon emissions.” You know, you saying to Mark, “I’m not going to take my car to work tomorrow. I’m actually going to bike.” This will help nobody in Bangladesh for the next 50 years. Now, it will help them a tiny bit in 100 years.

But again, if we actually want to help them, there are much, much better ways that we can help them right now. And that goes to the heart of this conversation. Do we want to be the guys who just did what felt good for us but had very little impact and actually was fairly costly? Or do we want to be the guys who did the smart stuff that worked right now and that was cheap? And --

John Donvan:

And we are we are hitting time. I just want to let Michele have one more word. Go for it.

Michele Wucker:

Yeah. Thanks for the question. And it really speaks to a lot of the inequality inherent in this whole debate. A lot of the poorer countries in the world have contributed far, far less by being --by exponential amounts to climate change than the rich countries that got rich by making it dirty. I think we’ve talked about access to energy for developing countries being a great way to, you know, to add wealth. Well, why don’t the richer countries take some of the innovation that they’re frankly the ones who are profiting from and help some of those countries to leapfrog this, you know, really messy economic growth that we did and help to make sure that the energy access that they have is much cleaner than what we’ve done.

That’s only barely scratching the surface of it. And the other part is that the developing countries don’t have the adaptation resources that we do here. So it’s just sort of like a double burden on them. So thank you so much for your question, because I think it’s really important to look at the equity aspects of this debate, and you haven’t had time to --

John Donvan:

And that concludes round two of this Intelligence Squared U.S. debate where our resolution is: can humans adapt to climate change? And that’s the question we’re asking. And here’s where we are. We are about to hear brief closing statements from each debater. Those statements will be 2 minutes each. So we’re in the homestretch. This is their last chance to try to change your minds. And right after the fourth speaker, we will ask you to vote again. And so, that’s going to be in just a few minutes from now. So we move on to round three. Again, the debaters will come and stand here to make their two minute closing statements. And first up, to argue the yes position, once again, Matthew Kahn.

Matthew Kahn:

Folks. Thank you. I have had a great time and I’ve learned -- my father always asked me, what have you learned? Folks in chapter one of my book, Climatetopolis, that you didn’t read --.

Chapter two. It was titled, “Too Much Gas.” I pivoted -- tough room. I pivoted to working on adaptation because of my concern that greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise throughout the world because of energy demand in the developing world. In India today, a nation that needs to consume a lot more energy, 75 percent of the power comes from coal power. I do not see -- I hope that there’s technology transfer to developing countries. But with the huge number of people in the developing world, with income growth there, and given current technologies, greenhouse gas emissions will rise. And thus we have to pivot our attention to adaptation.

And I think that we’ve made a strong case tonight to our strong ability to make progress. We have empirical benchmarks of our progress in adapting to the challenge. I don’t predict out to the year 2100. My coauthors wanted to, but I refuse to. I am very optimistic that we will make great progress relative to what we’ve achieved in the past.

Two final ideas. How will California adapt to climate change? We will pinpoint where is the areas without fire risk and flood risk. We will up zone there. We will use insurance pricing to nudge people to higher ground where they will be safer. How will India adapt to climate change? Folks, urbanization and moving to cities such as Richmond, such as New Delhi is a way to adapt because urbanization and education go hand in hand. Farmers face a challenge in adapting relative to urbanites.

And so in thinking of your children’s future, I am optimistic about my son’s future because of human ingenuity. And so I ask you to support the proposal tonight. Thank you.

John Donvan:

Thank you, Matthew Kahn.

And here to argue for the last time on the no side, Michele Wucker.

Michele Wucker:

So do we notice climate change right now? I live in Chicago. I have a view of Lake Michigan from my office window. The lake actually laps up against my building. And at one point in the last several years, the lake was up 40 feet over the previous record. And I noticed this because when I moved there eight years ago, I had an idiot puppy who would run around barking her fool head off on the dog beach, which is now under 20 something odd feet of water. This is what you might call a first world problem. And it really is.

And that’s actually my point, is that, as we were talking about, developing countries are most at risk from climate change. They are the ones who will benefit most from mitigation measures. And the mitigation measures in those countries, as they grow and need more energy, will yield a huge, huge benefit. The questions we’re asking tonight are related to that. Are we okay with living in such a way that the rich countries can do what they need to adapt, but everyone else in the world can’t? That doesn’t seem like a great answer to me.

And it’s also about what we’re willing to risk. The choices that we make about risks -- about the big, scary, dangerous things coming at us -- tell the entire world who we are. Are we the people who saw climate change coming at us who had cost -- who had in front of us solutions that made sense in terms of cost benefit, that reap benefits over the years, and help us into the future?

Do we see that coming and ignore those solutions? If you think that the ethical and practical answer to those questions is no, then I urge you to invite -- to vote no on the resolution tonight. Thank you.

John Donvan:

Thank you, Michele Wucker. And one more word from the yes side, Bjorn Lomborg, ladies and gentlemen. Bjorn Lomborg.

Bjorn Lomborg:

Thank you. It’s been a weird conversation because fundamentally I thought we were asking: can humans adapt to climate change? And that’s what I prepared. And the simple answer is yes. So if you want to answer the question that we’ve been asked, the answer is yes. But apparently --because it’s kind of obvious that we will have to adapt and we can adapt and humans can adapt in a lot of different ways, as we’ve talked about here tonight, and as I tried to outline.

So we will adapt. We can adapt and we should adapt and we should make sure we do that.

There’s a presumption, however, that we should be spending much more money on cutting carbon emissions because it’s the good thing to do. Well, no, it’s actually the very ineffective way to do it. It’s not what we were really debating. But I feel like our opponents here are trying to sort of switch the conversation to say, “Do you want to be good people or do you want to vote yes?” Right? Do -- they’re basically trying to shame you into saying, “No. You should vote no because we shouldn’t adapt. We should spend lots and lots of money on cutting carbon emissions.”.

Let’s just think about that for a second. How successful have we been so far? Well, in a surprisingly underreported report from the U.N. just before COVID hit, the U.N. Environment Program estimated that the net impact of all climate policy since 2005 has been zero.

They said they could not tell the difference between the world that we actually live in and the world that would not have cared about climate change since 2005.

So my honored opponents are basically suggesting to you that you should skip what the question said and just vote no because it doesn’t feel like we’re doing the right thing. I would suggest to you, humbly, that you should answer the question and that we should do the smart stuff, and that we should actually do the stuff that will not only help rich people, but that is also what poor people both can afford and will help them a lot more as they are poor. Thank you.

John Donvan:

Thank you. Bjorn Lomborg.

And our final statement will be arguing the no answer to the question. Here is Kaveh Madani.

Kaveh Madani:

So this has been a very joyful discussion.

And as we say, we have a lot in common. We both think that mitigation and adaptation is necessary, and that is why we need to vote no. [laughs] You -- I encourage you to vote no. Otherwise, I mean, it would have been a waste of time of all of you -- to invite you and ask, “Do you think humans can survive in the future?” Or all these climate activists around the world who are saying, let’s add up, you know, invest in adaptation measures and mitigation measures. If they think that adaptation is not possible, they’re wasting their time.

So I think the two of us are here to say that mitigation is needed in addition to adaptation. And you cannot count on our smartness because we might get everything wrong. Now, if we are thinking that we don’t know a lot, we become less arrogant, and we try to understand what is going on -- and as Bjorn is saying correctly, we have to come up with better ways of implementing policies and designing them.

Current policies are -- a lot of them are defective. They might even have the unintended consequences that make things worse. But that doesn’t mean that we should give up on mitigation, because in the future we get smart and we will find the solution.

And let me say this loudly, that climate change is only one of the byproducts of unsustainable development, only one of them. There are lots of other things that we need to address.

And if we -- and investing in poverty alleviation -- and as a person coming from the developing world and I understand this is very much needed, you know, investing in fixing this issue, improving health, and so many other things. All of these are indeed mitigation measures to increase the capacity of those societies to adapt. So if you want to stick to ethics and think about the justice and think about the all of the world, not we as people in this room, but as all the humans in this planet -- on this planet, please vote no.

John Donvan:

All right, that concludes round three. And that also concludes the argumentation section of this debate, of this event, of this program. And in a moment, I’m going to ask you to vote for the second time. But first, I want to say to the four debaters how much I appreciated the way you did this tonight with respect and civility and intelligence and charm and information and enlightenment. Thank you very, very much. It’s what we stand for.

It’s fantastic. And now it’s time to learn which side has changed the most minds. We’re going to ask you to vote for the second time by going to iq2us.org to cast your second vote. And there you will find the instructions and the prompts to vote yes, no, or undecided.

But I promise to kind of get to a question that was asked earlier if we could do this really, really briefly. I’m just wanted to take on that question of whether you heard anything from your opponents tonight that you found persuasive that might get you to rethink your position?

Anybody? And if -- and no is an okay answer because here you were to debate. But I’m just wondering.

Kaveh Madani:

I think I there are lots of things that Bjorn says that are correct. I know I’m missing in the climate change discussions, because the climate change discussions are run by the white and the rich. And I think the voice of the developing world, science is missing. And that is a big problem. When it comes to narratives, the media is running the narratives, so they climatize a lot of events that are not necessarily, you know, driven by climate change. So I think, you know, that’s the -- I have a lot of respect for what his arguments are. While I disagree with the conclusion in some aspects.

John Donvan:

And anybody on this side?

Bjorn Lomborg:

I think we had we had a great conversation.

I think, honestly, I may have misunderstood the question that was being asked because I thought we were -- because had we debated this other thing. So what’s the weight should be? 60/40, 40/60? That kind of thing. That would have been a wonderful, very different debate from my point of view. And I think you have some great arguments.

John Donvan:

All right.

Bjorn Lomborg:

I also think, though, that we should just recognize that right now the world spends like 90 percent on mitigation and about 10 percent on adaptation. So if anything, it would suggest that we should have spent a lot more over on this table.

John Donvan:

Okay.

Bjorn Lomborg:

So if you could leave your money when you leave.

John Donvan:

All right, so it’s all in. I’ve been sent the results on my iPad. And again, what we do is we’ve had you vote before you’ve heard the arguments; we’ve had you vote right after you’ve heard the arguments, and we just -- we’re curious to see which side pulled over the -- more people to their side -- changed more minds.

So on the first vote, 61 percent of you said yes to the question: Can humans adapt to climate change? 23 percent said no.

Sixteen percent were undecided. On the second vote, the team that said -- that was arguing yes, their first vote was 61 percent. Their second vote was 50 percent, which I think tells you where this is going to go. The team on the other side arguing no, their first vote was 23 percent. Their second vote was 42 percent. So they pulled over 19 percentage points.

So I want to say this, however. Both sides always pull over people to their side and the -- really our whole point in doing this is not saying who’s right and who’s not. We just want to hear the conversation and the argument and we want to see how you all reacted to it. And we’ve heard you react to it and we appreciate that. But more than that, we appreciate that the debaters got here and presented the best arguments that they could. It’s clear this argument is not done.

We’re going to be hearing from it -- about it a lot more into the future and, maybe, we hope to do some of that on this stage.

To all four of you, thank you.

To the Richmond Forum and to this audience, thank you. I’m John Donvan for Intelligence Squared U.S. (rebranded as Open to Debate). We’ll see you next time.

In this episode, a neuroscientist, a physicist, a neurologist, and a famous physician with expertise in near-death experiences debate whether life after death is wishful thinking or whether scientific evidence supports the idea that consciousness lives outside the human body.

Many religions support the idea that physical death is only one step in the journey. Approximately 70% of American adults believe that life continues after death, according to polls from the Pew Research Center, and the number is even higher in other countries.

Listen to the spirited debate about a topic that is personal to many and inspires curiosity in others. As always, tell us what you think.

Arguing YES:

Eben Alexander, Former Neurosurgeon; Author of “Proof of Heaven”

“My prior neuroscientific view would've dictated that the next step would be one of no awareness at all. Yet it was just the opposite, like the blinders coming off. I ascended into far more crisp, vibrant, ultra-real realms of pure joy, love, and understanding, far too rich and complex to fully describe. Soon thereafter, I started to return to this world. Words came back to me over hours and days, childhood memories over weeks, and knowledge of brain, mind, consciousness of more than twenty years of experience in neurosurgery came back over two months. My doctors have no explanation at all for my full recovery.”

Raymond Moody, Medical Doctor; Author of “Life After Life”

“What happened to me was that hearing thousands of people with near-death experiences, hundreds of people with shared-death experiences who had the identical experience we call a near-death experience, except they weren’t ill or injured. They were simply there at the bedside of someone else who died. And I have seen joint transcendent experiences where, for example, a physician and a critically ill patient would have some sort of joint transcendent experience at the same time. That leads me to be forced almost into a position to say that I trust these people’s judgment.”

Arguing NO:

Sean Carroll, Physicist & Writer

“This is an incredibly important central issue to our lives. I personally am convinced by the overwhelming scientific evidence from physics, from neuroscience, et cetera, that there is one world, the natural world. Biology is a process that can end, and death is and then final. And to me, that fact, the finitude of our lives, gives enormous poignancy and importance to the finite number of years that we have here on Earth.”

Steven Novella, Academic Neurologist at the Yale School of Medicine

“Given the mountain of evidence that the mind is the brain, do near-death experiences provide such compelling evidence that there is mental activity outside of brain activity that we need to reject the mountain of neuroscientific evidence that's growing every day that tells us that the mind, in fact, is the brain? Well, I think the answer there is definitely no... People have had very unusual experiences. We don't doubt that they have had, you know, life-altering unusual experiences. Whenever your brain is constructing reality in a different way that you're not used to, that's gonna be a very weird, profound experience. We've no doubt about that, but it's demonstrably something happening in the brain.”

Watch Our Livestream of “Is Capitalism Broken?” on August 20th

As politicians aligned with the Democratic Socialist movement win key primary victories across the country, a billionaire who has managed or founded over thirty companies and also advocates addressing inequality faces a prominent Obama administration economist with a competing vision of the system to answer this question: Is Capitalism Broken?

This debate will be livestreamed on Thursday, August 20th at 2:30 PM ET, and our moderator will invite the audience to submit questions during it. Once the debate concludes, you’ll have 24 hours to vote on who you think made the stronger case.

Arguing YES: Nick Hanauer, Entrepreneur, Billionaire, and Venture Capitalist

Arguing NO: Jason Furman, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government

Moderated by Emmy Award-winning journalist John Donvan

Add to Calendar

As Seen on Socials: Is the Strait of Hormuz Iran's Most Powerful Weapon?

As of this writing, the Iran war is still ongoing, and one key aspect of the war that’s had a global impact is the control and occupation of the Strait of Hormuz. Shipping traffic in the Strait has dropped to just six vessels allowed to pass through, and the price of a barrel of Brent crude, the international standard for oil, was up 0.9% early Wednesday, leading to a gallon of regular gasoline costing an average of $4.01, according to AAA.

A few months ago at Cascade PBS Ideas Festival, Puck correspondent Julia Ioffe and American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Danielle Pletka debated whether the world was on the brink and whether Iran is holding a stronger position than the U.S. with its ability to close the Strait.

Watch what Julia and Danielle debated on Instagram.

Religion and Its Questions Debated in the Public Square

Questions of faith have shaped societies for centuries—and they remain some of the most provocative issues we debate today. Explore more of our conversations on whether religion is a force for good, the role faith should play in public life, and how religious belief influences morality, politics, and our search for meaning.

• Science Refutes God

• Is Religion A Force for Good?

• Do We Have Free Will?

• Is It Time for the Catholic Church to Ordain Women as Deacons?

• The More We Evolve, The Less We Need God

In the News

Has America Already Undergone a Soft Breakup?

Kurt Andersen | August 9, 2026

Watch Kurt debate the golden age of news media in our Generational Divides series

Never Trump, Still a Republican
Adam Harris interviewing Jeff Flake | August 10, 2026

Watch Jeff debate the future of the Supreme Court

Here’s What Middle Powers Can Actually Do

Suzanne Nossel | August 11, 2026

Watch Suzanne debate whether safe spaces are dangerous

Campaign Speech Lies at the Heart of the First Amendment

Bradley A. Smith | August 9, 2026

Watch Bradley debate whether the Electoral College has outlived its usefulness

How Academia Created Jason Arday

John McWhorter | August 10, 2026

Watch John debate identity politics

It’s time to stop teaching the fun out of childhood and let kids be kids. Give them a ball and get out of their way

Lenore Skenazy | August 10, 2026

Watch Lenore debate parenting styles in our Generational Divides series

Krugman and the Politics of Falling Crime

John R. Lott | August 11, 2026

Watch John debate whether guns reduce crime

How to end Trump’s mystifying game with Putin

Garry Kasparov | August 11, 2026

Watch Garry debate whether NATO should admit Ukraine

The Last Trump Election

Ian Bremmer | August 10, 2026

Watch Ian debate whether automation will crash democracy

For the Motion: Eben Alexander, Raymond Moody

Against the Motion: Sean Carroll, Steven Novella

Moderator: John Donvan

Opening Remarks

John Donvan:

I’m interested to hear what he has to say about this one, so let’s please welcome to the stage Mr. Robert Rosenkranz.

Hi, Bob. How are you?

Robert Rosenkranz:

Good.

John Donvan:

So I was just saying, you know, normally we’re doing foreign policy and defense spending debates. And tonight we’re going a little bit in a different direction with this discussion of the afterlife. So what’s the thought behind putting this on the stage now?

Robert Rosenkranz:

Well, one of the things that kind of got me to think that this would be a very interesting debate is a sermon I heard in a Catholic church many, many years ago, in which the

priest was challenging people to believe in an afterlife. And the argument he made was quasi scientific. He said, imagine a fetus in his mother’s womb that’s almost ready to be born, nine-month, full-term baby.

And you’re trying to convey to this baby what’s about to happen, that it’s going to have an incredibly painful experience going through the birth canal, that its ties to its mother through which it’s getting all kinds of nutrients and all the oxygen is going to be severed. But not to worry, there’s going to be a great life afterwards. There’s going to be all kinds of experiences and sensory things and development and emotional growth and just an incredible world that you cannot imagine. And when you think about that, of course, you say, of course you could -- there’s no way you could communicate that. And there’s no way that the baby could understand it. And yet we all know it’s true. So it kind of invites you to think, is it possible that there’s something that we can’t -- we can not imagine, that we don’t understand, but nonetheless is true about life after death?

John Donvan:

I mean, I want to ask you one point about the approach we’re taking to this. But before we get to that, do you have a lot of these epiphanies in churches?

Robert Rosenkranz:

Well, I’m Jewish, actually. But --[laughter]

Robert Rosenkranz:

You know, the Jews do have the highest resurrection rate in the world. [laughter and applause]

John Donvan:

My question is, we’re not looking at this is a religious debate, speaking of which, we’re really taking a different cut at it.

Robert Rosenkranz:

No, of course. And that’s what I think sort of makes it much more of a factually grounded and intellectually grounded argument, and it’s the reason we’re doing this, is to take it away from the questions purely of faith and try to do as scientific an approach as we can to this topic which obviously interests a lot of people.

John Donvan:

Well, the great thing is we have four scientists debating tonight, so let’s welcome them to the stage, and thank you to Bob Rosenkranz.

Robert Rosenkranz:

Thank you, John. [applause]

John Donvan:

Okay. Now I can see. And I just want to actually invite one more round of applause to Bob Rosenkranz for making this all possible.

Opening Debate

John Donvan:

So the difference between going to heaven some day and getting hit in the head with a

hammer right now is that going to heaven some day sounds so much better than getting hit in the head with a hammer right now.

But at least with the hammer, you know that the hammer is real. Science can see the hammer. Science can weigh it and take its measurements and even cut it up into little pieces and put it into test tubes. But heaven, the afterlife, science cannot see that, not with a telescope, not with a microscope. So does that mean that heaven is not as real as the hammer? Or does it just mean that science and scientists don’t know yet how to find heaven, how to look for it? Well, that sounds like the makings of a debate. So let’s have it. Yes or no to this statement: Death is not final, a debate from Intelligence Squared U.S. I’m John Donvan. We have four superbly qualified debaters, scientists all, but they divide on this issue: Death is not final. They will argue two against two for and against. We are at the Kaufman Music Center in New York City.

As always, our debate will go in three rounds, and then the live audience votes to choose the winner, and only one side wins. Let’s meet our debaters and the team arguing for the motion, death is not final, please, ladies and gentlemen, welcome Eben Alexander.

John Donvan:

And Eben, in a way, you are our founding story in this debate tonight. You are an academic neurosurgeon, 15 years on the faculty of Harvard Medical School. But in 2008, you got very, very sick. You went in a coma for seven days. Your brain effectively stopped showing signs of life in the higher functions. And you came back, and you said,

“I was there. I saw it. I’ve seen the afterlife.” In one word, what did you see? What was it?

Eben Alexander:

Astonishing.

John Donvan:

Astonishing. And if you had heard somebody, back before you had this experience, make that same sort of claim, what would you have said?

Eben Alexander:

“no way,” at least not until I knew all the facts.

John Donvan:

We’ll hear more of the facts from you tonight. Ladies and gentlemen, Eben Alexander. [applause]

John Donvan:

And Eben, your partner is?

Eben Alexander:

My very good friend, Dr. Raymond Moody.

John Donvan:

Ladies and gentlemen, Raymond Moody. [applause]

And Raymond, you are also arguing for this motion that death is not final. You’re a psychiatrist, and you have a medical degree, a doctorate in philosophy. You are described as “the founder of the near death experience.” You coined that phrase in your book in 1975, “Life After Life,” in which you looked at more than a hundred cases of people who had experienced clinical death and come back. You’ve been looking at this now for decades. But it’s interesting to us to note that your curiosity in this whole thing was piqued not by religious conviction. What was it?

Raymond Moody:

No, I’m -- I was not --

John Donvan:

Can you just move a little closer to your mic.

Raymond Moody:

Yes. I was not religious. I got interested in the afterlife question at age 18 when Plato convinced me, through his argument, that the afterlife question is the most important question of existence.

John Donvan:

We’re going to be hearing about Plato tonight?

Raymond Moody:

Yes.

John Donvan:

We’re looking forward to it. Ladies and gentlemen, Raymond Moody. And that’s the team arguing for the motion. And now the team to argue against this motion, “Death is not final,” please, ladies and gentlemen, welcome Sean Carroll.

Sean, you are a physicist at the California Institute of Technology. Your research focuses

on fundamental physics and cosmology, the study –of the origin and the evolution of the universe. You’ve written a lot of books, including “The Particle at the End of the Universe,” which is about the quest to discover the Higgs Boson, which is a celebrity among particles. And you have described yourself as a naturalist.

So for the purposes of understanding where you’re coming from, what does that term briefly mean?

Sean Carroll:

A naturalist is one who believes there is one world, the natural world. And it is our job to deal with it.

John Donvan:

And are you dealing?

Sean Carroll:

Okay. So far so good.

John Donvan:

Sean Carroll. [applause]

John Donvan:

And, Sean, tell us who your partner is?

Sean Carroll:

The talented and charming Steven Novella.

John Donvan:

Ladies and gentlemen, Steven Novella. [applause]

Steven, you are also arguing against the motion that death is not final. You are a neurologist at Yale School of Medicine. You’re the founder of the website, “Science-Based Medicine,” cofounder of the New England Skeptical Society. We sense, you know, there’s a theme running through this.

You know, you -- The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe is your podcast. So you’re doing all of this neurology. Why did you decide to put yourself out there as a skeptic?

Steve Novella:

Well, I had briefly considered a career in interpretive dance. [laughter]

but sadly, I had to conclude that my talents lay elsewhere. So I thought science skepticism was a good match.

John Donvan:

The dance of skepticism.

Steve Novella:

The dance of skepticism. I’ll work on that.

John Donvan:

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our debaters tonight.

John Donvan:

And this is a debate. Our motion is “death is not final.” And in this debate, we go in three rounds, and only one side will win. And that side will be chosen by you, our live audience. By the time this debate has ended, we will have asked you to vote twice; once before the debate and once again afterwards to tell us where you stand on this motion. And the team whose numbers have changed the most in percentage point terms will be declared our winner. So let’s go to the first vote. If you go to these key pads at your seat, look again at the motion on the screens: Death is not final. If you are for this motion, push number one.

If you are against it, push number two. And if you’re undecided, push number three, which is, by the way, a perfectly honorable position with which to start this debate. You can ignore the other keys. And if you push the wrong one, just correct yourself, and the system will lock in your last vote, and we’re going to wrap this up in about 12 seconds. Okay, looks like everybody’s done. So let’s move on. Let’s start this debate. Let’s get on to round one. Round one, our motion is, “Death is not final.” In round one, we have opening statements from each debater in turn. They will be seven minutes each. And here to speak first for the motion, Eben Alexander. He is an academic neurosurgeon who taught at Harvard Medical School. He is author also of the bestselling book, “Proof of Heaven.” Ladies and gentlemen, Eben Alexander.

[cheering and applause]

Eben Alexander:

Thank you very much, John.

I’ve been an academic neurosurgeon for over 20 years, and I fully believed in reductive materialism, our modern conventional science. In fact, six years ago I would’ve been sitting over on that side of the stage with Steven and Sean. Now, at that time I believed that the brain creates mind and consciousness, that we have no free will, that it’s birth to death and nothing more. Then something happened. I now know that those ideas are false. In November 2008 I was driven rapidly into coma due to a severe bacterial meningoencephalitis which I much later came to realize is the perfect model for human death, destruction of the neocortex, the outer surface, the human part of the brain.

Sadly almost no one returns, much less recovers, from a case of meningitis as severe as mine. The last evidence of any activity in my neocortex was in the first hour, so in the emergency room and afterwards I demonstrated only very pathological reflexes including severe brainstem damage.

Given my gram negative bacterial meningoencephalitis, which I was found to have, and my descent into coma over three and a half hours, I had at best a 10 percent chance of survival at the very beginning. It only got worse. Mine was an absolutely lethal meningitis. My white cell count in my cerebral spinal fluid was 4,300 and a protein of 1,340. Both those numbers should be zero. In fact, the glucose in that fluid, normally 60 to 80, and maybe as low as 20 in a severe case of bacterial meningitis, went all the way down to one. None of the consultants in my case, from Harvard, UVA, Duke, or Wake Forest had ever seen that severe a case. My doctors never found a cause. The scan showed diffuse destruction of my neocortex with blurring of the gray-white junction over all eight lobes of my brain. No area was spared. Later in the week, off all sedation, my neurological activity was almost nil.

With what’s called a glass glaucoma scale, which in everybody in this room would be 15 and a corpse is three, my scale was ranging from three to five. This was a very severe meningitis. On day seven, with no residual neocortical function, brain stem badly damaged, reflecting the deadly nature of my illness, my doctors recommended, because I was down to a 2 percent chance of survival by that point, with a best case scenario that if I survived I’d spend a month or two in the hospital, be transferred to a nursing home, and die in a coma months later, hence, they recommended just stopping the antibiotics. My journey deep in the coma began in a very primitive unresponsive realm, which I later called the “earthworm’s eye-view,” the best consciousness my brain could muster, soaking in pus. My prior neuroscientific view would’ve dictated that the next step would be one of no awareness at all. Yet, it was just the opposite, like the blinders coming off. I ascended into far more crisp, vibrant, ultra real realms of pure joy, love, and understanding, realms I called the “gateway in the core,” far too rich and complex to fully describe.

Soon thereafter I started to return to this world, but with my brain so wrecked that I had no memory of words or language, nothing of Eben Alexander’s life before coma, any religious concepts, et cetera, yet I knew the entire ultra-real odyssey that I had just been deep in coma, went [spelled phonetically] so extensive it seemed to last for months, even though it had to fit within seven days of earth time. Words came back to me over hours and days, childhood memories over weeks, and knowledge of brain-mind consciousness of more than 20 years’ experience in neurosurgery came back over two months. My doctors have no explanation at all for my full recovery. Other cases of medically inexplicable healing do occur in transcendental near-death experiences, like those of Anita Moorjani and Dr. George Rodonaia. In the 36 hours after emerging from

coma, I was in and out of a delusional, paranoid, psychotic nightmare that was completely different, not even in the same ballpark, when compared to the ultra-reality of the deep-coma experience in the gateway in the core.

Those experiences deep in coma seem almost seem to weigh too real to be real. My doctor’s believing that the brain creates consciousness, and knowing the destruction they had seen in my brain, had told me that I could not have had any such experience in the depth of coma, and therefore just to forget about it. I knew I’d experienced something and sensed that it had to do with the fundamental flaw in the models of consciousness and the -- and the role of the neocortex. Early on, I tried to explain all of this as a brain-based phenomenon based on my old paradigm, writing it up as a report for the neuroscience literature. It’s important that when I was emerging from that coma, I saw six faces at the very end. And these were faces that were very important in helping me to realize that the entire coma experience happened between Days 1 and 5 of my coma, and not at the very end.

Over those weeks of recording my experience after coma, I also began to talk with my doctors and review my medical records, especially neurological examinations and the scans, and came to realize just how deathly ill I was and how there was no way that such an ultra-real crisp and vibrant experience could have happened in my physical brain.

Modern neuroscientific ideas of the neocortex and consciousness would dictate that I should have experienced nothing at all beyond that earthworm’s eye view. I wrote the entire experience down, 20,000 words that I wrote over six weeks, before I read anything about near death experiences. I have never read that literature before.

Initially, I was very worried that the memories would fade. Those memories are as sharp today as when they happened. Memories of the delusional paranoid psychotic nightmare that occurred over those 36 hours after I came out of coma faded within weeks.

Very different origin. I had never read NDE literature before, and was shocked to find that the experience seemed hyperreal in over half of NDE accounts, and the memories do not fade like those of hallucinations, dreams, confabulations, or drug effects. People recount their own NDE stories to me by the hundreds, usually starting -- I’d never told anyone this before, but even from over 50 years ago, as if they happened yesterday, I came to see that the similarities in the NDE and afterlife literature far outweighed the differences. And the commonalities across cultures, beliefs, continents, and millennia indicate an underlying constant reality of that realm. Many of the petty differences are due to our being so restricted by our earthly language. This is not like we’re describing a

trip to Disneyland. Personal biases and religious beliefs might taint the telling of those stories. But the core similarities remain striking.

John Donvan:

-- I’m sorry. And thank you very much. Your time is up. [applause]

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Eben Alexander. Our motion is Death Is Not Final. And here to speak against this motion, Sean Caroll. He is a physicist at the California Institute of Technology. He is the author of several books, including “The Particle At The End Of The Universe.” Ladies and gentlemen, Sean Caroll.

Sean Carroll:

Thanks, John. It’s a pleasure to be here defending such a cheerful and uplifting

proposition, as death is, in fact, final. Driving around the streets of Los Angeles, where I live, you can’t help but notice these gigantic billboards telling us “All Men Must Die.” Turns out they were advertisements for “Game of Thrones,” but I thought that they were advertisements for --

[laughter]

-- our event here tonight. It’s a similarly -- you know, not quit as happy message as we might like to accept. Fortunately, we can open Dr. Alexander’s book. It begins with a quote from Albert Einstein. Einstein says, “A man should look for what is, not for what he thinks should be,” to which I would like to reply, “Exactly.”

[laughter] [applause]

We human beings are not always perfectly rational. Let me tell this shocking news to

you. We are bundles of cognitive biases. And one of the strongest biases we have is that we go easy on propositions that we would like to be true. What we should, in fact, do, is go especially skeptical on propositions that we would like to be true. And even I want it to be true, that death is not final. But we should hold something like that to an extraordinarily high standard of evidence. So, what are we actually being asked to accept? What should we expect the world to be like if death were not, actually final? For one thing, I would expect that the existence of souls persisting in the afterlife should be perfectly obvious. It should be just as clear that heaven exists as it is clear that Canada exists. But in fact, it seems that the souls persisting in the afterlife are kind of shy.

They don’t talk to us, except sometimes they do talk to us. I would expect, also, that when people did have near death experiences, and really talked to other souls in the afterlife, that they would come back with consistent, interesting, non-trivial stories to tell. But in fact, when Christians have near-death experiences, they often say they’ve met Jesus. When Hindus have near-death experiences, they meet Hindu deities. There was a little girl who had a near-death experience, and she met a portly man wearing a red cap. She met Santa Claus. And we are told by some defenders of this that, well, Jesus dressed up as Santa Claus so as not to scare the little girl. Possibly, that is true.

But we should be asking, are there other plausible explanations? I especially think that if we went and had a life after death and then came back to visit us, bringing some message back, that message would -- should be as useful as possible. We are told that, you know, people have after death experiences, and they come back saying, you know what?

Love is really important. I agree with that. But actually, I knew it already. What I would like to know is the cure for Alzheimer’s disease. What I would like to know is something that I didn’t already know brought back to us. But it seems that the souls in the afterlife tend to speak in platitudes. The story that we’re told of life after death doesn’t really hang together. What we have are personal testimonies like that from Dr. Alexander. So people say, with very sincere voices, that what they experienced was totally real. And I have no doubt in the sincerity of this testimony. What I’m asking is, is it possible that our brain is telling us that something was real, but that thing does not actually correspond to something that really happened. And when you ask it that way, the answer is obviously yes.

Our brains are fooling us all the time. Steve Novella, my partner, will tell us about the neuroscience behind this. But basically, our brains are not like video recorders or photo albums. They’re more like little theaters. When we try to remember something, it’s

much like imagining something that hasn’t happened. It’s more like running a script than reviewing a tape. And that’s why, when we dream, when we hallucinate, when we have a near-death experience, it is just as vivid as something that actually happened. In the legal community, they will tell you that eyewitnesses who tell you that -- have a certain sincerity and conviction that their eyewitness testimony is true, that conviction is essentially uncorrelated with now true it actually is. The vividness or reality of a memory does not tell us that it was really real. So what is going on? We had this informal idea that there is a soul that sort of is a blob of spirit energy that takes up residence near the brain and drives us around like a soccer mom driving an SUV.

But we’ve known for a long time that this picture doesn’t make sense. Back in the 1600s, princess Elizabeth of Bohemia carried on a correspondence with René Descarteswho was trying to defend mind-body dualism. And Elizabeth demands, no, how could something immaterial like the soul affect something material like the brain or the body? Descartes was never able to answer that question. And these days, science has gone way beyond that. We know a lot more about what is happening. We can literally see memories being formed. We can see the chemical changes in neurons. So the soul is supposed to also have memories. How do the memories get from the neurons to the soul? We know that brains often have false memories in them. Does the soul in the afterlife carry those false memories, or are they somehow corrected after death? We even know the laws of physics by which the atoms, the electrons, the elementary particles in our brains behave.

We know the equations that the electrons that are responsible for chemistry obey. And there’s no ambiguity in these equations. They could always be wrong. It is always possible to say, well, we just don’t know what is going on. That’s fine. But what we have is the evidence of every experiment ever done telling us that these equations are correct. To overcome that, we would need very, very strong evidence, just one experiment, telling us how the soul is pushing around the chemicals in our brain. But we don’t have that. What science says is that life or consciousness is not a substance like water or air. It is a process like fire. When you put out the flame on a candle, the flame doesn’t go anywhere, it simply stops. And that is what happens when we die. So we’re faced at the end with two scenarios. One scenario says that everything we think we understand about the behavior of matter and energy is wrong in a way that has somehow escaped notice by every experiment ever done in the history of science.

And instead, there are unknown mechanisms that allow information in the brain to the transferred to blobs of spirit energy that persist after we die and can talk to the other

blobs of spirit energy, but don’t talk to us, expect sometimes they do. The other scenario says that physics is right and that people under stress sometimes have experiences that are not actually real. On the basis of rationality, it not a difficult decision to choose between these two options. On the basis of emotion, it might be difficult. But we need to have the courage to live life here in the actual world. Thank you.

John Donvan:

Thank you, Sean Carroll. And here’s where we are. We are halfway through the

opening round of this Intelligence Squared U.S. debate where our motion is: “Death is not final.” We have two debaters, two against two, arguing for and against this motion. I’m John Donvan, your moderator. We have heard from the first two debaters and now onto the third. Here to argue for the motion, “death is not final,” Raymond Moody.

He’s a medical doctor with a PhD in philosophy, author of numerous books on near-death experience, including, the seminal “Life After Life.” Raymond Moody.

Raymond Moody:

Thank you. Since 1965, I’ve had the honor of interviewing thousands of people from all over the world who had near-death experiences. And unless you’ve been hiding in a cave somewhere for the last 40 years, you’ve all heard about this, that people on the brink of death tell us that they leave their bodies, and they go into a beautiful light which they find very difficult to describe. And in that light say that relatives or friends of theirs who have already died seem to be there to meet them and to help them through this transition. And they have panoramic memory in which they see all of the events of their lives displayed around them in a sort of holographic panorama of which they witness instantaneously.

My assessment from 40-something years of working on this, and I will underline that word “assessment” is that in the words of the proposition, death is not final. But I want to translate a little bit to say that what I’m trying to say with that is that in my opinion, at death, personal consciousness is taken up into a more inclusive state of reality or frame of existence in a way that people who go through this find it very difficult to put into words. One of the most common things they say is, however articulate they may be, they say that this experience is ineffable, or indescribable. I want to emphasize here something at the very beginning. And please hear me out on this one. I have decided, or sort of assessed the situation, that there is a life after death.

However, I want to say anybody who tells you in the year 2014 that that is a scientific matter is not thinking clearly. In 2014, the question of life after death is not yet a scientific question. I am not a parapsychologist. And I think parapsychology is a pseudo science. So there’s a different frame of reference to think about this, though. And that is that reason is a much bigger category than science. Scientific method is about, say, 400 years old. Reason itself is about 2300 years old, a much bigger institution that includes history and philosophy and literary theory and the law in addition to scientific thinking.

So what I am suggesting to you is that the solution to the afterlife question is not going to come initially from science, but rather from, I think, the whole area of critical thinking and logic. As I look back on the debate that -- on near-death experiences that’s gone on for almost 2500 years now, what strikes me is that a big part of the problem is that the format of the debate is basically twisted. Since Democritus and Plato fought this out 2300 years ago, the way we’ve debated this is we say that some people look at these near-death experiences, and they take it at face value, as Plato did, and they say, well, this is an indicator of an afterlife. Other people Democritus being an example, said, as Democritus famously did, “There is no such thing as a moment of death,” implying that therefore what he’s getting is that these near-death experiences are just the patient’s perception of the winding down process of the body.

The trouble with this whole debate is that that format of debate itself is incoherent. We can’t keep debating it that way. Let me give you an indication of why. All of the elements that we think of as a near-death experience, getting out of the body, going into this light, seeing a panoramic review of one’s life, seeing apparitions of the deceased occur very commonly, not just to people who almost die and are brought back, but rather to the healthy and uninjured bystanders at the bedside of someone else, shared death experiences, as I call these. As the person in the bed, it’s fairly common that bystanders will say that they themselves leave their bodies and accompany their dying loved ones partway toward this light, or they see the apparitions of relatives and friends of the dying person come into the room.

So my question is, if the causation of these near-death experiences is the physiological distress and the events going on in the brain, why should the bystanders who are not ill or injured have identically the same experience? So I think that we’re into a situation with this now where really the problem has sort of outgrown the format that we use to debate about it. In my opinion, we really are on the verge of breakthroughs in the

genuine, and I will underline “genuine,” rational investigation of the question of life after death.

And in that context, I think there are two people in history who have more than anyone else I think stated this afterlife question very clearly and the major problems that come with it, Plato being one, who said that, “Whenever we talk about the afterlife, there’s always going to be the narrative aspect, a story, because we’ve got to have some sort of story just to get thought about this kind of thing started, but also we’ve got to have some sort of set of concepts to link the -- these narratives with the statement of what --that there is life after death.” I think that’s coming. I think that we are on the brink of a breakthrough in rational study of an afterlife, but it’s not going to come initially from science, but initially from the realms of logic and critical thinking. So thank you very much.

John Donvan:

Thank you, Raymond Moody. And our motion is, “Death is not final,” and here is our final debater against this motion, Steven Novella. He is an academic clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine, as well as the host of the weekly science podcast, “The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe.” Ladies and gentlemen, Steven Novella.

Steve Novella:

Thank you. Thanks, John. I want to say thank you to the Intelligence Squared Debate for inviting me here. It’s an honor to be here. So I’m going to convince you that you need to vote against this proposition because if you vote for the notion that death is not final then you -- that by necessity means that you are voting against the conclusion, the scientific position, that the mind is what the brain does. The mind is a process of the brain itself. You would have to reject that in order to accept that the mind exists without the brain. Well, how sure are we? How confident are we in -- as a scientific conclusion, which is what we’re here to talk about, that the mind is essentially the brain?

Well, we’re very certain about that, and we’re as confident of that as we are of anything in science. We have a mountain of neuroscience, countless experiments, that look for the neuroanatomical correlates of consciousness, of the brain functioning, of the mind. Everything that you think, feel, believe, is something that’s happening inside the brain, demonstrably. But let’s take that as a scientific hypothesis. If the mind is entirely the

brain, then what must also be true? Well, then if the arrow of causation’s going from brain to mind, then if we change the brain, that should change the mind. And if we damage the brain, that should damage the mind. And if we turn off the brain, that should turn off the mind. Well, if all of those propositions are correct, that strongly supports the notion that the mind is essentially the brain, and that is, in fact, exactly what scientists have discovered over and over again over the last one to two centuries of neuroscience.

I can give you -- I’m a neurologist, so I can give you tons of examples from my own personal clinical experience. But let me just tell you about one very interesting neurological phenomenon called Capgras Syndrome. This is a syndrome in which -- well, I’ll give you -- I’ll back up a little bit. So when you’re looking at, let’s say, the face of your wife or your spouse, what’s forming on your retina is just shapes and shadows and colors and lines, but your brain has to construct that into an actual image. But then it also have to give meaning to the image. It has to tell you that these shapes are, in fact, a face. And then another part of the brain tells you, “That’s not just any face. That’s the face I know well. That’s the face of my spouse, the face of my wife.” Now, assuming, however, you have feelings about your wife -- let’s assume that -- then --

[laughter]

-- there’s also a connection between that part of your brain that tells you that that face is your wife to the limbic system. That’s the emotional part of your brain. And that connects your emotions, your feelings about your wife to that image.

So, when you see your wife, those feelings are connected to it. Those are all circuits that are happening demonstrably in your brain. Now, in Capgras Syndrome, that last connection is broken by a stroke, by damage, by something. So, when someone sees their spouse, they recognize them as their spouse. But the feelings aren’t there. So, what do people conclude when this happens? Well, it’s interesting. When people have brain damage, it affects how their brain constructs their image of reality, because as my

-- as Sean was saying, are -- we don’t have a tape recorder in our minds, in our brains. We are constructing reality and image of reality all the time. It’s a very active process. And when you -- when that process breaks down, then your construction of reality breaks down. So -- and you usually don’t have insight into that, especially initially, because we tend to assume that our experience is a real, continuous experience. That’s also something your brain constructs.

So, what do people conclude when they have this syndrome, that circuit is broken in their brain? They conclude that their wife, their spouse must be an impostor . That’s the only explanation that they can come up with. There’s, in fact, a documented case of a husband who murdered his wife because he was convinced that an impostor had replaced his wife, you know, with an exact -- you know, it makes no sense, but that’s the only way his brain could make sense of its broken construction of reality. And there’s endless examples of this. There’s no limit -- there is no practical or functional limit that neuroscientists have encountered so far to the degree which we can mess with your mind by messing with your brain. Your -- your sense that you’re in your body, that you control your body, that you separate from the universe -- basic fundamental things about your concept of yourself and your experience of reality are all things demonstrably happening in the brain, and we could turn it off like a switch. Now we actually have the technology to do that.

So, given the mountain of evidence that the mind is the brain, we wouldn’t reject this easily. Do near death experiences provide such compelling evidence that there is mental activity outside of brain activity, that we need to reject the mountain of neuroscientific evidence that’s growing every day, that tells us that the mind, in fact, is the brain? Well, I think the answer there is definitely no as well. There are -- as Sean said, there are stories -- anecdotes, compelling narratives. We’re all about compelling narratives. That’s what our brain does -- that people have had very unusual experiences. We don’t doubt that they have had, you know, life-altering, unusual experiences. Whenever your brain is constructing reality in a different way that you’re not used to, that’s going to be a very weird, profound experience. It’s going to be memorable. It’s going to be amazing.

Astonishing, even. We have no doubt about that. But it’s demonstrably something happening in the brain. What we don’t have are any documented cases of mental activity occurring when there could not be brain activity.

Now, proponents will often say that, “Well, but the person remembers being, you know, in the emergency room, or they remember -- they have these memories that were forming while their brain wasn’t functioning.” But we don’t know that. There is no case in which that’s been documented. They easily could be forming their memories when they’re coming out of their -- whatever state, whatever coma that they were in. Dr.

Alexander even says he had a prolonged recovery. We have no idea what was happening in his brain during that period of time. When people are in a coma, there’s still some break activity. There are animal experiments showing that sometimes even during an acute stress, there could be even a burst of neural activity. Who knows what kinds of astonishing memories are occurring there? We have a reality testing module in our brain, a circuit in our brain that says, “This feels real to me.” And that testing module could break down. And then things -- you don’t test reality. It just seems hyperreal. Every element of a near death experiment -- experience can be duplicated,

can be replicated with drugs, with anoxia, with lack of blood flow, by turning off circuits in the brain.

Every single component is a brain experience that we could now reproduce. And we’re zeroing in on the exact circuits in the brain which reproduce them. That’s why you must vote against this proposition. Thank you.

John Donvan:

Thank you, Steven Novella. And that concludes Round 1 of this Intelligence Squared U.S.

Debate, where our motion is Death is not Final. Now we move on to round two. Round two is where the debaters address one another and take questions from me and from you in the live audience. Our motion is this: Death is not final. We have two teams of two arguing for and against this motion. We have Eben Alexander and Raymond Moody who have made a presentation based very significantly on the personal experience of Eben Alexander.

It’s an argument based on one very, very compelling anecdote of a guy who’s been there. He has seen it, and he is not a gullible guy and never was. He was trained as a scientist. He comes back saying that consciousness is something that is a lot bigger than the brain, that what he experienced could not be explained by brain activity, especially given the illness and the state of illness he was in when his brain was functionally nonfunctioning. They’re also arguing that there are thousands and thousands of cases like this and that there is a consistency to these cases. At the same time, they say that science -- no, science cannot prove that the afterlife exists, but that through the use of reason and logic, we can get to that conclusion in a way that laboratory experiments cannot. The team arguing against the motion, Sean Carroll and Steven Novella, they agree with their opponents that science cannot prove that there is an afterlife.

But they also say that science can more or less tell us that there is not and cannot be an afterlife, that the existence of an afterlife would not fit in with everything else that we know about how the way the world works, that there are all sorts of other possible biological explanations for the experiences that people come back and describe and that psychologically, we’re wired to want to believe in the story of an afterlife and that that wiring influences the kinds of accounts that come back. So there are a lot of ways to take cuts at the debate -- at this debate based on what we have seen so far. But I want to -- you know, we’re going to talk about the power of anecdote, the validity of

anecdote. We’re also going to talk a little bit about what we know about brain function and the state of brain function. And I want to start with that point as the opening, as it’s the thing that we most recently heard Steven Novella talk about. And I want to go to Eben Alexander. And this debate is not Eben Alexander on trial. We agree with that.

But you’re the one with the experience. You’ve had -- I think you also -- your partner, Ray Moody, did you have a near-death experience?

Raymond Moody:

No.

John Donvan:

No? Okay. I didn’t, either, just for the record. Eben, your opponents are arguing that what you said you experienced can be explained by -- by what we already know about the brain; that as they put it, you had a real experience about something that was not real. And I think we all understand the logic of what they’re saying. That could be the case, could it not be the case?

Eben Alexander:

Well, I think the important thing to point out is I get asked to give a lot of talks at medical groups, neurosurgery and other surgical groups, physician groups, because they realize the power of the medical situation. And I think this is what certainly grabbed me and challenged me within weeks after my coma is my knowing mybrain mind consciousness came back, and I started to review the records to reveal just how sick I was. I think the problem is that any other reason for being in deep coma, I probably would have been stuck because usually if there’s some part of the neocortex that’s still working, you could make an argument that that part was part of the process of putting it all together.

But I think the important thing to point out is, with my neocortex so badly damaged, it became very difficult to try and come up with a way to explain how this very rich, elaborate set of memories occurred.

John Donvan:

So in answer to my question, there are -- you’re arguing there really can be no other possible explanation, that you had a real experience about something that can only be real.

Eben Alexander:

Well, it was a very real experience that had no way of occurring in my physical brain. Now, initially, I looked at all kinds of possibilities; could it have happened early going in, could it have happened coming out, was there some way that other structures in the

brain or some part of brain was participating and generating this very long, elaborate journey? And yet that’s where I kept running into trouble with it.

John Donvan:

Okay. Let’s bring it over to Sean Carroll then, where your opponents -- your opponent, Eben Alexander is saying that what he experienced can only be explained as a real experience. And Sean Carroll, why don’t you respond to that?

Sean Carroll:

Well, I think that Steven can talk about the specifics that might have been going on in the brain. But my emphasis is on weighing two different comprehensive pictures here. We have personal testimony from someone who says he experienced something, and it’s very real and says that, well, we can’t imagine that, even as a neurosurgeon, he just doesn’t know what could possibly have been going on in his brain that would make that happen, therefore let’s throw out all of the laws of physics. And I think that that is not nearly enough.

John Donvan:

Stop right there. Stop right there. Eben, is that true?

Eben Alexander:

No, that’s not at all true. In fact, they still teach quantum mechanics, right?

Sean Carroll:

They do. I could teach it right now --

Eben Alexander:

Because I think it’s important to point out, from my point of view, what drove the Founding Fathers at that field into mysticism was the fact that getting at the very depths of trying to understand subatomic reality they were led to believe the consciousness, the observing mind actually played a role in the unfolding of what was being observed.

And I think that that mystery, to my satisfaction, has not really been solved in a way that says that the concerns of people like de Broglie and Dirac, Einstein, Bohr, and others, that they were trying to understand how consciousness influenced them.

John Donvan:

So is your point, for those of us who are just not as well steeped in the conversation that’s already happening here --

Is your point that there is a kind of reality that you are saying is beyond science, the --total of science that we know now? Let me ask Raymond. Raymond, can you move in just -- you need to be really right on top of that mic. Great. Thanks.

Eben Alexander:

Well, I believe at some point science can be very useful at determining a lot of this. John Donvan:

But I’m going to -- and I’m going to move on because I don’t want to belabor this topic, but -- but what Sean -- what Sean was saying to you was that you’re basically saying there just cannot be any other explanation other than the one that I have, and therefore science really isn’t relevant at this point.

Eben Alexander:

I think that -- in my view, this is all about how understanding the true nature of consciousness, soul and spirit, has a lot to do with helping to take physics to the next level in terms of understanding --

John Donvan:

Okay. Thank you. Sean Carroll.

Sean Carroll:

The thing about Einstein, Bor, de Broglie, et cetera, the founders of quantum mechanics, is that they’re all dead, and they have been dead for many decades. And we know what’s going on much better now than we did back then. They were inventing quantum mechanics, and occasionally they toyed with the idea that somehow consciousness had something to do with the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics. Now we know better.

We know how laws of quantum mechanics help explain how electrons move in the brain, and there’s nothing in there --

John Donvan:

Take 15 seconds and tell us why quantum mechanics has been brought up by your opponent, why that has relevance here.

Sean Carroll:

Well, it’s -- I can only quote MIT physicist Scott Aaronson who says, as far as he can tell, quantum mechanics is confusing, and consciousness is confusing, so maybe they’re the same.

[laughter]

John Donvan:

Raymond Moody, let’s bring you into the conversation.

Raymond Moody:

You know, really, I think the end reality, what we’re dealing with here is not a scientifically decidable issue, but a philosophical question. And what it’s called is the mind-body problem, probably first articulated in the West by Pythagoras, but there have been many, many different theories of it. The one that’s current in the neurosciences is called epiphenomenalism, which says, in effect, that there is no independent reality to what we experience as consciousness. But it’s a secondary byproduct of the primary reality which is the brain and the electrochemical events going on in the brain.

In my opinion, that’s a philosophical statement, really. And my answer is, I don’t know. I think the mind-body problem is still unresolved.

John Donvan:

All right. Let’s go to your opponent, Steven Novella, who specializes in whether the mind is in the brain or not.

Steve Novella:

I think, you know, Dr. Alexander said that the experience that he remembers -- again, I don’t doubt he has a memory of a profound experience -- that it could not have occurred as he was coming out of his coma. But you have no basis for that statement, I don’t think, that you have no sense of time. Your brain also constructs your sense of time. And when your brain is only partially working, you can have experiences that are hyper-real, that are both bizarre, that it’s hard for you to reconstruct. And then your memory struggles to sort of construct a narrative that makes sense. It takes these bits and pieces of things that were firing in your head when you were in this semi-conscious state, and it constructs a narrative out of it based usually culturally on your pre-existing beliefs.

You know, near-death experiences, whether, --John Donvan:

Okay.

Steve Novella:

-- as Moody said [unintelligible] in a cave, in a cave [unintelligible] --

John Donvan:

You’re providing a lot of other ways that what Eben says could have happened -- could not have happened any -- okay, so.

Steve Novella:

Perfectly consistent with what we know about the brain.

John Donvan:

I want to take that back to Eben then. So your opponent, Steven Novella has just laid out many, many scenarios in which you experienced could not -- could have been real to you, but not -- not real.

Eben Alexander:

Well, I would say the --

John Donvan:

-- and what are your responses to his specifics?

Eben Alexander:

Well, the interesting thing to me in looking back on it is the fact that, you know, I started for a very long time in what I call this “earthworm eye-view,” a very primitive, coarse, unresponsive realm that had absolutely no kind of interactivity to it, and yet I remember that prolonged period. And that’s what I said earlier is that the next step beyond that should have been one of no awareness at all, and yet what really happened was the blinders coming off and emerging into this far grander reality that was --

John Donvan:

But, I mean, you --

Eben Alexander:

-- which was much crisper than my [inaudible] --

John Donvan:

-- but your response -- your responses to your opponents’ criticisms keep returning to, “What I saw, this is what I saw, this is what I experienced,” and that’s not a response to

the point he made, that there are other ways in which you could have seen what you saw. So that’s what I want you to do, is to respond to Steven Novella’s, you know, two or three scenarios for ways in which what you experienced may have been generated by your ill brain.

Eben Alexander:

Well, to have that be an explanation, one would want at least some part of the neocortex still in a state that could participate because all of our modern thinking in neuroscience --

Male Speaker:

During your recovery --

John Donvan:

Let him finish. Go ahead.

Eben Alexander:

-- is that there really was no part of my brain -- I mean, the factors that showed me when it happened, which was between days one and five and not at the end on coming out of it, basically those are part of the experience itself that to me were very difficult to explain, because they showed that it happened when my doctors told me my brain was way too sick to manufacture anything.

John Donvan:

Okay, so that’s a very solid answer. He’s saying his brain was flat. Nothing, nothing was going on, therefore, the kinds of experiences you are saying his brain could have generated, they could not have generated. It was shut.

Steven Novella:

Well, we don’t know and he didn’t give an answer to the question of when did those memories form? We don’t know. They were not necessarily happening when you were at your worst. And when you were at your worst, there wasn’t the kind of functional monitoring that we would’ve needed to know that your brain was not functioning at all. We don’t know that. We saw anatomically, we had edema, swelling, and that certainly would have kept you unconscious, but you weren’t getting an fMRI, a PET scan, or an EEG as far as I could see anything that you’ve written or said about it that would have documented zero brain activity. You can’t say that. Nobody can say that. And even still, the memories that you have now were not necessarily formed when you were at your deepest part of the coma.

They could’ve been forming in the hours and days when you were coming out of the coma. Then you had a later delusional period, but at different points in time, different parts of your brain were working or not working, and you were constructing reality in a very bizarre way, in ways that we can reproduce with drugs and hypotension and, you know, with electromagnetic stimulation of different parts of your brain.

John Donvan:

Is that valid, that the entire near-death experience, as described by thousands of people, can be recreated by drugs and putting electricity across the brain?

Eben Alexander:

No, I would say that’s not true at all. There are tremendous examples of people encountering souls of departed loved ones, learning information that they couldn’t possibly learn in any other way. You had said earlier that there were no cases of any of these memories being generated when the brain was out, and yet there are examples of that, where the brain -- people under deep anesthesia, with complete circulatory arrest, things like that, where they do have some astonishing stories of getting information that it doesn’t seem to be any other way that they could have gotten it. So those cases are out there.

Steven Novella:

But those cases are not controlled or documented, so, in other words we don’t know that they couldn’t have gotten that information any other way

A lot of those cases I’ve read, that they’re like cold readings, you’re getting information that is either plausible or later was retrofitted to the scenario. It’s all a lot of special pleading, the same kind of information you get from a psychic. It’s not controlled scientific information. There are, in fact, attempts at putting controls in place like putting playing cards on top of a shelf that could only be viewed if you were actually floating above the ceiling. And to the extent that those have been done, no one has been able to demonstrate any information that could only have been obtained while they were extracorporeal, floating above their body. And, by the way, we could make you float above your body.

John Donvan:

Okay. [laughter]

Raymond Moody, did you want to comment or -- I can go back to Eben.

Raymond Moody:

Yeah, you can go to Eben.

John Donvan:

Because I actually want to move on to a different point that was made, and that was, Sean Carroll, you were making the point that we’re wired to want this to be true, we’re wired to want to -- to shape strange events into narratives and into narratives that we particularly like, and my response to that is maybe that’s true, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s what happened over here. And there’s a little bit of an argument, ad hominem thing about it, is you’re not a reliable reporter because you just want that to be true. And it’s a little bit insulting almost to say, “You can’t be trusted because you want everything to be happy.” Respond to that.

Sean Carroll:

Yeah, I hope it’s not insulting. It’s certainly not ad hominem because the message is that nobody can be trusted. I think that that is part of what science has taught us, that if someone makes an extraordinary claim, the very first questions we should be asking ourselves are, number one, is there a different, simpler alternative explanation? And number two, how would we know if our purported explanation were false?

How would we disprove it? How could we possibly test this idea? And I think that, you know, when you look at the bigger picture of how the universe works, how the laws of physics work, the enormous success of understanding matter, energy, the brain, life --everything that we’ve had -- there’s just an enormous presumption against the idea that somehow, through ways that there are no equations, no experiments, or no direct evidence to tell us, the information in our brains persists after we die and is there forever and talking to other people who died. So, it’s just a matter of presumption.

There’s plenty of things that I would like to be true -- and I have been tricked into believing they’re true. So, I know that I should be especially skeptical about them.

John Donvan:

All right. Raymond Moody, you’re the philosopher on the panel. And you’ve said that this essentially a philosophical question. So, take on what Sean Carroll has just said, from the philosophical point of view.

Raymond Moody:

What I would say about what Sean says is I agree with it up to a point, in the sense that, yes, I love physics, too.

I was an astronomer from the age of seven and so on. And I accept there’s a physical realm and so on. But that doesn’t rule out that there could be a state of being that doesn’t operate by physical principles. I noticed, Sean, when you were trying to think of some other realm, you were thinking in terms of energy or soul substance or whatever. But I’m talking about something entirely different. There’s no inconceivability in thinking that everything that we know is true. And yet, there is a higher dimension or a higher domain of existence that sort of -- in which this one is included.

Sean Carroll:

But this --

John Donvan:

Sean Carroll.

Sean Carroll:

-- I mean, that’s -- I think that’s a perfect thing to have said in this debate, because it illustrates the difference here.

No evidence was given for this claim. No reason to believe it was given. All we are given is, “Well, maybe it’s true and you can’t absolutely disprove it.” Maybe it is conceivable. We have laws of physics that tell us how the moon moves around the earth. And they work very well. It is conceivable that there are also angels living inside the moon, gliding it around in exactly the way that Newton’s Laws tell us. But we don’t take that seriously as an idea, because there’s no need for it or evidence for it. So, the question is not is it conceivable that there are other realms. The question is, is the evidence in favor of that other realm so overwhelming that it causes us to dismiss the enormous successes of physics, chemistry, biology and neuroscience?

Raymond Moody:

No. I would say absolutely not. It doesn’t require you to dismiss the findings of science to –

Sean Carroll:

Come over here to this side. We’ll welcome you. We’ll put your chair over here --[laughter]

Raymond Moody:

And yet, you know, I think it’s entirely conceivable that there’s some other domain of existence over this that some people gain access to it sometimes.

And I know hundreds and hundreds of them.

Sean Carroll:

And how would we know if there weren’t?

Raymond Moody:

You know something? You’re right about the false of viability problem, Sean. That’s very big in the afterlife question. But I think the way that this is going to work out is that what we need to do is prepare people in advance, before they ever have a near death experience, in new ways of thinking about these things. You know, the standard -- the standard objection to mystical experience has always been -- as A.J. Ayer put it -- that if the mystic tells us that he can’t possibly describe what he experienced, then he’s got to admit that he’s talking unintelligibly when he talks about it. And that’s the problem that we can change, because I think it’s --

John Donvan:

But -- but Raymond -- but your argument said -- and I’m not taking sides on this, but my role in this, to some degree, is to push the arguments on both sides.

You were -- what you were saying sort of reminds me of the editorial to Virginia about Santa Claus, written in the 19th century, in which Francis Church wrote this editorial, said to the little girl, “Do you see fairies dancing on the front lawn? No, of course you don’t, but that doesn’t mean that they’re not there.” And I feel, to some degree, that’s the argument you’re presenting is -- “No, we can’t prove it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not real.”

Raymond Moody:

What my argument --

John Donvan:

And I just need you, again, to come close to the mic.

Raymond Moody:

Yes. Yes. My argument is that when thousands and thousands of people whose judgment I trust and other -- in all other circumstances, a lot of medical friends --

John Donvan:

Okay. Give us one example, because I know you’ve written about this, examples where people who were not the person lying in the bed, but other people --

Raymond Moody:

Okay.

John Donvan:

-- had an experience. And let the other side respond to that.

Raymond Moody:

Okay.

John Donvan:

And just lean into that mic.

Raymond Moody:

And artist I met a couple of years ago, Jeff Olson, by name, a very well-known graphic artist, had a horrific car crash in which he lost his leg, he -- his wife was killed instantly, and he had a profound near-death experience.

As he was thinking about this, what am I going to do about this?” his doctor had not been informed about this. So he decided to write this story up, and then he wanted to use the name of his doctor. So he called the doctor and invited him to lunch. The doctor came and Jeff told him the store I have his near-death experience, whereupon the surgeon said, “Well, I’ve never told anybody this, but that night you were in the hospital I knew that you weren’t going to die. Your wife was talking with me in the surgery room. And the --”

John Donvan:

His dead wife.

Raymond Moody:

Yes.

And so did the scrub nurse also had an experience of vivid sense of presence and seeing the -- so my point here is that it’s not proof, but at a certain point, you know, where do you draw the line and --

John Donvan: Okay.

Raymond Moody:

-- give people respect?

John Donvan:

So you put an example out there where it’s not simply about the brain activity of the person lying in the bed, but that the notion of an afterlife represented by this apparition, we are talking about ghosts now, and I’m sorry that sounded pejorative, but we are talking about something that a lot of people would challenge as incredibly implausible. But you’re making the argument seriously, so I want your opponents to respond to it seriously.

Steven Novella:

Well, we want to know what’s really, really true, not just what seems to be true, what we want to be true. And, you know, again, our brains are narrative generating machines. It tries to construct a story that makes sense to us, appeals to us, stream --puts everything together seamlessly. And you know, we can have what we believe -- we have memories of experiences that mean something to us, but don’t really relate to reality. We know this is true.

If you accept that level of evidence -- and this is not about respect. I believe that people have these memories of these experiences. It’s just about the interpretation of them.

John Donvan:

Are you talking about the scrub nurse and the doctors?

Steven Novella:

Anyone. I mean, think about it.

John Donvan:

But these scrub nurse and doctors were at separate -- met this woman at separate places, right, on the same night.

Steven Novella:

But all we have is a story constructed after the fact. We have similar stories about people being abducted by UFOs, seeing big foot, any weird kind of experience you can imagine. If you accept this level of evidence, then you have to believe every paranormal claim out there because we have that level of evidence for thousands of stories that are conflicting in mutually exclusive, often culturally dependent. It’s simply not acceptable. And we know -- we know for a fact that the brain can absolutely manufacture those memories, come to absolutely believe a story like that, that’s absolutely not true.

John Donvan:

I want to go to audience questions. And while you’re raising hands, I just want to ask very, very quickly for Eben Alexander, do we know that the brain can manufacture those experiences?

Eben Alexander:

I would say the brain does not create consciousness. That is something a lot of scientists, those interested in neuroscience are far along that pathway. Now it’s called the hard problem of consciousness. In fact, no neuroscientist on earth can give the first sentence to explain the mechanism by which the physical brain creates consciousness.

Steve Novella:

We don’t have to know how the brain creates consciousness.

John Donvan:

Steven Novella.

Steve Novella:

In order to know that it creates consciousness. That it creates consciousness, we absolutely know, just like we don’t have to know how the earth generates gravity to know that it generates gravity. There’s no question we have gravity even though we haven’t untangled the deepest understanding of every possible thing.

So yes, we don’t know exactly how the brain creates consciousness, but the evidence can only lead to one interpretation, that it is consciousness. The consciousness is what the brain does, no question.

John Donvan:

Eben Alexander. [applause]

Eben Alexander:

As I said, no neuroscientist on earth can give the first sentence to explain a mechanism by which the physical brain gives rise to consciousness.

Steve Novella:

But not knowing the mechanism --

John Donvan:

Is that -- is that true?

Steve Novella:

I don’t -- I disagree with that because there are -- there’s consciousness research. There are researchers who are doing a very good job of making progress of understanding consciousness as a neurological phenomenon. We certainly are not all the way there of understanding exactly what it is. It’s a very difficult nut to crack. But that we are not at the -- but not knowing the mechanism is not the same thing as saying it’s not possible, or it’s impossible, or we need a nonphysical mechanism. We certainly don’t.

John Donvan:

Given that point, but is he accurate that we don’t know the mechanism by which the brain gives rise to consciousness?

Steve Novella:

Well, it’s not a black or white thing. We have some knowledge. We don’t have complete knowledge about it. It’s like saying, do we understand -- do we understand everything about genetics? No. But we know that DNA is the molecule of inheritance. That’s not questionable.

Eben Alexander:

But not one sentence. Give the first sentence of how you would trace from the physical brain that it gives rise to consciousness.

John Donvan:

Let’s go to some audience questions. Right down front here. A mic will come to you. I didn’t explain this before. A mic will come to you. And if you can stand up, tell us your name, and then give birth to a perfect formed question.

Male Speaker:

Hello. Hi. My name is Arthur Kramer. My question is to the panel arguing for the motion. If a person was to take a strong hallucinogen, let’s say LSD, and they were to have a very distorted experience, hallucinations, would you accept their version of reality, or would you just merely dismiss it as them having an experience because of --

John Donvan:

That was a perfect formed question.

And very relevant. Which of you would like to take it? Raymond Moody.

Raymond Moody:

Yeah, I think William James was kind of right about that, that whatever experience one has one can say that by definition almost there’s some correlated state of the central nervous system. The question of reality is an entirely different question. Can I imagine that maybe by taking some substance someone could gain access to some other kind of reality? Yes, I can imagine that. However, I think it boils down to the particular, doesn’t it? I think you have to look at a much broader set of information to make a -- but generally speaking, yeah.

John Donvan:

I don’t think this side needs to add to that. I think your side was in the question.

Male Speaker:

Yeah.

John Donvan:

Sir. You were starting to stand up. Well, you too. I’ll come back to you.

Male Speaker:

Richard Spencer. I’ve got a question for Eben and specifically about the issue of other people having experiences. Eben, in your experience, you seem to have met your biological sister who you had never met before or seen a picture of. And I gather from your book that you actually drew a picture of her or somehow had a picture done before you subsequently had an actual picture of who she was, which you learned later. I’d like you to describe that in a little bit and say if in fact you --

John Donvan:

I’m going to pass on that question because it’s not going to -- I don’t think it’s going to advance our understanding of whether science relates to this or not, but thanks very much. Ma’am in the center there. Is your book on sale in our lobby? I like always being able to say that.

Raymond Moody:

I have no idea. It should be out there somewhere.

John Donvan:

If you have -- if you have no idea, that’s a no. It’s downloadable. And the story that was just brought up can be -- can be read in the book in great and compelling detail. Ma’am.

Female Speaker:

Okay. Hi. My name is Eleanor. And I have a question for this side as well. I did read both of your books, by the way, which are super interesting. But it left me with a question which hasn’t been answered yet, so why wouldn’t everyone that experiences a death experience or a near-death experience have one of these experiences?

John Donvan:

Right. It’s about one out of ten or one out of eight, something like that.

Female Speaker:

Right. Why wouldn’t --

John Donvan:

-- who comes back.

Female Speaker:

-- more people have -- and why is there no mention of hell? It’s all about heaven, which could be a good thing. But --

John Donvan:

I think this side has an answer to that question.

Eben Alexander, would you like to take that?

Eben Alexander:

Well, I think that, to me, is a very interesting question. The number out there is roughly 15 percent, 20 percent of people who have a medical situation that might lead to a near-death experience, about 15 to 20 percent seem to report them. That’s a historical figure that I think is probably low because it comes from an era when we weren’t asking people to volunteer that kind of information.

I think the actual number is probably higher. If I had just come back from my earthworm eye view, you know, that very prolonged initial phase, that very dumbed-down consciousness that I think was the best my brain could do, I would have had a hellish NDE. Turns out that hellish NDEs are probably, what --

John Donvan:

Just remind people.

Eben Alexander:

-- 3 or 4 percent.

John Donvan:

NDE stands for near-death --

Eben Alexander:

A near-death experience. And the hellish ones are quite rare by comparison, 3 or 4 percent. My own feeling is that that is because they’re incomplete, that souls don’t go in with quite the oomph and that exactly in my case, I went in with plenty of oomph and went through that phase and up into the much higher levels of ultra-reality.

John Donvan:

I think the other side should get a crack at this question and why it’s only one out of eight or one out of 10 people who have had these experiences, [unintelligible].

Steven Novella:

Yeah, I mean, it’s perfectly compatible with the neuroscientific hypothesis of these experiences depends on what parts of your brain are working and not working at any given moment. What’s the mechanism of your being in a coma or unconscious? Was it traumatic? Was it lack of oxygen?

You know, we could put pilots in a centrifuge, spin them up until they pass out -- a lot of them have near-death experiences, too, they’re not near death, but we’re depriving their brain of blood flow -- you know, with similar numbers, very, you know, profound, memorable, vivid experiences. So it just depends on the particulars of what parts of the brain are working or not working.

John Donvan:

And nobody’s seeing hell, whew. [laughter]

Male Speaker:

Some people have --

Male Speaker:

But there is hell.

Yeah, [unintelligible] --

Eben Alexander:

There is -- as I said, 3 or 4 percent of people have hellish NDEs. I believe -- I believe there’s actually a reality to that realm, to those lower spiritual realms, that you can see referred to back in the Tibetan Book of the Dead, Egyptian Book of the Dead. I mean, it’s something that’s been referred to for a long time.

John Donvan:

Okay.

Male Speaker:

Depends on your amygdala activity.

John Donvan:

Right down in front here. [laughter]

If anybody’s upstairs, I apologize I can’t see you at -- whatsoever. But if you’d like to ask a question, I see you come to the doors to the rear downstairs, I will try to call on you.

Female Speaker:

What is the one thing that you would need to know that would make you believe them, even a little bit?

Male Speaker:

So --

John Donvan:

I just want to clarify that as a question to the side arguing against the motion. Steven Novella.

Steve Novella:

For me, you know, I’m open to evidence for anything. What I would need to see is some information that the people having the experience gained through no other mechanism.

So -- and there are experiments ongoing -- preliminary ones have been negative, there are bigger ones ongoing -- to see if people could, for example, look up on the top shelf and see a card that’s placed there, that you could only see if you were actually floating above, near the ceiling, so that would be compelling evidence. I mean, it would need to be enough to -- that would be enough to me to at least take it seriously, but then to be -

- to say that it’s probably true, you need as much evidence as we have for the neuroscientific model which says it’s not possible.

John Donvan:

Steven Novella, could you be convinced? Is there any piece of evidence that would convince you that there’s an afterlife?

Steve Novella :

I could be convinced of anything if the evidence were sufficient.

John Donvan:

I’m sorry, I meant to ask your partner, but thank you for your answer. Sean Carroll, would -- could you be convinced?

Sean Carroll:

Yeah, I think that -- you know, the idea that we could be convinced of another realm in addition to the natural world is obviously, “Yes.” There’s a million pieces of evidence that would help convince me. None of -- I mean, if this -- if there’s a ghost in the room that could lift up that glass right now, then I would be convinced.

[laughter]

For those listening on the radio, the glass is not moving, and it --[laughter]

-- it never moves when you do this. [applause]

And we live in a world that looks exactly like there’s only the natural world.

John Donvan:

But wouldn’t you really kind of like those guys to be right? Wouldn’t it be great?

Sean Carroll:

Yes and no. I think that there is obviously advantages.

John Donvan:

Now, what would be the disadvantages?

Sean Carroll:

I don’t want to die. [laughter]

I want to live after I die, maybe not for infinity years but for a few hundred thousand years I could amuse myself.

[laughter]

Sadly, as a very wise philosopher once said, “You can’t always get what you want.” [laughter]

John Donvan:

I want to remind you, we are in the question and answer section of this Intelligence Squared U.S. Debate. I’m John Donvan, your moderator. We have four debaters, two teams of two, arguing it out over this motion, “Death is not final.” Let’s go back to questions. Ma’am -- sir, right up there, if you could stand -- yes, thanks.

Female Speaker:

Oh, hi. Hi.

John Donvan:

Could you step out just -- because it’s a little dark where you are --

Female Speaker:

Yeah, sure.

John Donvan:

-- step into the light, ma’am.

Female Speaker:

Hi.

John Donvan:

Move to the light. [laughter]

Female Speaker:

I’m Andrea, hello. I wanted to ask a question to the pro side, which is what is your definition of “final,” because in your description of what it was like in this what you called sort of a transcendental state you were feeling things but it didn’t seem as if you could do anything, as if you were really talking to anyone. So I wanted to know what your definition of “final” is.

John Donvan:

How will that help you vote on the motion seriously?

Female Speaker:

Because, you know, the motion is “Death is not final,” so [unintelligible] -- they have to convince me that there’s something beyond when the body, you know, decomposes into the earth, so that doesn’t end what we know to be life, so I wanted to know --

John Donvan:

But I think -- I’m going to pass because I think that’s the thrust of their entire argument is that, that -- unless I’m really missing your point, [unintelligible] have argued is that “Death is not final.” Am I missing something?

Female Speaker:

I just -- oh, I had hoped for some clarification on their definition of “final,” but if it seems as if --

John Donvan:

I’m going to pass on it because I think -- [inaudible] right down there. Okay.

Male Speaker:

I’m Michael, and, Dr. Moody, in your opening comments you said that we -- you believe we’re on the verge of understanding through philosophy and logic this other realm. Can you elaborate on that?

Raymond Moody:

Yes. I think that probably about one out of five people I meet socially -- and when the conversation develops, “So, what do you do?” “I write books on near death experiences”

-- about one out of 10 people say, “Oh, I don’t believe in life after death. When you’re dead, you’re dead.”

Then I go on and I ask them, “Well, how did you reach that conclusion?” Most of them say, “What are you talking about in the first place, life after death? It’s just illogical.” And you know, the sentence “There is life after death” is a self-contradiction, if you look up the words in the dictionary. And this may sound trivial, but this is really a major problem, because that -- it helps us understand why life after death is not yet a scientific question. Question is one of intelligibility. What does it mean? And the person, I think, who stated that point of view most eloquently was David Hume, who said, “By the mere light of reason it seems difficult to prove the immortality of the soul.” Then he went on to say, “Some new species of logic is requisite for that purpose.

And some new faculties of the mind that they may enable us to comprehend that logic.” That sounds like a tall order, but it’s not really that difficult. The trouble is that you have to stop thinking about stories for a while and beautiful narratives, and really get busy with some conceptual thinking. But when that’s all said and done, I think that we do now have new ways of thinking about things that are illogical that will open up entirely new ways to investigate the afterlife question. This is not geared to the afterlife, per say. What somebody who wants to go through this pathway has to do -- first is to say, “What I’m going to focus here is on learning new logical principles and going through a process of learning.” Then, as a corollary, much later down the road, this has implications for the afterlife question.

John Donvan:

We’re going -- we’re going to book you in about seven years and see where that -- see where that process is. Let me go to more questions. Sir?

Male Speaker:

My name’s Rob. My question is for the Against side. Thank you. How can you be so sure about your position when you base it upon what we now know in science -- and by the mere fact of what we now know, we’re constantly evolving in science? So, how can you base -- be so sure about your position when science may learn things that we don’t yet know?

Male Speaker:

Well, I mean --

John Donvan:

That’s a pretty -- that’s a pretty good question.

Male Speaker:

That’s a good question.

John Donvan:

Yeah. [applause] Steven Novella.

Steve Novella:

So, as I said -- as I was saying, I’m a skeptic, so I’m in a perpetual state of doubt about everything. I need lots of evidence and logic to convince me. And all we could say within the scientific realm is what does the best evidence tell us today? Right now, we have lots of evidence that we could be highly confident in the conclusion that the mind is what the brain does. And we have no compelling evidence -- only narratives and really dubious evidence to -- against that proposition, against that notion, or for the notion that there is some consciousness separate from the brain. So, the scientific conclusion today is that the mind is the brain.

If new, dramatic evidence comes to light that changes that, I will happily move along with the evidence.

John Donvan:

Sean Caroll, take a crack at the same question.

Sean Carroll:

I think -- you know, it’s a great question because there’s this image -- like, when we’re teaching high school and science, that it’s a bunch of facts that are absolutely established, whereas professional scientists like to brag about the fact that -- like Steven just said -- that, you know, we’re always skeptical and we’re always ready to throw out everything. And both are true, but because there’s some intermediate ground. There are many, many things that science does not understand, and we’re hoping to get better at it. Many, many things. And there are also some things that science does understand and are not going to go away. This table is made of atoms. We will improve our understanding of what an atom is, what the elemental particles and fields are that make it up, how they interact. That is not finished yet.

We can do better. But a million years from now, our best scientific understanding will still say that the table is made of atoms. In my judgment, the current status of our scientific understanding, the parts that we’re not going to give up, are enough to conclude that death is, in fact, final.

John Donvan:

I want to remind you, we are in the question and answer section of this Intelligence

Squared U.S. Debate. [laughter]

I’m John Donvan, your moderator. We have four debaters, two teams of two, arguing it out over this motion -- death is not final. Did somebody come downstairs? He did. I see standing there. Again, I need you to walk to the light. Thank you. A little bit more just so that the camera can see you. Great. Terrific, thank you.

Female Speaker:

Hi. My name is Jessica. We’ve been talking a lot tonight about personal experiences and self-created memories of near-death experiences, whether those are real or just crafted by the mind. But I want to know what the against side has to say about admittedly self-proclaimed psychic mediums, or people completely removed from the situation that seem to have knowledge of events that they were not present for.

John Donvan:

I think that’s relevant because your opponents have actually brought up situations like that. So let’s go ahead. Thanks for the question. Sean Carroll.

Sean Carroll:

Yeah, I mean, I think that, again, there is evidence in favor of those kinds of things. There is other evidence against those kinds of things. And the kind of remote seeing or telepathy or telekinesis or clairvoyance that is being talked about here is in utter and complete violation with everything we understand about the current laws of physics.

So, if something is seeing something, it has to be able to absorb photons. How does that happen? I think that there’s, again, an overwhelming presumption that stuff that is in so flagrant violation with everything we understand about the fundamental way that matter and energy works better have amazingly good evidence in favor of it. And the evidence in favor of psychic phenomena comes nowhere near that standard.

John Donvan:

Eben?

Steven Novella:

Even if we put plausibility aside, a hundred years of parapsychological research has not been able to produce one bit of compelling replicable evidence that shows that it’s a real phenomenon.

John Donvan:

So, Eben Alexander, that sounds like the most powerful salvo against your side yet. So what is your response to that?

Eben Alexander:

My response is that the evidence for things like telepathy, precognition, remote viewing, out of body experiences, past life memories in children, the afterdeath communications is overwhelmingly positive evidence that it exists and is real. For those out there in the scientific --

[applause]

Eben Alexander:

-- community who want to know more, I would urge them to check the book, “Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century,” 800 pages of very dense science data and analysis that shows the absolute reality of nonlocal consciousness in all of those forms. It shows that we have a long way to go in beginning to understand anything about consciousness and that the model that brain creates consciousness and that we can only know things locally with our connected senses is completely false and disproven by a lot of scientists, not just in that book, and those who participated in that, but in multiple other books.

And, I mean, for example, the afterlife experiments Dr. Gary Schwartz, that’s a pretty powerful documentation of the power of mediums. There are --

John Donvan:

Two sentences, what were they so we have something concrete for those of us who have not read the book, which is a lot of people.

Eben Alexander:

I’m sorry.

John Donvan:

Of Gary Shwartz’s experiments. Give a two-sentence example of what he did.

Eben Alexander:

Basically, did a scientific assessment of mediums and their ability to work especially with

--

John Donvan:

And showed what? Established what?

Eben Alexander:

Well, established that they could communicate and know things that only could be known by the departed relative.

John Donvan:

Okay. So your opponents are saying that there are scientific experiment that’s prove paranormal activity is valid, happens, it’s real. Steven Novella.

Steve Novella :

Demonstrably not true. I mean, everything you said is the exact opposite of the truth. [applause]

Gary Schwartz’s methodology was massively flawed. It’s been absolutely picked apart by other scientists. He essentially allowed himself to be bamboozled by charlatans and by cold readers. He did not produce anything reliable, anything that I would consider to be credible scientific evidence.

John Donvan:

Okay.

Steve Novella:

So that’s the bottom line.

John Donvan:

Yeah. Eben, do you want to respond to that, or should we move on? Eben Alexander:

Well, simply to say, I guess with this kind of thing maybe we’re at a bit of an impasse because I think that his methodology was actually quite solid. I’ve met mediums who have convinced me very strongly they’re absolutely real.

John Donvan:

All right. There are moments in these debates where we reach impasse, and we move on, and we have just done that. Ma’am. Mic -- microphone is coming to you.

Female Speaker:

Hi. My name is Stephanie. So it feels like we are conflating two different questions, and one is whether the mind and consciousness come from the brain, and the other is whether there exists an afterlife.

And I don’t understand why the existence of an afterlife would show up in the brain. And so I’m wondering, for the --

John Donvan:

I’m going to clarify you -- after you, and then move on. The argument that’s being made by the team arguing against the motion is that life stops when the brain dies, and that’s why those two things have become conflated. And I think it fits pretty -- together pretty well. Right down in front, ma’am.

Female Speaker:

[inaudible] John Donvan:

You need the mic too.

Female Speaker:

My name is Jane, and my question is for the opposing side. We have energy while we’re alive. Where does our energy go when we die?

Sean Carroll:

It doesn’t go away. It’s up in your head. They’re just not continuing to live. It’s exactly the same place the flame goes when you put out the candle.

John Donvan:

Does the other side want to --[laughter]

Does the other side want to take on the candle argument or --

Eben Alexander:

I would say it’s more a question of the information, you know, than the energy. It’s not a conservation issue around energy.

People often use that one to argue against a soul being able to influence the material world. I would say it’s much more a question of the information, and especially when you -- as I said, when you -- for example, a very renowned skeptic and scientist, Carl Sagan admitted that past life memories in children, the evidence for that is overwhelming.

Steven Novella:

That’s not true. Come on, Carl Sagan, please.

Eben Alexander:

He said that in his book, in his book, “The Demon Haunted World,” on page 302, he says exactly that.

Steven Novella:

I’ve read that book a hundred times. Carl Sagan did not believe in past lives. He did not

believe in anything paranormal or supernatural. That is just not true.

John Donvan:

Impass on Carl Sagan. Question down front.

Female Speaker:

Okay. Building on the past lives, I wanted to preface my question by saying I’m a student of Dr. Brian Weiss who is an expert in past life memories.

My question is actually for the against. I recently became aware of a study by a man named Dr. Kenneth Ring who had done research around near-death experiences for people who were born in this lifetime blind. And they described having experiences of seeing and describing color and describing paintings and the color of the carpet. How can you explain that? Is there some kind of brain mapping that happens, you know, that’s inherently human that doesn’t, you know, involve needing that particular sense?

John Donvan: Okay.

Female Speaker:

How can you explain that?

John Donvan:

I [unintelligible] that question. Go ahead. Who would like to take it, Steven Novella?

Steve Novella :

Yeah, I mean, I haven’t read that particular study, so I don’t have any detailed information about the specifics, or I’d certainly be interested in taking a look at it. But just the notion that somebody can explain something beyond their experience is not unusual. We are actually pretty creative, inventive people. You know, our human brains have no problem inventing things that we haven’t directly experienced. So again, I would need to see details that could not be explained as a brain experience in order to find it compelling.

John Donvan:

And that concludes round two of this Intelligence Squared U.S. debate where our motion is “death is not final.”

And now we move on to round three. In round three, we will have closing statements by each debater in turn. They will be two minutes each. And remember how you voted at the beginning of the debate because immediately after their closing statements, you will vote a second time, and the team whose numbers have changed the most in percentage point terms will be declared our winner. On to round three, closing statements by each debater in turn. Our motion is “death is not final.” And here to summarize his position supporting the motion that death is not final, Eben Alexander, an academic neurosurgeon and author of the bestselling book, “Proof of Heaven.”

Eben Alexander:

Well, I would like to go back to what Sean had said about how consciousness is very confusing to us as is quantum mechanics. And I would put out there, I think they’re related. There’s a reason why they’re both so confusing.

And that’s -- you can chuckle, but in fact, that’s what drove brilliant people like Einstein and others into mysticism. And in fact, I would say that that mystery has only gotten much deeper over time. We have not answered that at all. In support of my claim

earlier about brain damage allowing enhanced function, which really goes against the materialist model that Steven talked about earlier, I point out two very common examples in clinical practice; acquired savant syndromes, in which strobe brain trauma, autism, can allow super human mental function, something that’s often seen, that certainly has no explanation from the brain makes mind model; and also terminal lucidity, in which demented elderly patients often have periods of great clarity, especially around the time that they are encountering souls of departed loved ones that are there to escort them over. And I would say that these very commonly observed phenomena really demand a much deeper model of consciousness than we get out of the materialist models.

I’ll point out that Dr. Wilder Penfield wrote a book in 1975, “The Conscious Mind.” He probably still holds the record for having stimulated the brain in awake patients more than any other neurosurgeon. And never once did he duplicate any kind of situation of free will. He concluded very strongly that the mind consciousness is not created in the physical brain. And I think it’s important to point out that the pure materialism fails. It’s a hard problem of consciousness and at the enigma of quantum mechanics, that the brain actually confines and limits consciousness, that science acknowledging consciousness, soul and the spirit becomes much stronger than the overly simplistic science of reductive materialism. Death of the physical brain and body is not final.

Thank you.

John Donvan:

Thank you, Eben Alexander. [applause]

And that is our motion, “Death is not final.” And here to argue against the motion, Steven Novella. He’s a neurologist at Yale School of Medicine and founder of science based medicine.

Steve Novella:

So up until a couple hundred years ago, every culture in the world believed that there was a life energy. They knew intuitively, they sensed that there was something fundamentally different about living things from nonliving things, and they hypothesized that there must be some energy, some [unintelligible] vital, spiritus, chi, whatever you call it, that fundamentally makes living things different than nonliving things. But over the next 100, 150 years, basically the 19th into the 20th century, we discovered biochemistry and genetics and developmental biology, and all different principles of biology, until essentially there was nothing left for the life force to do. We had

explained everything that living organisms do, and we explored the blurry line between living and nonliving, and we realized that there is no fundamental difference there. It’s just, as you get increased complexity at some point you cross this fuzzy line, and you’re doing a process that we call “life.” Well, we’re kind of going through the same process though maybe a little bit delayed with consciousness.

You -- we understand that the brain causes consciousness. We certainly don’t understand a lot about how it is produced exactly. But we’re making progress. Our research paradigms are working quite well, thank you, and we’re making lots of progress. It’s just as irrational, if you will, to hypothesize that there is some magical energy or some non-corporeal thing, stuff, that is consciousness, as it was 200 years ago to say that, “Well, because we can’t explain life, then we need a life force.” We don’t need a brain force, a mind force any more than we needed a life force 200 years ago.

The fact is that the neuroscientific community is progressing relentlessly with the paradigm that is materialist, reductionist. We’re looking for neuroanatomical correlates of everything that the mind does, and that research program is very, very successful.

And it -- how well an idea advances in science is more telling about how valuable it is, how true it is, than what our current state of knowledge is.

Our current state of knowledge is always going to be incomplete. It doesn’t mean that our ideas are wrong or are weak. That’s why you have to vote against this proposition.

John Donvan:

Thank you, Steven Novella. [applause]

And the proposition is, “Death is not final.” And here to summarize his position in support of the motion that “Death is not final,” Raymond Moody, he’s a medical doctor and author of the book, “Life After Life,” in which he coined the term, “Near-death experience.” Raymond Moody.

Raymond Moody:

First of all, I want to say that to me to this day the notion of life after death is very counterintuitive. I think as a nonreligious person I had no background in that. It never occurred to me, as a young astronomy buff, that there might be something beyond this. I’ve been through a process now of 40+ years that finally drove me into this situation where I’m sort of forced to say, almost against my will, that “Death is not final,” there is a life after death.

Basically what happened to me was that hearing thousands of people with near-death experiences, hundreds of people with shared death experiences who had the identical experience we call a near-death experience, except they weren’t ill or injured, they were simply there at the bedside of someone else who died, and I have seen joint transcendent experiences where, for example, a physician and a critically ill patient would have some sort of joint transcendent experience at the same time. That leads me to be forced almost into a position to say that I trust these people’s judgment. It seems to me that they’ve been somewhere where I haven’t been, and I can begin to put a little picture together of what they’re talking about. So for that reason I would say I’m onboard. I think there is life after death.

So vote, vote, vote for the afterlife. [laughter]

[applause] And --

John Donvan:

Thank you, Raymond Moody. Our motion is, “Death is not final,” and here to summarize his position against the motion, Sean Carroll. He’s a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology and author of, “The Particle at the End of the Universe.”

Sean Carroll:

When I was about six years old, I had an emotional formative experience that apparently many other people share similar things. I was in bed, you know, going to sleep, sort of thinking about the day and so forth, and I started crying. I was just bawling uncontrollably, so much so that my mom heard me from her bedroom and came running in, saying, “What is wrong?” And I said, “Some day, our grandmom is going to die. And someday, you’re going to die. And someday, I’m going to die. We’re all going to die.”

And you know, she had to explain, “Well, yes.” And so forth. And she had her own version of the story. And the reason I’m telling this story because even as convinced as I am that death is final, I have absolutely no desire to belittle the people in the room who disagree, who feel the other way. This is an incredibly important, central issue to our lives. I personally am convinced by the overwhelming scientific evidence from physics,

from neuroscience, et cetera, that there is one world, the natural world. Biology is a process that can end. And death is final. And to me, that fact -- the finitude of our lives --gives enormous poignancy and importance to the finite number of years that we have here on earth. Our lives here are not dress rehearsals. This is the act. This is the one performance that we get. That does not remove meaning or value from the lives we’re leading now.

It gives -- it forces us to give meaning to everything we do, because we only have a finite number of things to do. If evidence came in on the other side, I would change my mind quickly, if the evidence was good enough. But I think that we’re past the point where it’s a scientifically interesting question. I think that we know enough to conclude that death is final. And personally, I think that that is okay. Thank you.

John Donvan:

Thank you. Sean Caroll. And that concludes closing statements.

[applause]

And now it’s time to learn which side has argued best. We’re going to ask you to go again to the keypads at your seats and vote for the second time. And it will be the difference between the first and second vote by you, our audience members here in New York, that will determine our winner. The team whose numbers have changed the most will be the team that wins. Our motion is Death is Not Final.

Okay. Are we good? We can lock out the system.

Male Speaker:

Which numbers?

John Donvan:

Oh, numbers are the same as before. If you are for the motion, push #1. If you are against the motion, push #2. And if you became or remain undecided, push #3. And you can ignore the other -- the other keys. The other numbers are nothing. I’ll give it another 15 seconds. And my apologies for that. Okay. It looks like everybody’s good. So, while we’re waiting for the calculation to come in, I just want to say this. You know, Sean Caroll just made the point in his closing statement very, very brilliantly, about -- this is not a debate that in any way was meant to disrespect anybody.

And in fact, that would go very much against the spirit of Intelligence Squared, which --it’s goal is to raise the level of public discourse. And what I heard, not only from Sean Carroll, but from all four of these debaters, were four people who disagreed vehemently on something very personal, meaningful, and metaphysical. And yet, they did it in a respectful way. And I have to really give them a round of applause for the way they did that.

[applause]

And also, to everybody who asked a question, including the questions we didn’t take -- it takes a lot of guts to get up in front of an audience and ask questions. Some of them were terrific and the other ones were just darn interesting.

[laughter]

And I think it might sell some more books for Eben Alexander, but to everybody who got up and asked a question, thanks very much for doing it.

[applause]

I -- we would love to have you Tweet about the debate. 20:28:16

As I said at the beginning, our hashtag tonight is #afterdeath. That -- our Twitter handle is @IQ2US. And this was our final debate of our spring season. We -- this was Debate #91, I think, that we’ve put on since Bob Rosenkranz started this thing. And it was a new zig-zag for us. I think it went really well. It was very interesting. A little metaphysical for a night out in New York. I mean, if this is anybody’s first date, you’re probably --

[laughter]

-- it’s probably going to stick for a while. We’re doing a debate, though -- the National Constitutional Center -- Constitution Center in Philadelphia next month, our second time going there. And we’re going to be looking at the question of whether independent political speech is the linchpin of our democracy, or is it its Achilles heel? We’re looking at the question of the ability of individuals and organizations to influence campaigns through campaign spending and whether the Constitution actually presents that expenditure as a matter of the First Amendment. Tickets to that will be available through our website, wwwiq2us.org.

And we are going to be announcing our fall lineup soon. We’ll be back here at the Kaufman Center, and the debates for that are in tonight’s program. On the list of topics that we’re considering, “Income inequality,” “Assisted suicide,” “Genetically modified food,” “Cybersecurity,” “Privacy,” “Monogamy,” “Climate engineering,” “The private lives of public figures,” and “Google Glass.”

[laughter]

So those of you who can’t join the debate, of course we are on fora.tv and on NPR stations across the nation. Okay. So I have the results all in. Remember, we had you vote twice on this motion, “Death is not final,” once before the debate and once again after the debate, and the team whose numbers have changed the most will be declared our winner.

Here are the results. In the first vote, “Death is not final,” 37 percent agreed with that, 31 percent disagreed with that, 32 percent were undecided. [cheering]

Those are the first results.

Now, the second vote -- remember, the team whose numbers have changed the most will be the winner -- in the second vote, the team arguing for the motion, their second vote was 42 percent. They went from 37 percent to 42 percent. They picked up 5 percentage points. The team against the motion, now -- 5 percentage points is the number to beat -- the team against the motion --

[laughter]

-- they went -- their first vote was 31 percent, their second vote was 46 percent. That’s up 15 percent. The team arguing against the motion “Death is not final,” has won this debate.

[applause]

Basically saying, “Death is final,” sorry. Thanks very much, everyone. Thank you from me, John Donvan, and Intelligence Squared (rebranded as Open to Debate). We’ll see you next time.

Are Primary Elections Ruining Democracy?

Midterms are coming in November, but 15 states are holding primaries in August, and several happened over the course of the past week. A race in battleground Michigan received the most attention, where progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed won by a narrow margin.

This week, we explore the pros and cons of our current primary system and its impact on American democracy during what may prove to be an unpredictable cycle with many surprises ahead. This debate also explores how primary elections have shaped past presidential election cycles, but the questions it raises are just as relevant today.

Listen to the debate now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube, and as always, let us know what you think.

Arguing YES:

Elaine Kamarck, Founding Director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution

“Primaries are not a perfect representation of the people, right? Primaries represent the most passionate faction of one or the other political parties, and you can trace the polarization of American politics directly to presidential and congressional primaries because in congressional primaries it's even more extreme. You have a very, very small turnout, so you have 13% to 19% of the voting age population voting in congressional primaries. Therefore, it is very easy for somebody who is on the far right or frankly on the far left to win those primaries with very small amounts of votes."

Arguing NO:

Jed Ober, Managing Director of the NRDC Action Fund; Former Director of Programs at Democracy International and Former Chief of Staff for Pennsylvania Congresswoman Susan Wild

“The Congressional primaries that we have, the Senate statewide primaries, those are processes that, whether or not they're constitutional or not, they are entwined in American democracy at this point. And I believe that they provide an essential opportunity for people to participate and choose those nominees.”

Save the Date: Watch Our Livestreamed Debate on Capitalism

From inflation and affordability to artificial intelligence, housing costs, labor markets, corporate consolidation, and economic opportunity, debates over capitalism are shaping policy decisions worldwide. Has capitalism drifted away from its original promise? Or is it still the best engine for innovation and prosperity despite today’s challenges?

Join us for a livestreamed debate where you will be able to vote on the question “Is Capitalism Broken?” on Thursday, August 20th at 2:30 PM ET.

Arguing YES: Nick Hanauer, Entrepreneur, Billionaire, and Venture Capitalist

Arguing NO: Jason Furman, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government

Learn More About the Debate

Add to Calendar

Election Questions That Matter

How should America choose its leaders—and how can the electoral system be improved? Explore more of our debates on the two-party system, Citizens United, and more.

• Has Citizens United Undermined Democracy?

• Two Cheers for Two Parties

• Does America Need a Third Party?

In the Headlines: Continuing Litigation on the Idaho Four Case

Last week, convicted murderer Bryan Kohberger, who allegedly murdered four University of Idaho students in their home in 2022, announced he had filed a petition challenging his conviction, citing concerns about how the plea deal came together and is seeking to abandon his guilty plea and obtain a trial.

In the past, we had a Think Twice conversation with “The Idaho Four: An American Tragedy” co-author Vicky Ward, which discussed how this case challenges us to reconsider elements of the criminal justice system. Watch the conversation now.

In the News

We’re headed toward the first true AI election

Jim VandeHei | August 5, 2026

Watch Jim debate the state of mainstream media

Why Democrats keep losing working-class voters

Ruy Teixeira | August 4, 2026

Watch Ruy debate whether the Democratic Party is too far left

Hiking Taxes on Capital and Corporations Is the Wrong Response to AI

Michael R. Strain | August 4, 2026

Watch Michael debate whether the American Dream is in decline

We Won the Greatest Civil Rights Victory of Our Generation. Here Are Some Lessons for the Next One.

Evan Wolfson | August 3, 2026

Watch Evan debate the Equal Protection Clause and same-sex marriage

Sanctuary policies undermine laws and destroy trust in government

Jessica Vaughan | August 4, 2026

Watch Jessica’s debate on securing the border

Private credit has dodged public scrutiny for too long - and regulators need to step in

Robert Pozen | August 3, 2026

Watch Robert debate whether the government as a shareholder is a proactive competitive strategy or should be a last resort

For the Motion: Elaine Kamarck

Against the Motion: Jed Ober

Opening Remarks

John Donvan:

Hi, everybody and welcome to Intelligence Squared. I am John Donvan. And something I heard multiple times during my career as a foreign correspondent living sometimes in other democracies, not always, but often, from people who lived in those democracies was, hey, you Americans, why do your election campaigns go on for so long? So, yeah, by comparison with Canada’s election campaigns, which usually start and finish in a couple of months, or Britain’s which only go on for about six weeks, or Israel’s, where candidates are actually barred from campaigning on TV until two weeks before Election Day, we are in a system where candidates are already declared and spending TV money and roaming the State Fair in Iowa, a full year out from election day when they still have all of those primaries yet to get through. So, yes, these primaries, while there are several reasons our campaigns run longer than I think anywhere else, one of the reasons is the primaries, which begin the winter before the summer before the election in the fall.

And then there are all of those primaries for seats in Congress. Now, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about primaries. So, why do they exist? And are they actually a net plus for our democracy? Well, smart people actually disagree about that, and therefore, we are going to debate right now this question, are primary elections ruining democracy? We have two guests to debate this question, each expert in how our elections work each haven’t given serious thought to this question. Elaine Kamarck who is at Brookings in the Harvard Kennedy School, and Jed Ober, former Director of Democracy International, currently serving as Chief of Staff to a member of Congress, both of our debaters have actually participated in primary elections themselves behind the scenes taking part in committees and campaigns alike. So, Elaine Kamarck and Jed Ober, thanks so much for joining us on Intelligence Squared.

Elaine Kamarck:

Hey, thanks for having me.

Jed Ober:

Thanks so much, John. Appreciate it.

John Donvan:

So, to let people know who’s a yes and who’s a no on this question, let’s just make this official. I’ll let you go first, Elaine, on the question are primary elections ruining democracy? Are you a yes, or no?

Elaine Kamarck:

I’m a yes.

John Donvan:

And Jed Ober, that makes you the [unintelligible]. Let’s make it official. Are you a yes, or no? Are primary elections ruining democracy?

Jed Ober:

I am definitely a no, John. And I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this.

John Donvan:

All right. Well, let’s get started. And we’ll go back to you, Elaine, because your yes is more challenging, I would say to the status quo. So, let’s have you go first, and tell us why you are arguing, yes, primary elections are ruining democracy.

Elaine Kamarck:

Well, okay. This is a controversial position, I understand. And it is definitely not a mainstream position. The United States is the only country in the world that uses primaries exclusively to nominate their leaders. And the problem with using primaries, which in the United States, we’ve only used for presidents exclusively since 1972, so it’s relatively recent, is that we no longer have an element of peer review in our presidential nomination process.

And peer review is a concept that is quite critical to every other profession -- medicine, electricians, lawyers, every other profession in the United States has some place where their peers say yes, this person is competent, no, this person is not. In European democracies, parliamentary democracies, mostly the leaders come from within a party conference, and from a -- or some kind of closed system. And most of the people participated in that actually know something about the people that they are going to elect to lead their party. We have a completely different system. We have a system that has become a wide-open system, where anybody can run for president.

Now between -- in the 23 years between 1945 and 1968, the only outsider that ran and he won was Dwight D. Eisenhower. And we call him an outsider because he hadn’t been in political office before. He’d never held a political office. He did, however, win the war in Europe and command the Allied troops in Europe, he was a pretty big deal. So, that’s an exception. Then in 1972, the United States underwent a quiet revolution. And we introduced what are binding primaries, which I’ll talk about a little bit later. But since then, we’ve had a televangelist run for president, a TV communicator, a wealthy businessman, the CEO of Godfather Pizza, a spiritual leader, a CEO of a test preparation company, not to mention tons of movie stars and other celebrities getting into the mix or being taught about.

Of these only one person one, Donald Trump. And so, you’ve got to go back and say, does it make sense to have a nomination system that allows people who have no government experience, run the most complicated and most consequential government in the world? That’s what our system does. And it is a problem, and I think it’s going to be more of a problem as the cost of communication decreases because of social media. And it’s more likely that we will get many other candidates with absolutely no government experience running for the most important and complicated job in government in the world.

John Donvan:

And I think you would say, proving that they can win while doing so.

Elaine Kamarck:

Yes, proving that they can win.

John Donvan:

All right, thank you very much for your opening. And Jed Ober, why are you a no on the question, are primary elections ruining democracy?

Jed Ober:

Well, thanks so much, John, I appreciate it and appreciate the opportunity to participate in this with Elaine, nobody knows the topic better than Elaine. So, I’m grateful to be able to share the podcast with you. So, I mean, I talk about this a lot, and I think, you know, one of the things that I try to have people picture is, you know, imagine a world where, you know, we didn’t have the presidential primary process in the United States of America. And you can do that very easily by bring yourself back in time to 2008. Imagine if Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama didn’t compete in 57 constituencies and Americans, in those 57 different constituencies didn’t get an opportunity to participate in that process. The way that I see it, you know, primaries aren’t ruining democracy, I think that they’re actually a fundamental building block to a healthy democracy, maybe the fundamental building block.

And I think a lot of the problems that people see with primaries are really symptomatic of other problems. You know, Elaine was talking mostly about the presidential level. And I would say that, you know, many of the things she said were about the Republican nominating process, the nominating -- and as Elaine knows, the nominating process that we use within the Democratic Party, is fundamentally different than the one that they use in the Republican Party, in my view. And the results are different, you know, we’ve never nominated a Donald Trump. I view the presidential primary process, as you know, the ultimate opportunity for the people to have their say in choosing who the nominee for the Democratic Party should be. And the Democratic Party of the United States of America, in my experience, is the most inclusive, transparent, well-functioning political party in the world.

And I just -- I’ve worked in democratic development in over 20 different countries, and I can tell you, without a doubt that the countries that have political parties where they actually include people in their primary processes, where they have granted people the opportunity to participate in their political primaries, those democracies are stronger than the ones that don’t. So, fundamentally, like I said, I think that primaries, you know, first, political parties in and of themselves are critical building blocks for democracies and that’s true in the United States of America, it’s true in every country in my view, and parties that operate with primary systems that actually allow the people to participate in them are stronger ones.

John Donvan:

All right, thank you, Jed. And thank you, Elaine. So, I want to pause the debate part for a moment and just do with your help a little history. As Elaine pointed out, primaries are a relatively new phenomenon, especially their full integration into the process.

She dates back to 1972 correctly. But they also didn’t exist really at all until the early 20th century. Elaine, why did we develop primaries in the first place? What was the goal?

Elaine Kamarck:

Okay, for most of the 20th century, until 1972, the way presidential candidates were nominated, was in a hybrid system. And it had the elements that Jed talked about as being good for the parties, as well as the elements that I talked about the element of peer review. So, here was the process, and let’s take 1960 as an example, that’s one of the last open presidential contests. In 1960, Jack Kennedy and his brother Bobby and various lieutenants went around the country meeting with party officials, party bosses if you want, in various places all around the country.

In those discussions, he had to convince those party leaders of two things that he could govern and that he could win. Okay, equally important in that process. Primaries turned out to be very important for Jack Kennedy. Because, in fact, people wondered if a Catholic could win. So, Jack Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, could win, when back in those days. So, Jack Kennedy said, well, okay, I’m going to run in Wisconsin, and show that I could win. So, he ran to the Wisconsin primary, he won. But the party leaders looked at the -- tea leaves there looked at the results and said, wait a minute, you won with the big Catholic vote. You didn’t win Protestants, we’re not convinced. So, then he had to go to West Virginia, which had very few Roman Catholics. And he did win West Virginia. And that was sufficient to get a lot of party leaders to, you know, come on and support Kennedy. And he obviously had a win at the Republican -- at the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles.

So, it was hybrid system. Primaries were used, they were used to test the viability of a candidate. But there were people that the party leaders simply wouldn’t even talk about, okay, because they were clearly not ready to be President of the United States. They weren’t ready to be a mayor, let alone president. I’ll put -- I’ll look at my own party. And I disagree with Jed wholeheartedly. The democratic process is essentially the same as the Republican process, because in 1972, what happened was the beginning of binding primaries, and both parties now have binding primaries. That means that unlike in 1960, where you could use the primaries to sort of see who you thought was electable, but then you chose your delegates separately.

Now, whoever wins the primaries gets the delegates and the delegates go to a convention, and they are more or less bound by the results of that primary. That means there’s no place in the system right now --

[music playing]

-- Where people who know something about government, look at presidential candidates and say, this person could be a president, this person could not be.

John Donvan:

More from Intelligence Squared U.S. when we return.

[music playing]

Welcome back to Intelligence Squared U.S., let’s get back to our debate.

Jed Ober:

I think our nominating process in the Democratic Party has a lot of good elements to it. I mean, you know, in terms of the idea of peer review, like I, you know -- look, we were at a position in 2008, throughout that nominating process, it became, you know, almost toxic to even mention, you know, the term superdelegate, it became, you know, really a rallying cry of one of the campaign’s that, you know, this election was somehow going to be decided by, you know, at the time, I think was, you know, 500 or something, I can’t remember the exact number of people but.

And then when we call the super delegates, you know, they are what we know as -- they’re automatically delegates, and they’re, you know, unpledged as they were. And, you know, I was not at all opposed to that, and that 2008 process, you know, they ultimately didn’t decide the election, you know, the candidate who, you know, won the most pledged delegates in that process ultimately became the nominee, which was a good thing. And a lot of those people who had pledged their support for a different candidate ended up supporting that nominee. But the check was there, which I think is, you know, part of Elaine’s point. But look, I would argue that -- and we’ve since, you know, I believe, you know, kind of whittled that number down and changed entirely what their role is in the nominating process.

[talking simultaneously]

Hold on, John. Let me make two more points. And look, I think that the peer review in the process, I do not think we have to -- and I’m not opposed to unpledged you know, automatic delegates, I am not so I don’t want -- and I do not think that our nominating process in the Democratic Party is bad. I really am not one of those people. And in fact, in 2016, when I was managing the Clinton campaigns engagement in the standing committees and in the broader convention process, I remember very vividly standing up in front of the group saying, you’re about to go into this Rules Committee -- these are the Clinton delegates. You’re about to go into this Rules Committee meeting and you’re about to hear a lot of stuff about our nominating process being undemocratic. It’s not. Like we have one of the most democratic processes in the world. And I truly believe that. But there were two points I just wanted to make briefly, John, that Elaine had mentioned before, and I do -- and I just disagree that the Republican nominating process is essentially the same as the Democratic one.

I think for two reasons, and you know, you can take them for what you want. One is, you know, a lot of those processes, you know, we distribute our delegates proportionally, and the Republicans didn’t when Donald Trump was elected, and that’s just a fact. And you know, so he could win states and take big hunks of delegates and become the nominee. And I would say that many, many of those Republican nominating processes in those states in different constituencies are less participatory than ours. And I think those are two really, really important distinctions.

John Donvan:

Okay, I understand. First of all, I want to make clear that both of you are Democrats, and both of you, I’m sure, we’re not happy with the election of Donald Trump. And I want to -- I’m bringing that up because I want to talk a little bit about what the election of President Trump implies for the thing we’re discussing. And just for the sake of a lay audience, I understand the mechanics matter a lot, but I’d like to discuss this at the level of values, the value of an individual person having a vote.

So, Donald Trump, Elaine, in your view, there was no peer review. And there were we know, plenty of Republicans, certainly at the beginning, did not want Donald Trump to be nominated. But they didn’t get to override -- they didn’t get to weigh in as peers. Trump came into a process and through the primary process actually eliminated the candidate that the Republican establishment preferred, who was Jeb Bush, and then everybody else in line after that, while millions of Republicans supported him, and people who were not Republicans, but in the primary millions of Republicans supported him. So, Jed, is that an argument for the way it should have been, that the people got to choose the guy that they really wanted over the person that the party machine, or the party establishment would have preferred?

Because there it is, the ultimate opportunity for people to have their say -- they had their say.

Jed Ober:

Sure, yeah. Look, nope. You are absolutely right. You know, I was not happy with the election [laughs] of Donald Trump. And worked very hard to defeat him in the general election. Unfortunately, we didn’t.

John Donvan:

But a smoke-filled room would not have allowed that to happen.

Jed Ober:

That’s right. I think that’s accurate. Although now you look at the Republican Party, I’m not convinced that would happen. I think maybe he would be there. But you’re right --

John Donvan:

All right, I want you to take this on as a challenge.

Jed Ober:

Sure, sure. No, no, I totally understand. And I completely agree with you that, you know, the Republican Party at that point in time would not have selected Donald Trump. However, I think that if they had made -- my argument, you know, within our party, and, you know, I haven’t advocated for changes to our nominating system, because I think, you know, they are the -- they would be the greatest changes for small deed democracy.

I want to win elections. I think that we open up our nominating process, we allow more people to participate in it. It’s the ultimate vetting process for our candidate. The candidate that comes out of that process, I guarantee you will be more competitive in the general election, if they participate in a nationwide nominating process that includes more Americans than less. And --

John Donvan:

Why do you think that? Yeah, make that case, please.

Jed Ober:

Because I truly believe that the more people you let participate in a primary process, the more likely you’re going to end up with a candidate that’s more palatable in a general election. And I think that’s true, up and down the ballot. And the reality is that the Republicans, you know, absolutely, they elected Donald Trump through the process that they have, but as I think I pointed out before, that I think their nominating process is imperfect, and I think they should make -- it’s -- I think it’s, you know, it’s very difficult for a political --

John Donvan:

So, Jed, I’m not the one here to debate you, but I just feel there’s an argument that is not -- that you’re not addressing that as a challenge, that this was a case where the people got what they wanted.

Jed Ober:

Well, yeah. And then in the general election, he won. So, the people ultimately did get what they wanted. And he won three states, by very narrow margins. But, you know, the reality is, is that, you know, the way that the system worked, you know, he became president, you know, if, you know, we, you know, I can’t I agree with you that, you know, if they had had a smoke filled room at that particular time, they would not have chosen Donald Trump, but that’s not the world we live in, like, we haven’t -- we have a democracy where people get to participate in the primaries. So, you know, and that’s a fundamental, you know -- like I said, I view that as a fundamental part of our democracy. Do I agree with the way the Republicans did it? No. Do I agree with the way that you know, who they nominated? No. I will say on the Democratic side, you know, we kind of almost had this -- you know, Bernie Sanders is no Donald Trump, you know, that’s obviously very clear.

However, he is not a Democrat. And you know, he almost won a nominating process twice. You know, maybe that’s a little bit hyperbolic. But.

Elaine Kamarck:

Let me jump in on this. Look, I agree that in this day and age, we are not going to get rid of presidential primaries. Okay, let’s put that out there. However, what I am looking for, and I’m open to suggestions, but I have some of my own ideas is a way to put some element of peer review back into the process. And that may mean a super delegate vote that happens early on before the primaries. So, that basically people who know something about government can say, we think these five people are best equipped to be President of the United States. We don’t think these four people are.

I mean, do you really think Marianne Williamson could be president -- would be a good President of the United States? I don’t. Okay. Lots of Republicans did not think that Donald Trump could be a good President of the United States, and they were probably right. And I would say that even without a partisan hat on. So, you know, think about it this way, in the old system, in 1960, Jack Kennedy had to go to Governor Lawrence, who was the powerful governor of Pennsylvania, and sit down in a smoke-filled room, probably with some bourbon or whiskey and say, here’s why I should be president. Here’s what I can do. Here’s what I believe in. Here’s how I can win. Imagine if Donald Trump had had to go through that process with a similar powerful governor of a state, and he sat down and said, I’m going to build a wall on the southern border. The President would -- the governor would have probably said, Okay, I can see that might be popular.

And then Donald Trump said, and I’m going to make Mexico pay for it. One of the stupidest statements ever made. How on earth would we make another sovereign company -- country pay for it unless we invaded them? Okay. The governor would say, are you kidding us? Are you crazy? How would you do that? Okay. In other words, the peer review process is a process that gets us people who know what they are talking about. And Donald Trump clearly didn’t in that campaign. So, my suggestion in books that I’ve written et cetera, is not that we get rid of primaries, but that we do something that says to the primary voters, look, these are the people we think, are capable of being President and these are the people we don’t think are. And then the primary voters can pick. But right now, in both parties, and that’s a misnomer, Jed. In both parties, the primaries are binding upon delegates, that whether it’s proportional, or winner take all doesn’t matter for this argument.

They are binding on delegates, which means that when a person like Trump or a Marianne Williamson, or somebody else wins the most delegates, and even with people in the party saying, oh, my God, this is a disaster, they can’t do anything about it. That’s a dangerous process for democracy. And we have seen it play out in 2016 and in the four years between 2016 and 2020. And we are now looking at a situation where for the first time in our history, our very democracy and election system is being threatened by this man. And frankly, the Republican Party knew he was not a good guy. When it, back in 2016, I went to the Republican Convention there for my book to do research. And people said to me things like, oh, this is our McGovern year, they thought he was going to lose, and therefore they’d get a pass on having supported him.

Governors -- Republican governors didn’t show up to that convention. Republican senators didn’t show up to that convention. They knew that they were walking into a disaster.

John Donvan:

Jed, you talked about other places where you’ve worked overseas, where the absence of a primary process was detrimental to democracy. Talk a little bit more about why you feel that’s the case, because it sounds like it’s the ultimate smoke-filled room situation in the places you’re talking about.

Jed Ober:

Yeah, and these are very different contexts, obviously, in my view, and you know, in mostly developing countries, so they’re to choose one problem above the rest is difficult in analyzing the kind of strength of their democracies and what’s needed to be done. But yeah, I mean, I mean, look, you know, and most of these systems are our parliamentary party list systems.

You know, interestingly, a lot of these countries have direct election of the President, you know, but the reality is, is in their legislative branches, which, you know, many times are unicameral, not having a party -- not having a primary process essentially just, you know, eliminates the participation of anyone except for the elite. I mean, that’s just the reality of it. To get placed on a party list, in, you know, many, many countries, you know, by party leadership, you know, is essentially, you know, an act of corruption, [laughs] you know, and, you know, there’s layers of issues with that. But, you know, and many, many places that I’ve worked, you know, the idea of parties, you know, actually without a quota that requires them to, the idea of them actually nominating women on a list, you know, is extremely farfetched.

John Donvan:

What does it say that we got George Washington without a primary system, and we got Abraham Lincoln without a primary system? I’m not sure which of you would want to take that question.

Elaine Kamarck:

Oh, and we got Roosevelt without a primary system, we got Kennedy without a primary system, we did just fine without a primary system. Look, the problem with most of the time, our primary system has worked pretty well. The problem that we saw that came to light in 2016, is there is a great vulnerability to the primary system, which is that once the primary system moved to binding primaries, and that’s the critical change, once you had the delegates were bound to the presidential candidate they got elected for and really had very little wriggle room to change their minds, you were stuck with a candidate who could in fact, with a very small percentage of the vote --

-- because remember, these were primaries have very low turnout traditionally, it favors -- you can find a candidate getting nominated who has an intense fraction of the party vote and does not represent the party and doesn’t represent the entirety. Let me read you as a little quote from Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, he said -- this is writing in 2014 -- “Primaries poison the health of that system and warp its natural balance. Because the vast majority of Americans don’t typically vote in primaries. Instead, it is the third of the third, most to the right or most to the left, who come out to vote, the 10 percent of each of the two extremes of the political spectrum. Making things worse, in most states, laws prohibit independents who are not registered with either party, and who make up a growing proportion of the electorate from voting in primaries at all.

In other words, primaries are not a perfect representation of the people. Right? Primaries represent the most passionate faction of one of the other political parties. And you can trace the polarization of American politics directly to presidential and congressional primaries. Because in congressional primaries, it’s even more extreme, you have a very, very small turnout, so, you have 13 percent to 19 percent of the voting age population voting in congressional primaries, and therefore, it is very easy for somebody who is on the far right, or, frankly, on the far left to win those primaries with very small amounts of votes.

John Donvan:

That don’t seem to be an accurate description of the present-day phenomenon, Jed. So, what is your response to that?

Jed Ober:

My position is not that primaries are perfect. I mean, I just think they’re essential.

You know, we absolutely should work to fix them and to try to make them better. I mean, and I don’t -- I think a lot of the problems though, like I said at the beginning, I think, are not necessarily a product of the primary themselves, but are symptomatic of other issues that we have, like voter participation, which Elaine mentioned. Like, yeah, absolutely, you know, people should participate more, and I’ve heard, you know, I think Elaine and other people suggest in the past that maybe we should have a primary day where they’re all held on one particular day. I’m all for that, you know, anything that we can do to increase voter participation is a good thing, in my view, especially in primaries. And, you know, we’re talking about the presidential primary, like, I think -- like Elaine had mentioned, you know, participation rates and congressional primaries are much, much lower, and they happen at all different times of the year and it’s very, very hard to get people out. But I would say that, you know, so I really do think that you know, it’s not necessarily the primary process in and of itself that results and you certainly find examples but the private process itself that results in extreme candidates, but I think that it’s low voter participation, and unfortunately, wildly gerrymandered districts.

John Donvan:

I found it striking Elaine that Jed said the primaries are essential to democracy. And you have actually not addressed the -- you said you don’t think they’re going away. And you said that the way that they function are problematic. But Jed is making the point that nevertheless, in a more ideal form performing more perfectly, they actually would be essential to democracy. What do you think about that?

Elaine Kamarck:

No, I think that’s not at all true. I think we had a very healthy democracy through much of the 20th century with no primaries at all. Okay, I think that the Western European countries, parliamentary democracies around the world have very healthy democracies, they change parties, they respect the change of parties, they don’t have primaries, they use party conferences, they nominate from the party list.

They don’t have primaries. I don’t think primaries are essential to democracy. I think open parties are essential to democracy, where people can easily participate in party structures, and where people can form new political parties when they want to. But I do not think primaries are essential to democracy.

[music playing]

John Donvan:

More from Intelligence Squared U.S. when we return.

[music playing]

Welcome back to Intelligence Squared U.S. I’m John Donvan. Let’s get back to our debate.

Elaine Kamarck:

A lot of people believe that somehow primaries were in the Constitution. Right? No. Parties aren’t even in the Constitution. Parties and primaries are covered by law under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court. Lots and lots of cases saying parties can choose their nominees any way they want to.

Why? Because they are a voluntary association. But what’s happened and the reason I say that I don’t think it’s realistic to get rid of primaries is that we’ve now got two generations of -- two or three generations, who all they’ve ever known is political primaries. So, they think that this is kind of a constitutional deal. It is not. And other democracies function quite well, nominate leaders without primaries.

John Donvan:

But they do very often, and so did in our system prior to the primaries, which particularly on the Democratic side, were developed, were enhanced to increase participation by minorities, by women through the 1970s and 1980s. Back in the days of the old, smoke-filled rooms, it was white men, and it was very easy to exclude those groups, the groups that did, Roosevelt and Lincoln. So, what’s better than a primary for bringing in participation by those often-marginalized groups of people, Elaine?

Elaine Kamarck:

Well, okay, first of all, let’s just go back to Roosevelt, or Kennedy, or any of the nominees, do you really think that in New York State, they excluded the Harlem voting machines, the powerful Harlan machines, from their deliberations on who was the convention delegates? No, of course not. Back then it was if you had a big black vote, you took in the black -- you took them in their leaders, you had the Italian vote, you had the Irish vote, you had the Jewish vote, I mean, come on. These were -- parties are interested in winning, okay, their job in putting together a nominee is not to exclude people, their job is to figure out who needs to be in the tent in order to win. So, you know, this sort of notion that somehow the old system was exclusionary doesn’t really hold water, if you look back at the history of it.

John Donvan:

All right, let me let Jed just respond to that point, to that one point.

Jed Ober:

Well, yeah, no, I mean, I think you make a very valid point. Look, I work in Congress, you don’t have to walk around Congress that long to realize there’s a lot of old white men.

[laughter]

And I have a hard -- and that’s with the system that we have now. So, you know, I have a hard time believing that if we went back all of a sudden, you know, they would not be nominating more women and people of color, I have a real hard time believing that. I don’t disagree with you that, you know, good politics, you know, considers, you know, the dynamics of a constituency. Like you pointed Elaine, that’s very true. I also just want -- if you don’t mind, John, I want to come back. I mean, I agree that, you know --

John Donvan:

Before -- I do want to let you get to the point, I just want to understand you’re kind of conceding that point, you are conceding that point to Elaine, then.

Jed Ober:

No, I think what I said at the outset was I very much disagree that if we went back in time that they would be nominating, you know, women and people of color.

You know, look at look at the makeup of our legislature now. I mean, and we have primaries [laughs]. You know, we -- and that has largely been because you know, we’ve increased, you know, representation of women in Congress, particularly in the house. But it’s largely been, I think, because the parties realized that, you know, female candidates were very electable at particular times, in 2018, and then I hid the Republican Party, to a large extent, came to that conclusion in 2020 in the house elections. But no, like I do not think with a more -- less participatory process that we would have, you know, the same or more diversity. I don’t think that’s accurate at all.

John Donvan:

Okay, so there was a point you said you wanted to get to.

Jed Ober:

Yeah, no, I just wanted to come back to the point about other countries operating, you know, well, and having healthy democracies.

Look, I agree that a healthy democracy can look different. And there are many different electoral systems. And you know, every country that has an electoral system in place thinks that their electoral system needs to be replaced with a different one to be perfected or improved. That’s just the reality of it, and they all have their problems. But I’m just not convinced that like, in a parliamentary system with fewer primaries, that, you know, it’s a good thing that, and I don’t know if this is exactly right, but I think in Britain, you know, they’re going to have a new prime minister, their Prime Minister lasted a month. And they are, you know, that will be choose chosen, you know, and it may be quite literally smoke-filled room, I don’t know. But. And it’s been how long since the -- you know, how many prime ministers ago did they actually have an opportunity to directly weigh into who should be their leader? And even then, it’s not direct. So, you know, and that happens, look at Israel as another example, right now, you know, they’re about to -- you know, in a very precarious situation, based on, you know, the system that they have in place.

And, you know, I’m not sure, you know, maybe it’s okay for democracy, in a sense, to continue to cycle through leadership, but I’m definitely certain it’s not good for governance.

John Donvan:

I want to go, Jed, come back to you. So, Elaine, clearly said, when I took your point that primaries are essential to democracy, she said, no, that there are other ways, there have been other ways, open parties, for example, other systems, as you have talked about, but make the case for essential.

Jed Ober:

I mean, there have been other ways in this country and other countries that we’ve done other things.

John Donvan:

I know, but you said they’re essential.

Jed Ober:

And I believe that’s the case, you know, we live in a different -- like, we there is no way that we could move away from the primary process now, absolutely no way. And they are essential, because people believe they’re a part of their democracy, whether or not it’s in the Constitution or not.

They are absolutely essential. And like I said, at the beginning --

John Donvan:

I’m sorry, what do you mean by essential? That our democracy would be less -- could not survive without them would be less democratic?

Jed Ober:

Oh, I think our democracy could probably survive without them. I definitely think it would be less democratic. There’s no doubt about it. I mean, people would not have the opportunity to participate to choose their nominees. If you went back in time, like I said, at the beginning, and you said, oh, sorry, you guys actually aren’t going to get to weigh in and choose between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, you know, you don’t get to participate in that process. We’re going to do that for you. Barack Obama wouldn’t have been president most likely. They would not have participated if we said, hey, you know, there’s going to be an election for the House of Representatives but we’re going to choose your nominee for you. I don’t think that’d sit well with the American public. And I don’t think it’d be a good thing.

Elaine Kamarck:

Can I jump in here, John?

John Donvan:

You don’t have to ever ask that question, just go [laughs].

Elaine Kamarck:

I mean, look, I take Jed’s point at this point in history, we cannot go back. We obviously -- I mean, people would be so angry if we said we’re not going to have a primary anymore. I agree. What I’m trying to point out is the real dangers and the real contribution the primary system now makes to the extreme polarization of our political system. And so, what I’m looking at; are there systems? Are there things we can do that would in fact, decrease the tendency of the primary system to result in the nomination of extreme candidates? One of them by the way, you mentioned Jed, which is to have a national primary day. One of the reasons that we do tend to nominate extremes in the congressional primaries is that these primaries start in March, and they end in September. Nobody really knows where they are.

If we had a Democratic primary day and a Republican primary day, it would probably -- I think we’d probably have a much higher turnout and probably much better candidates. But I also think, particularly for the President, that this tendency we’ve had for celebrities to run for president who have no business running for president who know nothing about governing at all, they don’t know how to run a county administrator’s office, let alone the Oval Office, there needs to be some way that people get to weigh in on this question. The voters may take it or leave it right. The voters may say, well, no, we like Donald Trump, regardless of the fact that he has no idea about most of the big issues that are going to face him as president, which was clear, by the way in the 2015 nominate and 2016.

So, I think that we need -- all I’m asking here is a little bit of a hybrid system to correct what is the dangerous tendency in the parties, particularly at the presidential level, to have no check on the results of the primaries.

John Donvan:

What would you call -- what’s the way to describe those people, party elders? The wise people? You didn’t like insiders, what would they be?

Elaine Kamarck:

Elected officials. In other words, the elected officials are legitimately -- they are also elected by the people.

John Donvan:

And so, did they get a veto? And that’s not a very nice word in this process. But yes, they would get a veto?

Elaine Kamarck:

Well, in some, you know, you could create this any way you wanted to, you could create it so they had a veto, and they would not be allowed to -- somebody wouldn’t be allowed to be on the Democratic ballot or Republican ballot, you could create it so that they would simply have a stamp of approval. Right? You can say, okay, the house caucus meets, they look at the candidates and they say, Yeah, you know, these five people are okay.

And you know, this person over here, who is who’s a TV star, guess what? He’s a great guy, he should stay in television. Okay.

John Donvan:

Well, again, that comes back to my question, are the people voting for the -- I think you’re hinting somebody might be a charlatan? Or certainly unqualified, people are seduced into voting for them. Is that the fault of the voters who are being given that shot through the primaries?

Elaine Kamarck:

I don’t think it is because I don’t think it is, I think you -- the way the old system used to work or the way the party conferences work in parliamentary democracies, is that the people ultimately do have the decision, right? But their choices are narrowed, right? And that’s what I’m really proposing here. Narrow the choices to people who are credible, Bernie Sanders was certainly a credible president in the United States, look at all he had done in his life.

He knew what he was talking about. Okay, so you’d have -- I mean, Ted Cruz, perfectly credible candidate, he knew what he was talking about, had a lot of experience. What I’m trying to guard against is, and I think we are, I think the internet, by the way on social media makes us much more vulnerable than we ever have been. What I’m trying to guard against is charlatans’ fakes, people coming along with a really good line and a really charismatic attitude, or really charismatic presentation, who get a lot of people to vote for them. And guess what? We’re stuck with them as nominees, and then as happened in 2016, even though majority of people voted against Donald Trump, he became President of the United States.

John Donvan:

And Jed, where are you on my question about the wisdom of the voters?

Jed Ober:

I think, Elaine hit on the exact point. And it’s that the electorate is very vulnerable, particularly right now.

And they’re, I think, at the end, you know, if we had higher participation rate, I think the wisdom of the electorate would shine through, but we don’t have higher participation, [laughs] right. But we’re in a very dangerous time. I mean, that’s the reality. And we have a real responsibility to try to look at the issue that we have with misinformation and social media and the internet and try to understand how we can make sure that people get real information.

John Donvan:

But you don’t think -- so you don’t think, though, that the primaries themselves as part of that process?

Jed Ober:

No, I mean, you could, you know, whether it’s a primary or general election, I mean, you know, the reality is, is that people are susceptible to -- and that I mean, it’s always been the case, it’s just now we have this media that is really supercharged in a way that it wasn’t before and where people have access to, you know, type of information in ways that we really just never imagined would be a part of our society. So.

And that’s a reality and something that we’re going to have to not only in politics, but it’s something that we have to wrap our heads around. But I don’t know. I mean, like, the point I made, I was making earlier is that, you know, primaries and elections can surprise you. And you look at some examples of when you’ve had primaries and moderate candidates have prevailed. You know, and I even think back to our own city, in D.C., I mean, if you look back at when our mayor was elected, I think she ran in a six-way primary, you know, she became mayor of the free world [laughs], of the capital of the free world with 35,000 votes, I think it was. And you know, you could certainly criticize that primary process just for the amount of people it takes to become mayor. But the reality is, she’s a moderate, and maybe the constituency with the, you know, highest plurality of Democrats in the country, potentially.

John Donvan:

I’m only breaking in because we’re hitting time, I just want to give you each a chance to just sort of make a closing statement based on the conversation that we’ve had. See if your thinking has evolved, see if you hold your grounds, or what it is you would want our listeners to be thinking and feeling about our question about whether primaries -- primary elections are ruining American democracy. Elaine, why don’t you go first?

Elaine Kamarck:

Okay. I just say that primary elections make democracy vulnerable to the extremes in both parties, particularly binding presidential primaries. It opens up a system where a radical candidate of one persuasion or another could get a small plurality of votes in low turnout primaries, because that’s what we’ve seen, and get the nomination and then become President of the United States with either a bunch of very radical ideas that don’t work or with no experience, and no dedication to democratic norms and processes.

So, it’s dangerous. Now, there I’m not proposing that we get rid of all primaries, I think that’s unrealistic. But I do think that things like making a national primary day could help because that would increase

\} turnout, and get rid of the problem of you know, 13 percent of the 30 percent deciding the outcome of a race. Or we could inject an element of peer review by other elected officials into the process, just to signal to the voters, look, people who know this business think that the following people could be president, and the following people really are not qualified to be president. And I think that that would help us protect our democracy. I think it’s protection against getting caught by a charlatan or some sort of extremist.

John Donvan:

And Jed, you get the last word to summarize your position.

Jed Ober:

Well, thanks, John. Yeah, I think that, as I said at the beginning, that primaries are a really important part of American democracy. I think that they should be a really important part of other democracies around the world. I think they would make those democracies more stable, they make those political parties more responsive to the citizens in those countries, as I think they have made our political parties more responsive to citizens here. I think that the presidential primary, the congressional primaries that we have, the Senate statewide primaries, those are processes that you know, whether or not they’re constitutional or not, they are entwined in American democracy at this point. And I believe that those, they provide an essential opportunity for people to participate and choose those nominees. And as somebody who has worked in the Democratic Party for a long time, I strongly believe that those primaries are essential to us actually nominating whether it be as a presidential candidate or house candidate or Senate candidate nominating candidates who are ultimately more competitive than a general election.

And I do think that we need to --

[music playing]

-- I fully agree with Elaine that we need to take steps to improve on our primary process. But that primary process is a really important part of American democracy, and it should remain that way.

John Donvan:

Okay, so some middle ground on reforming the primaries, at least. But Jed Ober and Elaine Kamarck, I want to thank you so much for joining us on Intelligence Squared.

Elaine Kamarck:

Thank you so much for having us.

Jed Ober:

Thank you, Elaine.

John Donvan:

And the conversation you just heard everyone perfectly captures why we do this. You know, the way that discourse happens these days, particularly around politics, it’s pretty broken. And that’s why it is so unusual, but also refreshing to hear two people who disagree actually be able to converse rationally and civilly and shed some light. And we know from many of you, that’s why you listen to us. So, I would like to remind you, as you turn to us for this, we turn to you for support because we’re a nonprofit, and its contributions and support from listeners like you that keep us going so please consider sending us a buck or two or 10 or 50.

Whatever works. It’ll give you a stick and what we’re doing here every week, this week, and beyond. For now, I’m John Donvan. Thank you so much for joining us at Intelligence Squared and we’ll see you next time. Thank you everybody for tuning into this episode of Intelligence Squared made possible by a generous grant from the Laura and Gary Lauder venture philanthropy foundation. As a nonprofit, our work to combat extreme polarization through civil and respectful debate is generously funded by listeners like you, by the Rosenkranz Foundation, and friends of Intelligence Squared. Robert Rosenkranz is our chairman. Claire Conner is CEO. David Ariosto is head of editorial. Julia Melfi and Marlette Sandoval are our producers. Lis Matthow is our consulting producer. Damon Whitmore [spelled phonetically] And Kristen Miller [spelled phonetically] are our radio producers. Andrew Lipson is Director of Production. Raven Baker [spelled phonetically] is our Events Operations Manager. And I’m your host, John Donvan. We’ll see you next time.

Join us for a live Oxford-style debate on Thursday, August 20th at 2:30 PM ET featuring two of the nation’s leading voices on economic policy as they examine one of the defining questions of our time.

Arguing YES will be entrepreneur and venture capitalist Nick Hanauer, who managed, founded, or financed over thirty companies, selling one (Aquantive Inc) to Microsoft for $6.4 billion and another (Juno Therapeutics) to Celgene in 2019 for $9 billion, while at the same time advocating for raising taxes on the wealthy and a $15 minimum wage.

Arguing NO will be renowned economist Jason Furman, President Obama’s chief economist who served as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and played a major role in the Obama administration’s economic policies. John Donvan, the most experienced debate moderator in America, will moderate.

About the Debate

For decades, capitalism appeared to have won the argument, driving innovation, economic growth, and rising living standards. But for many Americans, that prosperity now feels increasingly out of reach. Dissatisfaction has reshaped American politics, fueling the rise of the Democratic Socialists of America and contributing to Gallup’s finding that only 54% of Americans view capitalism positively — the lowest level it has recorded.

Defenders argue capitalism remains the greatest engine of prosperity and innovation ever devised, and that government failures, restrictive housing and labor policies, and inadequate competition — not markets — are to blame for today’s challenges.

Critics counter that today’s capitalism increasingly rewards ownership over work, allows economic power to translate into political influence, and generates inequality severe enough to undermine social cohesion and democracy.

In this debate, a billionaire who has managed or founded over thirty companies who also advocates for addressing inequality faces a prominent Obama administration economist with a competing vision of the system to answer this question: Is Capitalism Broken?

Why This Debate Matters

From inflation and affordability to artificial intelligence, housing costs, labor markets, corporate consolidation, and economic opportunity, debates over capitalism are shaping policy decisions worldwide.

Has capitalism drifted away from its original promise? Or is it still the best engine for innovation and prosperity despite today’s challenges?

Live Stream Debate Details

Thursday, August 20th | 2:30-3:30 PM ET

Audience Participation: Live viewing and Q&A; submit your questions in the chat for a chance to have them asked during the audience Q&A, time permitting.

Post-Debate Vote: Once the debate concludes, you’ll have 24 hours to vote on who you think made the stronger case. *Click to vote here.

On average, 32% of our audience changes their mind after hearing a debate. Will you?

Add to Calendar

We’re celebrating America’s 250th anniversary by taking on some of the biggest questions surrounding the nation’s founding. Few are more enduring, or more debatable, than whether we should continue to revere the Founders or take a more critical view of their legacy. Benjamin Franklin himself admitted that the new Constitution was not perfect, and he asked his colleagues to approach the finished document with humility.

Americans remain deeply connected to the country’s origins: a Cato Institute poll reported that 70% of Americans believe its founding principles remain relevant today and a recent Gallup poll says the United States has succeeded at least “a fair amount” in living up to its founding ideals. Yet in that same poll, 77% of Americans believe the Founders would be disappointed with the state of the country today, as public opinion is far more divided over the Founders themselves.

As our debaters go over in this episode, should figures like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin still be celebrated as national heroes—or is it time to stop putting them on a pedestal? Watch the debate now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube and as always, let us know what you think.

ARGUING YES:

Osita Nwanevu, Contributing Editor at The New Republic; Columnist at The Guardian

“We should leave behind our culture of Founder veneration and worship. Here, 250 years into our history, in a country that Founders wouldn't recognize, facing problems the Founders could not have imagined, and bearing aspirations and ideals that I don't think the Founders shared, I don't believe that the intentions of the Founders should continue to bind us. We should be less interested in what the Founders had as expectations for us than whether our institutions and our country measure up to our expectations here and now.”

ARGUING NO:

Helena Rosenblatt, Distinguished Professor of History, French, and Political Science, and the MA Program in Liberal Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center

“I admire the Founding Fathers for their courage, for believing that a republic is possible in a large state. This was not believed at the time. People thought that America would fail, that republics were not possible... They gave us language that still resonates: natural rights and equality. They gave us the beautiful words, 'We the People [of the United States], in order to form a more perfect Union.’ We — not a king, not God, but we, a perfect union, and that's beautiful as well. I think that can continue to inspire us.”

As America marks its 250th anniversary, the Founders remain some of the nation's most admired — and debated — figures. Their vision shaped the republic, but their legacies continue to spark disagreement over which of their ideas, achievements, and flaws deserve the most attention.

Two Sides to Every Story: How Do America’s Founding Principles Hold Up?

Questions about the nation's founding ideals have moved well beyond the history books. What did the Founders actually envision for the republic they created? Have their principles endured through two and a half centuries of political, social, and cultural change, or have they been fundamentally reinterpreted by each new generation, for better or worse?

These two thought-provoking essays offer competing visions of the American experiment and what it means to uphold the legacy of 1776 in 2026:

1776 vs. 2026 by Cal Thomas

vs.

The promise of America: Founding Fathers didn’t just make liberty a democratic claim — they expected we would continue their argument by Ken Burns

Which side do you agree with? Let us know your thoughts.

Leave a comment

The Constitutional Questions Still Open to Debate

The Constitution remains at the center of many of today's biggest debates — and ones in our future. Continue exploring questions about America's founding principles with our debates on originalism, what it takes to interpret the Constitution in the Supreme Court, and other constitutional issues shaping the country now.

• Should SCOTUS Focus on the Original Meaning of the Constitution?

• Think Twice: Reading the Constitution with Justice Stephen Breyer

• Should the U.S. Call a Convention to Amend the Constitution?

In the News

We sacrifice the humanities at our peril

Dominic Selwood | July 26, 2026

Watch Dominic’s debate on whether museums should repatriate cultural artifacts

The Saudi Nuclear Deal Invites Disaster

Matthew Kroenig and Henry Sokolski | July 26, 2026

Watch Matthew’s debate on whether Trump or Tehran is winning the Iran war

The U.S. could become dependent on China for life-saving drugs

Alina Polyakova and Kiana Aran | July 29, 2026

Watch Alina’s debate whether Trump’s Russia policies are a return to normalcy or a defeat for America

Andrew Tate in His Own Words: On Men’s Rights, Anti-Feminism and How He ‘Threatens the System’

Jackson Katz | July 24, 2026

Watch Jackson debate whether identity politics can help Democrats engage men

A Peace Plan for the Data Center Wars

Joe Nocera | July 27, 2026

Watch Joe debate intergenerational wealth in our Generational Divides series

How Netanyahu Lost America

Franklin Foer | July 27, 2026

Watch Franklin’s debate on whether social media is good for democracy

Christopher Nolan Has Rebuked the Spirit of the Age

David French | July 26, 2026

Watch David’s debate on whether constitutional free speech principles can save social media companies from themselves

Congress Had A Chance To Help Military Families. Why Did It Say No?

Jeanne Allen | July 28, 2026

Watch Jeanne debate whether charter schools are overrated

Trump can finish what 12 presidents failed to do in Cuba

Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore | July 27, 2026

Watch Arthur debate whether the rich are taxed enough

Arguing Yes: Osita Nwanevu

Arguing No: Helena Rosenblatt

Opening Video

Osita Nwanevu (00:00:00):

I think that the culture of believing that the Founders got everything right prevents us from seeing those flaws. We make excuses for them. Here, 250 years into our history, in a country the Founders wouldn’t recognize, bearing aspirations and ideals that I don’t think the Founders shared, I don’t believe that the intentions of the Founders should continue to bind us.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:00:18):

What’s going on today is not helpful, it’s not healthy. We need to rekindle some kind of civic values. As flawed as these individuals were, I think we need something that binds us, that unites us, and these are great models in that way, for us to emulate.

Opening Remarks

John Donvan (00:00:41):

This is Open To Debate. I’m John Donvan. Hi, everybody. Uh, go back two and a half centuries and the men who drove the American Revolution, men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and John Adams and all the rest, the men we call the Founding Fathers, sometimes just the Founders, they never heard the term culture war. But now, just as we’re celebrating the nation’s 250th birthday, these men stand most prominently at the heart of a new culture war battle. They have been named in a report just released by the Trump administration that is accusing the National Museum of American History of being too woke. The administration is arguing that the museum, which is part of the Smithsonian Institution, does not do enough to honor the Founders, and by m- omission is actually dishonoring them. The museum leadership disputes that. Other critics say the report itself is methodologically flawed and biased. The White House pushes back, “No, it’s not.”

So yes, we’re in the middle of a classic culture war face-off. But while the Smithsonian waits to see if the White House is gonna take some action against the museum, we are not going to debate what’s happening there, in this episode. Instead, because there does appear to be some legitimate disagreement in general around how to honor the men who gave us the Declaration of Independence and victory over Britain and the Constitution, we’re gonna look directly at that question, about the men and their work. Here’s what we’re asking in this debate, and we’re bringing in two debaters to take opposite sides. Is it time to stop idolizing the Founders?

So let’s meet our debaters. A- answering yes to that question, it’s time to stop idolizing, I wanna welcome Osita Nwanevu, who is a contributing editor at the New Republic, a columnist at The Guardian, author of The Right of the People: Democracy and the Case for a New American Founding.

Osita, welcome to the program. It’s great to have you on Open To Debate.

Osita Nwanevu (00:02:29):

Thank you so much.

John Donvan (00:02:31):

Uh, could you tell us in one sentence, and I just want it to be one sentence so we don’t launch the debate, because I’m sure it’s gonna be germane to your arguments. Your book calls for a new American founding. In that one sentence, what do you mean by that?

Osita Nwanevu (00:02:43):

So what I mean by that is that taking after, among others, the historian, uh, Eric Foner, who argues that the 13th and 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution after Reconstruction matter to a second founding, I do believe we have had, in this country’s history, moments where we fundamentally rework our institutions, and I’m arguing in the book that, given the political and economic challenges we face, we’re due for another one.

John Donvan (00:03:04):

Thank you very much for that. And I’m sure we’re gonna hear more about your point of view on that as we have the discussion. But that discussion also includes Helena Rosenblatt, a historian, a professor of history, French, and political science at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, author of The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the 21st Century. Helena, welcome to the program. It’s great to have you.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:03:25):

Thank you. Thank you so much for inviting me.

John Donvan (00:03:26):

Oh, it’s our pleasure. And you were born in Sweden.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:03:28):

Yes.

John Donvan (00:03:29):

Now you’re an American, I’m just interested, having come from Sweden, growing up in Sweden, when did the Founding Fathers of the United States, uh, kind of begin to dazzle you?

Helena Rosenblatt (00:03:39):

Well, I went... My father was a diplomat, he was, uh, stationed in Beirut, Lebanon, and there I went to the American Community School. And as a young girl, I learned about the Founding Fathers. I probably heard little stories, um, about George Washington, uh, chopping down the- the cherry tree and not lying about it, and Benjamin Franklin, we had these little books. I know those were mythologized, but they really, uh, kindled my love for- for history and my love for this country and made me very curious about the Founding Fathers.

John Donvan (00:04:11):

All right. E- excellent background to know as we go into this co- conversation and this debate. And let’s start the debate with our opening statements. We want each of you to take four minutes, or up to four minutes, to explain why you’re taking the position you are. Osita, y- you’re up first. You’re arguing, yes, it’s time to stop idolizing the Founding Fathers. Please tell us why.

Osita Nwanevu (00:04:30):

Sure thing. So as I think is generally good practice in debates like this, I should talk a little bit about how I’m interpreting the resolution. In arguing that we should stop idolizing the Founders, I’m not here to argue that we should no longer consider them important figures, or for a wholesale rejection of everything they did and said. Uh, what I am arguing is that we should leave behind our culture of Founder veneration and worship. Here, 250 years into our history, in a country the Founders wouldn’t recognize, facing problems the Founders could not have imagined and bearing aspirations and ideals that I don’t think the Founders shared, uh, I don’t believe that the intentions of the Founders should continue to bind us. We should be less interested in what the Founders had as expectations for us, than whether th- our institutions and our country measures up to our expectations here and now.

And there are basically three things I’d like to say, uh, in support of this point. Uh, first is that I don’t think the Founders actually wanted us to revere them in the ways that we’ve come to revere them. Uh, Jefferson, I think is most famous for having this attitude, writes famously to Madison in 1789 that he doesn’t believe that constitutions can justly last more than 19 years or so. After that it would be the dead hand of one generation extending itself over the generations unjustly. Um, and he’s obsessed with this question over the course of his life, actually.

So in 1816, for instance, he writes to Samuel Kercheval, a lawyer and historian in Virginia, on Virginia’s Constitution, uh, the following. “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the Ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. We might as well require,” he goes on to write, “a man to still wear the coat which fitted him as a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regiment of their barbarous ancestors.”

Now, Jas- Jefferson’s a little bit of a radical in this respect, but the other Founders said very similar things. Madison in Federalist 14, “Is it not the glory of the people of America that, while they’ve s- paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times and other nations, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their own situation, and the lessons of their own experience?”

And finally, you have George Washington writing to his nephew, Bushrod, in 1787, just a couple of months after the Convention in Philadelphia. “I think the people, for it is with them to judge, can, as they will have the advantage of experience on their side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which are as necessary as ourselves. I do not think that we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue than those who will come after us.”

And the irony of our c- that culture of Founder worship, to my mind, is it implies that Washington didn’t know what he was talking about. Uh, we do talk about the Founders as though they were more inspired, more wise, and more virtuous than the Americans who came after them, and certainly more than the American people today. Uh, by contrast, what I’m here to argue today, fundamentally, is that Washington and Madison and Jefferson, in their humility, in a critical distance from themselves, and their optimism about what Americans will learn from experience, were right.

Two other points I want to make briefly. We have other heroes. Uh, certainly we’ve had our pick of transformative presidents, uh, from Lincoln on, I think both Roosevelts, Lyndon Johnson, Reagan, for better or for worse. Uh, people like Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens, people like Samuel Gompers, Mother Jones. Uh, all kinds of characters in our pantheon of- of potential heroes that we don’t talk about enough, because I think we’ve lionized the Founders so much.

And the last point I wanna make is that I don’t think we should believe in the Founders more than we believe in ourselves. Over the course of writing the book I just published, I was very, very struck by the vision of America laid out by Walt Whitman, where he lays out this vision of the country, as a place where human agency would really be honored and human beings would flourish more than any other country that existed before. Um, Whitman believed that the people to m- lionize in America were the American people themselves, um, that there was beauty and virtue and wisdom in ordinary folks. Um, I think that’s the kind of vision of America that we can all subscribe to, and I don’t think we need the Founders in order to have that kind of inspiration guide us.

John Donvan (00:08:36):

Thank you very much, Osita. Helena, you’re, uh, taking the opposite side, you believe that it is not time to stop idolizing the Founders. Your four minutes begin now.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:08:43):

Thank you. Thank you very much for... I, I really appreciate this kind of, uh, debate, especially, uh, given the culture wars, it’s, uh, r- really nice to have this sort of civil debate. And I agree with- with at least some of what Osita just said. Um, but I think, and I also don’t think that I worship the Founding Fathers or we should worship the f- s- Founding Fathers. We don’t make a religion out of, out of the Constitution or out of the, um, the Founding Fathers. But I do admire them, I do respect them, I am very grateful for them. I am grateful for them having produced this amazing document, uh, documents, um, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, that have lasted over 200 years. Um, and, uh, when you look at... I’m a, a, f- European historian and I’ve w- written a lot about and thought a lot about France. And France had, uh, some say 17 constitutions, um, and, and a lot of revolutions, uh, and a lot of disorder and chaos and, uh, yeah, uh, bad stuff. And we have not, here in this country.

I admire the Founding Fathers for their courage, for believing that a republic is, uh, possible in a large state. This was not, um, believed at the time. People thought that, uh, uh, America would fail, uh, that republics were not possible. They were incredibly courageous. They were brave. They gave us language that still resonates, natural rights and equality. They gave us the beautiful words, “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.” We, not a king, not a, not a G- not God, but we. Uh, and, and a perfect union, a union. Uh, and that’s beautiful as well. And I think that can continue to inspire us.

Um, now there’s something I also want to say that is kind of a li- a, a little bit personal, but also psychologists, I think, agree that we need stories, we need people whom we can admire. And I find that what’s going on today is not helpful. It’s not healthy. I, I disagree with this phrase that we should stop idolizing the, the Founding Fathers, because I think that they’ve been, they’re being criticized unfairly over and over again. I see it with my own students. People need stories, they need... uh, as flawed as these individuals were, um, I think we need something that binds us, that unites us, and these are great models in that way for us to emulate.

John Donvan (00:11:37):

Thank you very much, uh, H- Helena. So I- I just want to read back my notes on what I think I’ve heard each of you saying in the, in, in your opening statements. I, I think we recognize that there’s a baseline traditional view that has been dominant for decades of the Founding Fathers as b- being, uh, a unique set of individuals. They’re, they’re the ones in the statues, they’re the ones we put in marble looking off into the distance, and they have been accorded a special status. Not to the level o- of idolizing, I don’t think, uh, you’ve already made it clear, Helena, you’re not arguing to idolize, and we don’t mean that word to mean, to, to indicate that there’s a re- (laughs) religious worship in any sense. We mean it to say that they do have this special status, have en- enjoyed it for some time. Uh, and as you indicate, uh, that’s being somewhat challenged in certain circ- uh, circles now.

So with that as the baseline, uh, Osita is parting with that. Um, he says, um, their unique status, uh, has been somewhat oversold, that they have been over-lionized, absolutely acknowledges that they made an important contribution, but not to such a degree that they still merit the kind of civic veneration that we’re talking about as these dazzling and noble figures. Um, he wants to keep some distance, he wants to acknowledge that their thinking, uh, important at the time, has not kept pace with the evolution of the U.S. as a nation and as an experiment. Uh, in that regard, um, he’s written, uh, about wanting to, uh, to revisit the Constitution, not just through the amendment process, but in a much more profound way for a major overhaul.

Uh, and, and finally, in general, he doesn’t think that we need to look to, um, a class of heroes to, um, validate who we are. We don’t need saints to kickstart the, uh, the story of our democracy, uh, especially as he doesn’t think that this group actually put an enormous amount of faith in democracy as we understand it and aspire to it today.

Um, Helena, I hear you taking a reverse position. You do say that these men do merit a unique form of reverence, again, not worship and not idolization, but that they, they do stand out. Um, so we’re not holding you to that term. That, uh, they deserve a dis- a distinct and unique s- respect. You are concerned that you think that there’s a trend going in an opposite direction, that, um, there is a move to take them down a peg. Um, you think they are relevant today because their ideas continue to be relevant when it comes to grappling with the big questions that they were, uh, th- th- they were capable of unique wisdom and courage, uh, and you consider them sort of incredible. So, uh, and you also make the point at the end of your closing, i- in, in disagreement with Osita, that there is value to having heroes, to, uh, to, um, recognizing and admiring greatness, and you feel that that was embodied in these individuals, and to- to demote them leads to some, you know, kind of outcome that you’re very m- much not happy with.

So I think that there’s a lot of disagreement there, but nobody is, n- nei- you- you’re neither saying that they were gods, uh, on one side, nor are you saying that they were depraved on the other. Uh, we’re talking about where to place them on the spectrum, uh, while acknowledging that they made contributions, but how do we rate those contributions now?

So Ati- Osita, I wanna take this to you first, where Helena, um, is arguing that, yes, they were flawed. And of course, very often this conversation res- revolves around the fact that they were, uh, many of them were slave owners, uh, which, uh, in the light of history, looks like, uh, a very, very serious flaw. She also says they were one of a kind, um, and that their wisdom and insight set us on a course that still is responsible for very, very successful s- outcomes of various sorts today, that they do, that they are different, they are special. And can you take that on?

Osita Nwanevu (00:15:18):

Sure thing. So look, I mean, I think that the founding of the United States was an extraordinary thing in world history. Um, I think that there was a tremendous achievement. Um, I’m not somebody... I’m, I’m on the left, but I, I part ways with some people on the left who don’t think that there was anything, especially promising in the American example, and what happened in the American Revolution, I think that there was. Um, but I also think, uh, that really taking the Revolution seriously, um, really taking the Founders seriously, uh, means taking them seriously as political theorists, political actors, um, and not as a kind of, uh, canon of saints, which I, I do think that we have a culture of kind of trying to make them.

Um, you know, there, I mean, there’s one way this debate could play out, which is, as you described, you know, we talk about the Founders as slave owners, we talk about the Founders as people who participated in the genocide of Native Americans, we can talk about the Founders as people who didn’t believe in the equality of women. I think that these things are true. Um, but they’ve never really been a focus of my writing and thinking about the Founders for a couple of reasons. One is that I don’t think that argument persuades very many more people. If you’ve not been persuaded here in 2026 that Thomas Jefferson was not a moral exemplar because he owned slaves, there’s nothing else you can say on that subject that’s gonna (laughs) persuade and, and convert somebody at, at this point. That argument’s been heard, uh, they’re part of our culture, they, you know, they’re, they’re not, they’re trivial at this point, or, or at least kind of common.

Um, but again, you know, I, I’m somebody who likes to extract what I can from history and I’m somebody who likes to think about, uh, because nobody has attitudes progressives have today across history, um, what nonetheless we can learn. Um, and I think, again, as I say in the opening, um, ironically, one of the things that we can learn from the Founders, um, is that future generations and successor generations of Americans can build upon the experience, uh, of their forefathers, um, and utilize their experience with the c- institution they create, to create new ones. And that, actually, the American people have the right to fundamentally rework their institutions if they deem that necessary. That’s what the Founders did (laughs) in the act of the Revolution. They broke from a set of institutions that they though were no longer working, established in the Declaration that it is the right of all people across all time to evaluate their systems on the basis of their principles and break from them.

And ironically, we talk about the Founders in a way that we, that, I think, refuses to take that action seriously. Um, we tell ourselves that there was one justified revolution in our history, one justified critical attitude towards preexisting institutions, and everything that’s followed in America, um, exists only to, to reify that initial founding. I don’t think that’s the right attitude to have. I think that we’re in a moment where, I, I’m much more skeptical about the, the durability and the the s- uh, stability of the constitution they founded than, than the f-, uh, than Helena seems to be.

John Donvan (00:18:00):

Well-

Osita Nwanevu (00:18:00):

Um-

John Donvan (00:18:01):

... let me, let me break... I just want to break in because you made a n- number of good points now, and I just wanna give, uh, Helena a chance to respond to some of it. Helena, what, what would be your first response to what you’re hearing from Osita?

Helena Rosenblatt (00:18:11):

I think there’s a little bit of contradiction in, in what Osita just said, because on the one hand, we should move beyond them. On the other hand, they themselves said that the Constitution, you know, might need amending. I mean, not might, but, but definitely needs and that we shouldn’t worship the Constitution as it was. I have studied the Enlightenment in America and the Enlightenment in France very carefully. And thinkers like them believed in progress, believed that society was gonna change over time. They were quite idealistic. Um, they believed that things were gonna get, get better, more people were going to, um, become educated, and over time, uh, uh, most likely the Constitution would have to be amended to, um, account for that.

Now, um, uh, heroes, on the question of heroes, I don’t s- we can have many heroes. There’s no reason that we can’t have many heroes. But let’s not forget those, the Founding, uh, Fathers and, um, a- a- and demote them in this way. I don’t think it serves a purpose. Yes, maybe we need to change-

John Donvan (00:19:20):

Do, do, do you, do you feel it’s a demotion that we’re talking about, is happening?

Helena Rosenblatt (00:19:24):

Yeah. I, I do. I do. It’s a, a demotion that, that worries me also. I think in this day, this day, um, it’s not healthy. Uh, it’s not healthy. Our Constitution is under attack, and I think, uh, it’s, it’s maybe our, our, uh, our, our only tool to, to save our liberal democracy. Uh, and so to start talking about changing it right now, um, I, I just don’t agree with.

And one more thing I want to say. Um, uh, demoting them and the Constitution right now, I think is, is actually dangerous given that our liberal democracy is under attack, and i- this may be the only thing that can, that can save us in this, in this terrible moment that we’re living through.

Um, and the other, the other thing I want to say is, uh, there is no reason to think that, um, you know, that, that w- I, I think that in saying, let’s stop idolize, i- idolizing the Founding Fathers, we can say that by, by looking at them this way, from our perspective today, um, there’s a fear that we’re idolizing ourselves, you know? Uh, h- we’re standing in judgment from our perspective, with our values today, and, uh, uh, what are people gonna say about us? Uh, how, and how is it, how is it, uh, how are you sure that, uh, g- writing a, a, a new constitution, uh, a new founding, how it’s gonna be any better than what has survived for two hun- over 200 years?

Osita Nwanevu (00:20:59):

Well, look, I mean, I, I certainly hope that 200 years from now, uh, given that I fully expect Americans in the future, if we’re still lucky enough to be around, will know more than we do, have studied political issues more than we have, uh, have had debates about what their values ought to be. I, I fully expect that they’ll come to different conclusions about the nature of government and what government should look like than we might have now. And I think that they should have the right, 200 years from now, or whenever it happens to be, to work their institutions on, on that basis. Um, that’s, I think, the, the Founders’ perspective. They really believed in the possibility of learning from experience, as you say, Helena, to, to iterate, to take what’s, uh, you’ve been given, to work with it for some time, have debates, have arguments, and then maybe come to a different set of conclusions.

I think the problem now is that we have a constitution, uh, that is one of the hardest in the world to amend. It hasn’t kicked around so long purely because it’s, it was perfect and they got everything right, but it’s actually very, very structurally difficult to make the kinds of amendments that the Founders imagined. Um, there’d be t- people will talk about us never, never ha- having the ability to amend the Constitution again. Um, and that’s despite the fact that I think we do have very, very deep structural flaws that are worth addressing that are frustrating our ability to make policies and that are deranging our politics. Um, and I think that the culture of believing that the Founders got everything right, or got most things right in 1787, prevents us from seeing those flaws. We make excuses for them.

John Donvan (00:22:23):

So that is what you say is fundamentally the problem with the kind of, again, uh, I’m gonna use the term hero worship, knowing that that’s not a term that, uh, Helena’s embracing, but we all know what I mean by that, that that stature is... You say that the, the harm in that is that it av- it causes us to avoid seriously questioning some of the tenets of the Founding, uh, of, of our system?

Osita Nwanevu (00:22:44):

I think that’s right. You know, I- I’ve gone on tour for this book for a better part of a year now, and, you know, every so often I’ll ask people who criticize the argument, “Okay, well, what do you think is wrong with the Constitution?” Is there anything that you can point to as part of the basic design of this document that they think might be amended, might be changed, might be fundamentally altered, given that we now have more than two centuries of experience with it? We’ve seen constitutions around the world develop, Republican governments around the world. We have political science as a discipline that did not exist in 1787. We a- approach political questions with more rigor and empiricism than the Founders did. Is there anything that you think, given all that, we should fundamentally alter this document, uh, with, on the basis of, now that we’ve had it for more than two centuries?

John Donvan (00:23:23):

So let me, let-

Osita Nwanevu (00:23:24):

And many people say, no.

John Donvan (00:23:25):

... let me bring then to Helena the, the, the objection you have to the, uh, to, to the elevation of this group of Founders from 250 years ago, is that that is preventing the United States as a culture, as a body politic, from taking a long, hard look at how it’s operating now, that that gets in the way of serious, profound amendment of the Constitution.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:23:47):

I don’t, uh, u- u- understand why, um, given the fact that it’s so hard to, to, uh, make amendments, that it’s going to be any easier to, uh, totally rehaul the, um, the Constitution. Um, and I, and I admire your optimism, um, that w- we’re getting better, um, political science is getting better, um, that we know more, and so we would write a better constitution today, but I don’t really see any evidence of that at all. I see polarization, I see anger, I see despondence. I see students, I think that their, um, I think that their, you know, c- civic, um, investment is going down, they’re cynical. Uh, and that’s why I think we n-, you know, w- we need to, uh, we, we need to rekindle some kind of co- uh, some kind of civic values.

And, uh, and we can start with these, I agree, flawed individuals, but who wrote something beautiful. We can discuss it. I teach intellectual history. We read the great thinkers. I’m a believer in reading these great thinkers, um, the, who en- (laughs) tend to be, uh, dead white men, and, uh, and that’s, uh, a shame. Um, but-

John Donvan (00:25:08):

Are, are you saying, Helena, that they, they bequeathed a kind of s- a system that has a kind of inherent stability? The, the slowness of change that Osita has an issue with, that that inherent stability that they bequeathed us in their thinking and in the c- in the document that they constructed is actually a good thing?

Helena Rosenblatt (00:25:26):

Yes, I do think so. Uh, I, I think, again, that, um, uh, they have created stability and order for many, many years.

Osita Nwanevu (00:25:35):

Well, I mean, I think, uh, you know, it’s up to the viewer. Do you, do people watching and, and, and listening to this think that we live in a stable country today? Does it seem like the Constitution is doing its job of pulling Americans together and, uh, creating a system by which we might govern ourselves and, and solve our policy problems, uh, efficiently and sensibly? I think it’s not. I think the po- uh, the provisions of the Constitution are doing a whole lot to exacerbate polarization, the kinds of inequities it creates within the public, the po- the power it gives some Americans over others. These are things that I think cleave us apart.

Um, but, you know, going back to, to something that you said at th- at the outset, John, in framing this conversation, you know, this, again, that we’ve had these references to the dead white men kind of discourse. Um, look, if the Founders, as, as much as they were wrong and wicked in my perspective in, in owning slaves and doing things to massacre Native Americans and, and not believing women equal, if they, despite all that, had created a system of governance I think was still working for us here in 2026, I would not be arguing that we should overturn it. I’m sure that the people who invented the pencil and the wheel had very un-woke opinions (laughs).

Helena Rosenblatt (00:26:39):

Mm-hmm.

Osita Nwanevu (00:26:40):

... by today’s standards. I’m not, I wouldn’t say that’s a reason to, to get rid of the pencil and wheel. The argument I’m making is that the institutions that we’ve been given are not in fact working to our ends and our interests. Um, and we have a culture, I do believe, that holds them to such high regard that we think that the products of their wisdom, back more than two centuries ago, uh, should still bind us in ways that I think are kind of crazy. Um, and, and what I’m hacking away at is that, again, not this idea that the Founders were not intelligent people and that they did not maybe do the best they could. Maybe it was the best constitution we could have had in 1787. Um, but we are a different country now, with different concerns and different values, um, and different aspirations. And I think we have, should have institutions to match.

I don’t think it’ll happen tomorrow. Helena is very, very correct, that what I’m talking about is a very, very ambitious vision for where this country ought to go. But I do think we should have a movement to take us in the direction, yes, eventually, of having a new constitution. It might take 100 years, might last beyond my lifetime. But unless we have a more critical distance from the Founders, we’re never gonna set ourselves on that path. And I think we’re gonna s- continue to see our politics and our policymaking apparatuses decay.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:27:48):

I just wanna say that I- this cynicism that I encounter among young people, uh, I don’t agree that they are idolizing the Founding Fathers or that they think that the Constitution i- is perfect, uh, contrary. And I think that, uh, uh, uh, uh, you know, uh, demoting it, as we’re saying, and finding just fault and, and not recognizing the good, um, but only focusing on the bad, and unfortunately, I see a lot of that in my students, i- is not helpful. Why don’t we start with some civic education? Why do you think that necessarily, more... And th- this is controversial, I’m saying this also so that we can debate it. Why do you think that more democracy necessarily is so much better?

John Donvan (00:28:42):

What a great question, because it was a question I was holding in reserve f- for later on.

Osita Nwanevu (00:28:46):

Right.

John Donvan (00:28:46):

So let’s go to that.

Osita Nwanevu (00:28:48):

Well, yeah. I mean, I have 300 pages worth on that question. You can buy it for $19.99 on Amazon, or I can [inaudible 00:28:54].

Helena Rosenblatt (00:28:53):

(laughs) I’ve read it. I’ve read it. It’s great.

Osita Nwanevu (00:28:54):

You’ve read it. Yeah.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:28:54):

(laughs)

Osita Nwanevu (00:28:55):

Well, I mean, look. I mean, I think, uh, some of these questions are kind of existential and fundamental questions about what we believe about human life. Um, I believe in democracy because I believe we’re entitled to a measure of agency over the conditions that shape our lives, uh, that it’s wrong for us to live under the thrall of people who just happen to be more wealthy, happen to be more powerful than us, uh, and that society degrades, uh, when we don’t have the ability to... Yes, maybe we’ll make mistakes, maybe we’ll make the wrong decisions time after time. Uh, but w- there’s something wrong with not having the opportunity to make our own decisions for ourselves and to learn from our mistakes and to pull ourselves forward, um, through the process of democratic politics.

Um, you know, I think that there are balances that have to be struck. If you’re somebody who believes in liberalism and you believe that there are certain things we ought to protect as a matter of individual rights, yeah, and you talk about creating a court system that protects those rights and, and so on. Um, but my, my, my point is, uh, you know, i- it’s a good question because I think, uh, Helena, that we are accustomed in this country to not asking that question. It’s a question we owe ourselves, uh, the, the opportunity to ask. Um, instead, I think we have a culture where we ask ourselves not what human beings are entitled to, but what the Founders wanted. And as long as we ask that question, uh, instead of the more fundamental question of what is good in society, what the good is, what we’re entitled to, um, we’re going to [inaudible 00:30:14] very ill-equipped-

John Donvan (00:30:15):

You, you, and you, you don’t feel that-

Osita Nwanevu (00:30:16):

... to-

John Donvan (00:30:16):

... you don’t feel that the Founders had that insight?

Osita Nwanevu (00:30:18):

Oh, I think they did. And I think that’s one of the things that we’ve lost in trying to, to, to elevate them to this kind of sainthood. Uh, again, the, the Declaration of Independence is an extraordinary document, a revolutionary document that proceeds from a principle or a set of principle about what human life is for, to a course of action it tries to justify. Um, that impulse that the Founders had has been lost in a culture that says that, whenever we have a fundamental political question in this country, we don’t ask ourselves philosophically, what is, what is, what would a good society look like, or what might our institutions, uh, need to do for us as human beings? We ask ourselves, well, what did the Founders think about this? What would the Founders have wanted? Let’s go back at the Supreme Court and, and, and sort of do this exegesis of letters to figure out what the policy should be.

Um, that’s the kind of attitude that I’m arguing that we should, we should challenge, partially because I think the Founders demonstrated what is possible when you ask yourselves more fundamental questions of political philosophy, of ethics. Um, and I think we have a culture of idolizing Founders that actually takes us away from that, ironically.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:31:24):

Well, again, I, I agree with a lot of y- what you’re saying, uh, it’s ridi- um, I sh- um, respectfully say that it’s ridiculous to (laughs) to try to, um, get, uh, immediate, uh, answers from the fed- from the Founding Fathers to problems of today. What would the Founding Fathers say about artificial intelligence? Should we give them rights? This is actually being discussed right now. (laughs)

Osita Nwanevu (00:31:48):

Yeah.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:31:49):

Um, should, should bots have, have rights? And they would be incapable, I don’t think they could ever have imagined such a thing. But pr- you mentioned, but the, uh, uh, uh, but you mentioned, I’m- I’m not trying to b- d- worship them again, but I’m saying that studying them... I think you mentioned something about intentions, uh, and looking at what they intended. And sometimes it sounds like you really think that there was something beautiful about what they intended, um, but that now we’ve moved beyond it. And I think that studying them with- exercising our critical judgment, not dismissing them, not idolizing them, but studying them with respect and admiration for what they did, we can see what’s good and what’s bad. Where, where can we learn from them? Where can we not learn from them? So again-

John Donvan (00:32:39):

Do you, do you feel, Helena, that, that they, that they embodied democra- uh, d- democratic impulses and convictions in the way that Osita is talking about?

Helena Rosenblatt (00:32:50):

Okay. So that gives me a chance to, to talk about, uh, O- Osita talks about democracy, I would talk about liberal democracy. I’ve written a book on, on the history of liberalism, and I think in this country, we often confound the two. Now, democracy, if, you, you know, go back to ancient Greece, it s- means direct democracy, right? Every citizen votes for legislation. And, uh, uh, and obviously they, they didn’t have representative gov- uh, democracy, uh, yet. And today we have something we call liberal democracy. Li- democracy, the Founding Fathers thought, needs to be contained. We need protections for individuals, for groups. Uh, we need, uh, w- direct democracy is not a good thing. Do we believe that crowds from the street should decide, uh, uh, make, legislate? No. Uh, we need people, uh, with some experience, we need to, uh, elect experience who can then represent the people in a, in, in a liberal democracy.

Um, and, and democracy, uh, a- and so we have to be careful about what we mean by democracy. In Tocqueville, for example, he uses it, I think, six or seven times in different ways. Uh, so, so let’s be careful, le- let’s be clear about what we mean about democracy and understand that it needs to be contained in some way. I don’t know if you agree with that, but I certainly do. I- i- populism, we have, we have, uh, rulers in, in, all over the world right now who call themselves democrats, um, who are elected by the people directly and then dismantle all the protections that we hold so dear.

John Donvan (00:34:31):

Okay.

John Donvan (00:34:32):

I ju- I just wanna let, uh, Osita respond because you made a number of points there.

Osita Nwanevu (00:34:35):

I think I’d have a little bit more confidence in the wisdom of crowds than, than maybe she does. And I think there’s something to the idea of collective knowledge, collective intelligence. There’s a political theorist, Hélène Landemore, who I don’t fully agree with, but who’s written a couple of books on, on that question recently, that there’s something to putting a question to a large group of people, uh, that might give us more insight than giving it to a, a kind of expert. But I do, I do agree with the, the general principle of, if we believe in individual rights, and certainly democratic outcomes that can contravene them, and I think there, there should be institutions, uh, that, that deal with that.

Uh, the question is, do the institutions we actually have in the United States, uh, do that especially well, and do that in the ideal way? Uh, is there something, to the contrary, a little bit disturbing about having a Supreme Court that has that function, where people serve for life, and you have to turn on CNN whenever somebody takes a fall, to whether, to see whether or not we’re gonna have a fundamentally different policy on climate change or abortion rights or, or something like that? I think that’s kind of crazy. It’s not something you see in other liberal democracies around the world. Uh, so we should be permitted to ask these kinds of questions and to, again, have a kind of critical distance from the institutions that we’ve, uh, we’ve inherited. Um-

John Donvan (00:35:41):

You, you, w- we, we, um, it, it seems you are agreeing that the Founders were suspicious, were concerned about pure democracy, that there’s no disagreement about that.

Osita Nwanevu (00:35:50):

Yes. Yes.

John Donvan (00:35:50):

Do you think that that was a wise, uh, position on their part, Osita?

Osita Nwanevu (00:35:55):

Well, I mean, I think that the- first of all, it’s, it’s important to sort of disaggregate what they said on many of these questions. I mean, I, I, I have a lot of fun telling people when it comes to critiquing the Senate, for instance, that Madison thought that equal representation in the Senate was a terrible idea, and said so, the Convention, can barely bring himself to defend it, uh, in the Federalist papers, because he thought that it would create these distortions in policymaking that would lead to majority- minority rule, rather, in Congress. I think we’ve seen those predictions bear out.

So even as skeptical as the Founders were of democracy, they did come to some compromises within the construction of our present system, that even people like Madison and Hamilton disagreed with. And so that’s something to take seriously. But on the whole, yes, they were rather skeptical of the idea that we should have a popular rule. Um, I talk in the book about the particular things they were concerned about in the lead-up to the Convention and the economic policies they were concerned about and the wanting to, to, to want to thwart.

Um, but, you know, I, I, I think, you know, there’s this question that we always ask ourselves, is the United States a republic or a democracy? Um, I think it’s a, it’s a misleading and oversimplified question in many respects. And what I’m arguing for is a kind of democratic republic. Uh, republican governance is about, fundamentally, again, this is very, very condensed, uh, making sure that there is not accretions of power in one particular place. It might be an all-powerful king, it might be a kind of unruly mass public that doesn’t know what it’s doing. You need stable institutions, the rule of law, good rules for governance that, that are steady in order to make governance sensible. And I think that’s the perspective I have [inaudible 00:37:26] would like to see.

John Donvan (00:37:27):

And, and, and, and just to bring this back to the Founders, you’re saying the Founders did not get that part right?

Osita Nwanevu (00:37:31):

I think the Founders believed in a different kind of republican governance that was less democratic. Um, I think that they wanted to protect certainly property owners. I think they wanted to protect men like themselves. Uh, obviously you did not have free, uh, suffrage, uh, at the beginning of this country, even for white men, it was propertied white men who had the ability to, to express themselves politically. So they, they believed in a fundamentally more restrictive, um, and less open kind of republican governance than the kind I’m talking about.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:37:58):

Uh, you’re talking about th- how we need good rules. Another reason I really respect the Founders is that they realized that constitutions are not enough, that, uh, civic values are necessary, that morals are necessary, um, that the b- uh, the idea of what makes a citizen is important. And I know they didn’t always live up to these values, but they knew that they were important. And to a certain extent, with these culture wars and discussions about woke and so on and the anger that’s out there, um, we, uh, need that first, w- I think we need to build that first before we can even think about changing the Constitution. I don’t think that’s gonna work. I don’t think it’s practical.

I think it’s more impor- and I’m very glad, and I’m very happy with these, um, sort of civic centers that are popping up around the country in, in various... And, and, uh, and I’ve been to, uh, uh, quite a few of them. And, um, I think that’s, that’s very good. They are discussing, they are debating the Constitution, they are debating what it takes to be a citizen. And I think this is so important. If we keep, um, denigrating, uh, the Founders and the Constitution, it creates cynicism, I think. S- uh, people are, are less, uh, likely to participate in politics. And, um, and that’s very sad. You know, you mentioned Jefferson, and didn’t he say something, you’re m- more of an expert, I think, than I, didn’t he say something where, when somebody asked him, “What kind of government are we?” And he said, “We’re a republic if we can, if we can, keep it.”

Osita Nwanevu (00:39:39):

It’s Franklin.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:39:40):

Oh, Franklin.

Osita Nwanevu (00:39:41):

It was Elizabeth Willing Powel asking after the Convention, I think, breaks off in Philadelphia. Uh, and this is apoc- this almost certainly did not happen, but the story is-

Helena Rosenblatt (00:39:50):

(laughs) Okay.

Osita Nwanevu (00:39:50):

... this, this woman, Elizabeth Willing Powel-

Helena Rosenblatt (00:39:51):

Another beautiful story.

Osita Nwanevu (00:39:52):

Yes, exactly.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:39:53):

Another beautiful-

Osita Nwanevu (00:39:53):

Another beautiful story. But, yeah, she asked, she asked, uh, Franklin walking out of the, the conventional hall, what kind of repub- uh, government we have. And he says, “A republic, if we can keep it.”

John Donvan (00:40:01):

Uh, now we’re gonna bring in some other voices, people who have been following the debate so far, uh, and who, who know this topic, have been thinking and writing about this topic, and they’re gonna each be, uh, welcomed to ask a question to our debaters. So first, I wanna, uh, say hello to Manisha Sinha. Manisha is the Draper Chair in American History at the University of Connecticut. Uh, most recent book is called The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic: Reconstruction, 1860 to 1920. Manisha, w- welcome. Thanks for joining us very much. And what s- questions do you have for our debaters today?

Manisha Sinha (00:40:32):

Thank you so much, John, for having me, and I really have enjoyed listening to both Osita and Helena put forward their positions. And I have a quick question, a two-part question. Uh, the first, uh, is to both of you, and that is, uh, can we look at the Founders as an undifferentiated lot?

John Donvan (00:40:51):

Let me ta- let me take that to them first, so that we can remember the- have to remember your second question. Were they all the same person? Were they just a lump of the same people doing the same thing? Or w- do they deserve, uh, distinct reputations and respect and honor, uh, ne- at this point in history? Um, w- why don’t you take that first, Osita?

Osita Nwanevu (00:41:08):

Uh, the Founders had a lot of different ideas, a lot of clashes. Um, I think that the, uh, account Madison writes, his notes on the Convention, it is a great, great, uh, look at some of the debates around the Constitution, in particular, that they had to have in order to draft that document. Um, so no, the Founders were not an undifferentiated lot, they disagreed about certain fundamental things, and there are things we can learn from those disagreements, uh, to this day.

Um, at the same time, I think that as undifferentiated, or as differentiated rather, as, and, and, and diverse as they were, as a class of people, I, I do think it, it does make sense to have a kind of critical attitude towards them. Um, they’re Founders that are more and less sympathetic to progressive eyes. I think, ironically, for as, as much as people judge his personal conduct, uh, I think harshly f- and for, for good reasons, Jefferson, I think (laughs) is closest to the progressive mindset in a lot of different questions, especially the Constitution. Um, but no, you’re, you’re right, the, the Founders were not all one class people with the same cast of mind that we can look to, uh, with a kind of unified intention.

John Donvan (00:42:08):

Helena?

Helena Rosenblatt (00:42:09):

Right. Uh, uh, I agree. They’re not, um, they are, they are an undef- differen- they are very different.

John Donvan (00:42:15):

They’re different.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:42:15):

(laughs)

John Donvan (00:42:15):

Yeah.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:42:16):

They’re very different, um, quite different. Um, but I think that’s another reason we can admire them, because they debated. They debated and they made compromises. And that’s why maybe the Constitution, um, also has, uh, serious flaws, particularly how it accommodated slavery. Um, but they did debate and they got something done, uh, which is, uh, more than we can say about today’s politicians and legislators. (laughs)

John Donvan (00:42:49):

And Manisha, your second q- question?

Manisha Sinha (00:42:51):

Yes. And I, I would, I would just add to that that maybe we have a broader cast about this, especially enslaved people who sued and petitioned for their freedom and ended up enacting ab- abolition in many of the Northern states.

Um, my second part had to do with the Constitution, because you both talked a lot about the Constitution as the founding document and whether, uh, you know, we should keep it or amend it or change it. And my question to both of you is this. You know, the, the second founding that Osita referred to, what I call the Second American Republic, the First American Republic actually fell, that there was a long, drawn out Civil War, uh, which led to, uh, a new constitution, virtually. But if you look at the 14th Amendment that, you know, naturalized what we now call the Bill of Rights, it was called Bill of Rights by the person who actually wrote the 14th Amendment. Uh, my question to both of you then is, um, are we looking at a completely new constitutional order, or are we really thinking about re-founding the Republic at different periods to constitutional amendments and federal law, as has been done in the United States? This mythic thing that we’ve had one linear constitution is not actually accurate. So what- what’s, what would you recommend today, uh, in constitutional change?

John Donvan (00:44:11):

I, I’ll let you go first, Helena, because I’m not sure that you’re actually calling for a significant overhaul or a radical overhaul. But I’ll let you go first to tell us whether you are or not.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:44:19):

No, I’m, no, I’m not. Um, I think we can work within the Constitution, um, and, and make amendments where necessary. I know it’s difficult, but it’s surely even more difficult to overhaul it completely.

Osita Nwanevu (00:44:34):

So my brief answer is that, uh, I don’t really know. I mean, I, I’m arguing for opening the door to constitutional changes. I think that that might take the form of amendments, although I think the process is very hard. I think there are things we can do in ordinary legislation. But I do think ha- having this horizon that 100 years from now, 150, we might have a different document, it’s not something that, that scares me, I think that we should be closed to. It’s a matter of asking ourselves what, uh, institution would best serve our needs and moving in that direction.

John Donvan (00:45:01):

Thank you very much. Manisha, thank you so much for joining us and for your question.

Uh, I now wanna bring in Michael McConnell. Michael is a professor and faculty director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law. Uh, also a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Michael, thanks so much for, uh, for listening in and for joining us now with your question for our debaters.

Michael McConnell (00:45:18):

Uh, thank you. Uh, what I always want to ask is, compared to what? So we’re supposed to stop idolizing the Founders, but compared to what? And particularly for Osita, you’re certainly right that we now have better science, better political science, lots more experience, uh, but I wonder whether we actually have better leaders, uh, than back then. Is there... In terms of people of courage and farsightedness and public-spiritedness, uh, would there be a single statesman, American statesman in the 21st century who you think stacks up to the likes of, uh, Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton?

Osita Nwanevu (00:45:59):

Uh, no. I think the 21st century is kind of a fallow field for the [inaudible 00:46:04] leadership. Uh, fortunately, though, we’ve had 250 years of history we can look to. Um, I do think, as I said at the outset, that there have been leaders, uh, who followed the Founders, who did h- tremendous, extraordinary things for the country, uh, both as conventional politicians and, and also people outside of formal politics. I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t consider people like Martin Luther King, uh, part of this pantheon, if we must have one, of people who really pulled this country in a fundamentally different direction and, and improved it. So no, the 21st century is, is pretty bleak ground. Um, but that’s a call for us to stand up and expect more of our leaders, not to extol or over-idolize, uh, the people in the first founding generation.

John Donvan (00:46:43):

Helena, I s- I suspect the question resonates with you.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:46:45):

Yeah, the question reson-

John Donvan (00:46:45):

The premise of the question.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:46:48):

The premise of the question-

John Donvan (00:46:48):

Yeah.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:46:48):

... uh, does resonate with me, um, precisely because we don’t have, uh, the leaders that would, uh, a- anything comparing to these, to these men, who again, I don’t idolize, but I think are marvelous examples and did something really beautiful for the country. Um, I don’t wanna take too much time, but I can talk, a- again about France, where, uh, Madame De Stael, I’m writing a, a book about this fabulous woman, she lamented, um, during the revolution that they didn’t have f- im- good men like, um, we had in America. And sh- and, uh, be- and because of that, uh, because of the need for people also, as I said earlier, the need for people to have good leaders, to have good examples, they got Napoleon, they got demagogues. Uh, this was the result of more direct democracy.

John Donvan (00:47:42):

Thank you very much, uh, for that answer, Helena. And, um, thank you very much for your question, Michael. Um, I now want to bring in John Malcolm. John is vice president for the Meese Institute for the Rule of Law at Advancing American Freedom. John, thanks for joining us and for listening in. Um, and what question do you have for our debaters?

John Malcolm (00:47:57):

Sure. Uh, so I certainly agree that the Founders were not perfect. As James Madison said in Federalist number 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Uh, nonetheless, uh, the Founders drafted our constitution, which is the oldest written, uh, constitution that’s still active today. The Founders also established a government based on the consent of the government, founded on the concept that all men are created equal and had certain God-given inalienable rights, which was unthinkable in a world, uh, that was governed by military rulers and hereditary monarchs.

So my question, Osita, is- is the following. Would you concede that the principles underlying our government and the system of checks and balances that the Founders set up with the ability to amend the Constitution in a way that requires substantial support, but not unanimity, uh, of the entire country, that this was very admirable and worth studying and celebrating?

John Donvan (00:48:49):

And preserving, by the way?

John Malcolm (00:48:51):

Yes.

John Donvan (00:48:51):

Is that part of your question? Okay.

Osita Nwanevu (00:48:53):

Well, I think worth studying for sure. Uh, celebrating, you know, I, I think again, I, I, I go into this in more detail than I possibly could here in the book, uh, about what I think the flaws of the Constitution are. Um, but I will, what I will say here is that, you know, as admirable as it might have been in 1787 to create, as I said, this truly new form of government to, to empower people, I think, more than was the case under British rule, um, the age of the document since then is not something that intrinsically recommends it. I don’t think that somebody saying, “Well, I have the oldest car on this block still in operation,” is, is necessarily a, a good recommendation (laughs) of, of that mode of transport. We have to have a critical, uh, reading of the document and, and understand whether it serves our interests and our purposes today. That’s what I’m arguing for.

Um, so certainly Constitution is worth studying, and I, I wouldn’t even say that there’s nothing admirable about it as, as a document that, uh, is crafted at the end of the 18th century. Um, but we’ve had a lot of experience since then, we have new problems, we have new concerns, we have new interests, and I think we should be open to reconsidering our constitutional arrangements on that basis.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:49:57):

I, would just say that, uh, the, the language that I mentioned in my opening sentence, um, “We the people,” and n- the idea of natural rights and equality, uh, even though it refers to men, uh, and it was white men, uh, and no women, these people have used these principles. Women argued for their rights on the basis of the Constitution. Uh, slaves did as well. These words have resonance, uh, they’re beautiful. And I think it’s dangerous to, r- really, in this, in this situation, I think I’ve said, I, I mean, dangerous is a, i- is a serious word, but I, I really believe that a- at, at this moment particularly, we need to defend the Constitution. We need civic education. We need people to learn the Constitution and to understand what it says and admire and f- and show gratitude to the Founding Fathers.

John Donvan (00:50:59):

John, do you have a follow-up question based on the answers you heard?

John Malcolm (00:51:02):

Well, look, I certainly think that we should be amenable, uh, to amending the Constitution. We’ve done it 27 times before. But it is a founding charter, under the Articles of Confederation, it was unanimous. And here, you require a broad support across the country, which is what it should mean when you’re going to amend our founding charter. And I guess I would ask, uh, Osita whether he thinks that other countries, where they amend the Constitution in the same way that they might change, uh, a dinner order by looking at a menu, is a preferable system.

Osita Nwanevu (00:51:35):

Well, certainly I don’t agree with Jefferson that 19 years is appropriate. I think that the right amount of time for a Constitution’s lifespan is probably between 19 and 239. I think that something (laughs) something in that range seems a little bit more appropriate. I mean, I think the, uh, University of Chicago did a study, uh, maybe a decade ago, where they found that, in the developed world, the average lifespan of a constitution is something like 30 years. Um, and there, yes, there, there are revolutions and reasons why that might be the case in certain cases, but you also see examples like Sweden, for instance, where they just decided that enough time had passed in peace time to fundamentally think about their institutions, whether they were still working, and to come up with a different document. That does happen too.

Um, and again, you know, uh, all these problems that, uh, Helena mentions, which I think are real problems, the divisions in American society, demagoguery, um, you know, the absence of the rule of law, there are ways in which, again, ways that I explore more deeply in the book and my other writing, I think the Constitution has actually exacerbated these things, especially when it comes to the power that the President now wields. People warned, back when the Constitution was being ratified, that we created an executive that was going to be overly powerful and the Constitution did not provide special checks for this. I think we’re seeing examples of that every single day now. So there are things that I think are wrong with our politics that are not just, uh, matters of ignoring the Constitution. I think the Constitution exacerbated some of our political woes, and it’s time for us to take that seriously.

John Donvan (00:52:55):

John, thank you very much for your question and for joining us. And Helena, um, I- I, i- in fairness, I wanna give you a chance to respond to Osita if you would like to, but I have another question I’d like to bring to you if you don’t wanna respond to that.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:53:06):

No, that’s okay. I though it was kind of fun that he, that he, Osita, um, spoke about Sweden, because as you know, (laughs)-

John Donvan (00:53:13):

(laughs)

Helena Rosenblatt (00:53:13):

... I’m Swedish. And I don’t know if we can compare the United States to a small country of eight million people, I think they’re 10 million now. Uh, very, very similar in culture, although that’s changing now. Uh, but, uh, anyway, uh, i- it’s a very different kind of, uh, project to change the American Constitution and change the Swedish one.

John Donvan (00:53:34):

We’re gonna go to our closing round in just a moment, but before we do, a, a question that has occurred to me as we’ve been listening to this conversation, prompted by, um, Helena, your talking about the impact of the current discourse, um, on college students. I remember growing up, long time ago, (laughs) going to school, and we were very, very much given, what I think Osita would call a- almost the religion, civic religion of the Founders, um, pictures of George Washington... Oh, it was always George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, those were the two national birthdays that we celebrated. And we were very, very much told the story that these were, uh, men of extreme nobility, who were special, who did belong on a pedestal, um, who did deserve their own days, and that there was nobody like them. Do you feel that... A- a- and, and get- and getting that in childhood was very, uh, really, really is an, a very powerful imprint.

Um, I’d like to ask each of you whether you think there should be changes to the way smaller children are taught, where that imprint first happens in the culture, because it is so important? I’ll, I’ll have you go first with that, Osita.

Osita Nwanevu (00:54:47):

Well, I mean, I think it’s hard. I think it’s hard to talk to small children (laughs) about matters of politics and history in general. Um, you know, especially when it comes to things like, uh, the reality of slavery. Um, on the one hand, obviously, I, I wish that people knew more about our history there and, and the darkness and evil that was involved there. How do you talk to somebody who’s eight years old about that, you know? That, that, uh, there’s, I think, a real difficulty there. And I think it’s true that we need to teach people about our history, where this country came from. Um, so I don’t really know. I mean, I, I, I think that’s a question that’s best, uh, you know, suited to people who have the, I think, very difficult task of trying to t- (laughs) impart civics to very young people today.

Um, but I will, what I’ll say, though, is that, you know, when it comes to the attitudes we have as adults about these, uh, people, um, the actual culture we have is very concerning. Um, as you said at the very beginning, we have a president who attacks historians and attacks museums if they offer any kind of critical attitude towards the Founders. We have people who are, that regard as suspicious if they have anything but a reverential attitude in their public writing about people like Jefferson. And I think that that’s an unhealthy culture. So whatever happens at the level of young people, um, certainly when it comes to people who are adults and should be having adult conversations and frank conversations about where this country came from, um, you know, I, I don’t think we have a culture that, that, that, uh, takes criticism, uh, very well. And I hope that changes.

John Donvan (00:56:11):

Well, you, you kind of wandered a little bit off the, what do we teach kids question a little bit (laughs).

Osita Nwanevu (00:56:14):

Yeah, sorry.

John Donvan (00:56:16):

Because, because... No, that’s okay. I think your answer is, you’re not sure, um, which is p- perfectly reasonable. Um, but I want to take the same question to you, Helena, again-

Helena Rosenblatt (00:56:23):

Yeah. I-

John Donvan (00:56:23):

... to get out of the, the college age student, because I, I really think these things begin really early.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:56:28):

It’s very funny because I had some closing remarks that refer to that (laughs). But I would answer your question, uh, yes, uh, I think we can, um, say that they’re exceptional people to six-year-olds, to first-graders, to second-graders, to third-graders. I think we should add other heroes from American history, we should add Martin Luther King, we should add, uh, but not demote those, uh, brilliant, uh, and ad- admirable men.

John Donvan (00:57:00):

I, I... Because I, I might have stumbled into your opening, your closing remarks, I don’t wanna drain that moment for you. So why don’t we move to our closing remarks then, and, and call it a wrap on the discussion portion. So we’re gonna move to our closing round, and it’s where the debaters have one more time, very briefly, to make their case, uh, for why they are taking the side they are. Osita, you’re up first, one more time, why you believe that we should stop idolizing the Founding Fathers. The floor is yours.

Osita Nwanevu (00:57:22):

So thanks again for having me. Um, so I was actually in D.C. on the 4th of July. I was there to write a little bit about the commemorative events, uh, all the song and dance that was going on. Um, and I decided to take a moment to actually go to the National Archives. For as much as I’d spent time in D.C., lived in D.C., I’d never actually gone into that place to see the Constitution, see the Declaration. It was about 102 degrees outside. I was there for two hours with people who were eager to see them.

And once you got into this space, um, the first thing you notice, as the historian Pauline Maier has written in her wonderful book, American Scripture, um, is that this place is kind of like a shrine, it’s kind of like a, a chapel, something you would see in a kind of religious building. Um, and there are these throngs of people who are there in front of these documents, crowding around them, to the point where you can’t actually see them. People are doing selfies, people are trying to take pictures with their children. Um, it’s this kind of mob scene. And, and in it all, you can’t actually see the documents at hand very closely until you push and shove your way towards them. If you do, in the Declaration’s case, the document is, is basically faded to the point of illegibility, even when you get up there.

Uh, one of the things I noticed is that, out in the corner of this rotunda, they have the 19th Amendment, which was totally unseen by most people, not of any interest, the engrossed copy that, that they, they had in Congress. And, you know, as a journalist, you look for visual metaphors to try to make (laughs) to make the argument that you’re trying to make. But, you know, this was the, almost a perfect example to the point... Like, we worship them to the point that we obscure what they actually did, we obscure the history that followed them.

And, you know, for me, I think the most interesting thing in that room was not the documents themselves, but seeing the American people, in their diversity, in their differences, from all corners of the planet, um, coming together, um, to respect history, sure, but I, I thought that th- that crowd was more interesting than, than the documents that they were there to see. Uh, it was a vision of a country the Founders couldn’t have imagined, a beautiful country, uh, and one that I think it’s still a, a privilege to be a part of. And I’d like us to take more of an interest in ourselves and our possibilities.

John Donvan (00:59:26):

Thank you very much, Osita. And, uh, Helena, you get the last word with your closing, please.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:59:30):

Okay, wonderful. So, I, I also have a personal story. And that’s what, that’s, um, again, in, in my, uh, school in Beirut, Lebanon, uh, the American Community School, where every morning we were asked to... There was a flag in the classroom, and we were asked to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. And I thought, as a Swedish citizen, I thought that was beautiful. It was a beautiful moment. We are pledging allegiance to a flag that represents an idea and a constitution. It’s not a person, it’s not a king, it’s an idea. And it’s something that binds us together. Uh, it, you, uh, Osita just talked about also people coming together to look at the Constitution. Now, that’s beautiful. We need moments like this, more than ever today, to bring us together.

John Donvan (01:00:25):

Thank you very much. Um, and, uh, sounds like I didn’t steal your thunder, so, uh, (laughs) very much appreciate your closing. And I appreciate both of you as, uh, we wrap up the debate. I want to thank Osita and Helena. Uh, we really appreciate that you were willing to have this conversation, that you, um, approached it the way you did, that you argued civilly. Of course, there’s a lot of common ground, but there was some meaningful disagreement and you talked it through in a way that let us all learn from the points you’re making. So thank you very, very much for taking part in the program.

Helena Rosenblatt (01:00:54):

Thank you.

Osita Nwanevu (01:00:55):

Thank you so much.

John Donvan (01:00:56):

Uh, I’d also like to thank, uh, the other voices that joined the conversation, uh, Manisha Sinha, uh, and, uh, Michael McConnell and John Malcolm, thank you very much for bringing in interesting questions and moving the conversation in an even more interesting direction. And finally, a big thank you to you, our audience, uh, for tuning in to this episode of Open To Debate. We’re a nonprofit working to combat extreme polarization through what you just saw, which was civil debate. And our work is made possible because of you, by listeners like you, and by the Rosenkranz Foundation and by supporters of Open To Debate.

Robert Rosenkranz is our chairman. Our CEO is Lia Matthow. Andrew Lipson is head of production. Michele Debreceni is head of marketing. This episode was produced by Julia Sirkin. Alexis Pancrazi is our executive producer. The Open To Debate team also includes Catie Perry, Gabriella Mayer, Gabrielle Iannucelli, Linda Lee, and Scott Jacobi. Damon Whittemore mixed this episode. Our theme music is by Alex Clement.

(01:01:46):

And I’m John Donvan. We’ll see you next time on Open To Debate.

As the United States marks 250 years since the Declaration of Independence, Americans are reconsidering not only what the Founders created, but how they should be remembered. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and their contemporaries articulated revolutionary ideals of liberty, equality, representative government, and individual rights. Yet the execution of those ideals initially excluded women and minorities from political power and designed institutions whose compromises continue to shape modern conflicts.

Should they continue to be revered as visionary architects of the American experiment, or has reverence for them prevented a more honest understanding of the country they established? Supporters argue that the Founders created an extraordinary system that allowed the nation to expand freedom over time and should be judged by the standards of their era. Critics contend that idolizing them sanitizes the past and discourages Americans from questioning institutions designed for the 18th century and whether we can have a “better” democracy.

During America’s semiquincentennial, we debate: Is It Time to Stop Idolizing the Founders?

ARGUNG YES:

• Osita Nwanevu: Contributing Editor at The New Republic; Columnist at The Guardian

ARGUING NO:

• Helena Rosenblatt: Distinguished Professor of History, French, and Political Science, and the MA Program in Liberal Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center

MODERATOR-IN-CHIEF:

• John Donvan: Emmy Award-winning journalist

It’s been fifty years since the Supreme Court case Gregg v. Georgia brought the death penalty back to life, after a brief moratorium created by the Furman ruling. On the anniversary of the reinstatement of the death penalty, it remains an emotional and polarizing topic — so this week, we bring you a re-release of an enlightening and civil discussion about the issue.

Here is the state of play now:

• The federal government and 27 states permit capital punishment.

• Sixteen prisoners were executed through January 1 and June 30 this year in the United States.

• State executions worldwide increased by 78% in 2025, with 2,707 people executed across 17 countries — up from 1,518 people executed in 2024, according to Amnesty International.

Take a listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube. Views on this issue are complicated. We’d love to hear your thoughts.

Arguing YES:

Diann Rust-Tierney, Former Executive Director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

”I've met and talked to the people that the death penalty harms and traumatizes — prison workers, defense counsel, prosecutors, judges, the condemned, and families of the condemned, jurors, and survivors of homicide. Regardless of whether a victim supports or opposes the death penalty, if you listen carefully to their voices, one message comes through: ‘It hurts.’ The death penalty process by its very nature hurts. It is the nature of the beast; therefore, it must be abolished.”

Barry Scheck, Co-Director of the Innocence Project and Professor at Cardozo Law School

“Don't tell me that there isn't an unacceptable risk of executing the innocent. It's been demonstrated — the Innocence Movement has demonstrated it. It's not just the 326 DNA exonerations that they can't refute. It's not just the over 1,500 exonerations from the [National Registry of Exonerations], including non-DNA cases. We now know that our system is riddled with error.”

Arguing NO:

Robert Blecker, Professor at New York Law School

“The reality of life without parole, given the way that prison is administered, given the television sets, given the first-run movies in many cases, given recreation, given the hours and hours outside of the cell daily, the reality is it's nobody's job to punish and there is no punishment going on. The closest we come to serious punishment left in this society is the death penalty. So, when you consider the question, you can't consider it in isolation. You have to consider it in context, that we are a society that is increasingly disavowing punishment itself.”

Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

“Life in prison is justice. But for a very few, for the worst of the worst, no, it isn't. It's not for the [Boston] Marathon bomber. It wasn't for Charles Manson. He's grinning at us to this day, because we temporarily abolished the death penalty, networking with his fan base on his smuggled cell phone, and he just has not been sufficiently punished and will not be sufficiently punished.”

Notes

Since we first had this debate in 2015, here’s what our debaters have to say on the subject now:

Robert Blecker has a book coming out in April 2027 called “ITCHY,” an autobiography of who Robert describes as the most extraordinary inmate he’s met over decades of interviewing. He hopes it gives a “brief but clearer sense of my long-standing commitment to listen to and learn from otherwise neglected voices and figure out who really deserves what.” His team is also planning to air a two-part audio commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday that includes a 1993 keynote given by Jesse Jackson inside Lorton Central, along with original and early rap music composed and recorded by inmates. Robert said on the inmates he recorded for it, “the prisoners’ insights and accounts of their own lives, the racism they confronted from childhood and a criminal justice system rife with hypocrisy and bias constitute the spine of this commemoration and a podcast… to follow.”

Barry Scheck has recommended a recent New York Times article, published in partnership with ProPublica, which spotlights the current state of death row in Florida and the Floridians who interact with the system both in and outside of the ward.

Kent Scheidegger said, “Time has confirmed that the alternative of life without possibility of parole does not provide finality, because as soon as the death penalty is blocked the assault on life without parole begins. California’s parole board has just created a huge new program to get murderers sentenced to life without parole resentenced so that they can be paroled.”

Since the debate first aired, Diann Rust-Tierney is now an associate professor at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law and a distinguished fellow of the Georgetown Human Rights Institute. She offers our audience some notes from the Death Penalty Information Center, and below are some of her comments on recent developments (Note: edited for brevity):

“The biggest update since 2015 is that the abolition argument continues to gain support. In 2015, 61% of the public favored the death penalty and 37% opposed it. According to a Gallup poll released in October 2025, slightly more than half (52%) of the public currently supports the death penalty. This percentage represents a 5-decade low.

Racial Bias And Mistakes Continue To Be A Problem

Of the 47 people executed in 2025 (32%), 13 were Black, Latino, or identified as mixed-race people. Only 7 of the 47 people killed in 2025 were executed for killing victims of the global majority. Decades of studies of the administration of the death penalty have found that race, especially the race of the victim, is the single most important determinant of whether a person is sentenced to death—not the severity of the crime; not the criminal record and history of the defendant; or even whether a weapon is used. Race determines the outcomes in death-eligible cases.

Innocent People Continue To Be Sentenced To Die

Since 1973, 202 people have been exonerated. Thirty people have been exonerated since the debate in 2015. This does not mean that the system is working. It demonstrates the magnitude of the risk that an innocent person will be executed. When states have abolished the death penalty, murder rates have not significantly changed.

At the end of the day, the question we must ask ourselves is whether we want our government to have the nearly unreviewable power to decide who lives and who dies and in what manner, without accountability?

Justice Blackmun’s observations [in his dissent in Callins v. Collins, 510 U.S. 1142 (1994)] are no less true today. If anything, they are even more urgent. If we are wise and cognizant of our current surroundings, the answer to the question whether the death penalty should continue will and should be a resounding no.”

On Our Screens: The Odyssey

After much anticipation, Christopher Nolan’s adaptation of the Greek epic The Odyssey is 2026’s summer blockbuster, having made $124.5 million during its opening weekend in the domestic box office and $264 million globally. It’s an impressive result for a film made on a $250 million budget, and audiences have been scouring showtime lists for the perfect premium format to view it, such as IMAX 70 mm, 70 mm, IMAX digital, 35 mm, and Dolby Cinema.

This also comes as streaming services have been having their own hurdles in maintaining subscriptions, subscriber fatigue, and “streamflation” concerns. Netflix in particular has been exploring Live TV and implementing bundles as it lost 10% of its shares last week, and its stock has lost ​44% since hitting an all-time high in June 2025.

Earlier this year, we debated “The Future of Film: Big Screen or Stream?” Watch the debate now.

In the Headlines: The Iran War is Back

Though the U.S. and Iran had initially come close to making a deal, the Iran War is back in full swing after the ceasefire deal collapsed. Around eighteen U.S. soldiers have been killed since February, traffic has slowed in the Strait of Hormuz, and President Trump has been threatening Iran and the Houthis with "major military punishment" if the Houthis launch more attacks on Saudi vessels in the Red Sea. However, earlier this week, Saudi Arabia signed a commercial nuclear deal that could allow Saudi Arabia to have a civilian nuclear program on its soil in cooperation with American companies, but it is dependent on whether or not the kingdom joins the Abraham Accords.

In the past, we’ve debated the question “Can America and Its Allies Tolerate A Nuclear Iran, or Is It Time to Stop Them Now?” Watch the debate now.

In the News

‘Turning Up the Heat on the Streets’

Hanna Rosin interviewing Nick Miroff | July 20, 2026

Watch Hanna’s debate on whether men are finished and we should help them

The Real Cause of J.D. Vance’s Failure in Iran

Batya Ungar-Sargon | July 16, 2026

Watch Batya’s debate on whether the New York Times has lost its way

The U.S. wants to contain China’s AI. Silicon Valley keeps using it

Paul Triolo | July 22, 2026

Watch Paul’s debate on whether the U.S. can outpace China in AI through chip controls

If he’d tried to arrest Netanyahu, Mamdani would be the one in jail

Marc. A Thiessen | July 22, 2026

Watch Marc’s debate on whether we should treat terrorists like enemy combatants, not criminals

The Homicide Rate Has Dropped to Historic Lows. Contrary to What Politicians Say, No One Really Knows Why.

Jacob Sullum | July 23, 2026

Watch Jacob’s debate on the two-party system

What Humanity Needs To Flourish In The Next Decade

E. Glen Weyl, James Evans, and Chris White | July 21, 2026

Watch Glen debate whether the U.S. should be ruled by a CEO dictator

For the Motion: Diann Rust-Tierney, Barry Scheck

Against the Motion: Robert Blecker, Kent Scheidegger

Moderator: John Donvan

Start Time

John Donvan:

So, I would at this point like to start things off by please welcoming to the stage the chairman of Intelligence Squared U.S., Mr. Robert Rosenkranz.

[applause]

John Donvan:

Hi, Bob. So, Bob, what strikes me about this debate Abolish the Death Penalty, a lot of our debates are very topical. They’re about something that’s in the news right now, something -- an election season, something, foreign war. In this case Abolish the Death Penalty is sort of one of these timeless eternal topics.

Robert Rosenkranz:

Well, it may be timeless, but it seems pretty timely right now in the wake of the Boston Marathon conviction. That’s the kind of crime and the kind of heinous crime and with multiple victims and hundreds of collateral damage to all kinds of innocent people that make people think that the death penalty might well be appropriate.

John Donvan:

And this is one of these topics that we can slice into different dimensions, one of them being sort of the policy dimension, the practical side of the death penalty.

Robert Rosenkranz:

Well, one of the practical issues with the death penalty is simply that it is just so expensive to actually administer. It’s much more expensive than a life imprisonment, because the legal process around the death penalty is just so elaborate. So, you do have -- it’s actually a very costly process to actually implement and the question I guess from a policy standpoint is are those costs offset by some benefits, and one of the potential benefits is the idea of deterrence, that the death penalty does deter crime, but that again is very much subject to debate.

John Donvan:

And then there is of course a moral dimension. I think it’s very visceral for people.

Robert Rosenkranz:

Well, there is. I mean, I think there is a sense particularly in the case of the most heinous and gruesome and cruel kinds of crimes that the death penalty is the kind of retribution that a society should seek to express its revulsion at some of these kinds of acts.

On the other hand, there’s a moral feeling that to take a life knowingly and premeditated and very deliberately is simply the wrong thing to be doing.

John Donvan:

And where our debates get interesting is when the moral conflict and the practical conflict kind of cross. We have that in this one.

Robert Rosenkranz:

Yeah, I would certainly say we do. I mean, the aspects of it like the potential for error is obviously one, which is -- but the practical reason and a moral reason to question the death penalty, and the other of course is the racial profile of people on death row and whether that reflects something systemically wrong with the system besides its occasional propensity for error.

John Donvan:

Well, as you say, it’s very complex and as you point out there is sort of no time when this is not a hot topic. So, let’s bring our debaters to the stage and get started and let’s thank Robert Rosenkranz.

Robert Rosenkranz:

Great. Thank you.

[applause]

John Donvan:

So, this is one of those times when I want to ask you again spontaneously to applaud for launching the podcast and the radio sound, but let’s do it by thanking Bob Rosenkranz one more time.

[applause]

Opening Remarks

John Donvan:

Hello. I’m John Donvan. This is Intelligence Squared U.S. (rebranded as Open to Debate) And “an eye for an eye” --

That is the reason that Americans cited most often in a credible poll for their support of the death penalty and it seems that six out of 10 of us do support the death penalty, although when “an eye for an eye” was quoted in the New Testament the teaching was that sometimes retribution is not really all that it seems to be cracked up to be, and that’s a point that 18 states seem to have agreed with by abolishing the death penalty and the District of Columbia. Another 15 have suspended it and that leaves 17 states and the question is should they follow suit or should they stand by tradition and by their sense of what they see as justice. Well, that sounds like the makings of a debate. So, let’s have it. Yes or no to this statement: Abolish the Death Penalty, a debate from Intelligence Squared U.S. I’m John Donvan. We are at the Kaufman Music Center. We have four superbly qualified debaters on stage who will be arguing, two against two, for and against this motion: Abolish the Death Penalty.

As always, our debate will go in three rounds. And then our live audience here in New York City votes to pick the winner. And only one side wins. The motion, again, “Abolish the Death Penalty.” Let’s meet the team arguing for the motion, the team that wants to abolish. Please welcome Diann Rust-Tierney.

[applause]

John Donvan:

Diann, you are the executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. You have spent many years fighting this -- fighting the death penalty, back when you were working for the ACLU, back to the ‘90s. And as we pointed out, a majority of Americans still do support the death penalty, but the trend is definitely downward. So, what has changed over time?

Diann Rust-Tierney:

Well, I’d like to think I’ve gotten better at my job and have done a better job of getting the public to focus on the right questions.

John Donvan:

And we’ll be going to some of those questions tonight. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome, again, Diann Rust-Tierney.

[applause]

John Donvan:

And Diann tell us who your partner is?

Diann Rust-Tierney:

My debate partner is the wonderful and absolutely brilliant Barry Scheck.

John Donvan:

Ladies and gentlemen, Barry Scheck.

[applause]

John Donvan:

Barry, you are a professor at the Cardozo School of Law, co-director of the Innocence Project. Well-known to television viewers by playing yourself on “The Good Wife.” You founded the Innocence Project back in 1992. How many post-conviction DNA exonerations have there been since the project began?

Barry Scheck:

There are 362 post-conviction DNA exonerations. 19 people off death row. Many, many people that were convicted of murder in non-capital eligible states.

John Donvan:

All right. And I’m assuming we’re going to be hearing more about that in your argument.

Barry Scheck:

Yes.

John Donvan:

Let’s again welcome the team arguing for the motion: Abolish the Death Penalty.

[applause]

John Donvan:

And we have two debaters arguing against the motion.

Again, to be clear, they are against abolishing the death penalty. So, you figured out the double negative there. It’s pretty clear. First, let’s please welcome Robert Blecker.

[applause]

John Donvan:

Robert, you’re a professor at New York Law School. You spent 12 years talking to prisoners inside Lorton Central Prison. Another decade visiting death row prisoners. You put all this together in a book called “The Death of Punishment.” And in it, you show that although you are a leading advocate of the death penalty, you have a surprising amount of empathy for some of the prisoners you met. I’m wondering, does that -- did that experience, in any way, soften your commitment to the death penalty?

Robert Blecker:

Well, first of all, I spent a lot more time watching and listening than talking. But Daryl Holton, who murdered his four children, taught me a lot and made me laugh. And I do confess sometimes to missing him. And David “Itchy” Brooks, a brilliant and bold -- once saved my life inside the Lorton Prison.

So, it’s tough to want him dead. But for the worst, of the worst, of the worst -- not at all.

John Donvan:

All right. And who is your partner?

Robert Blecker:

My partner is the incredibly erudite and always sober Kent Scheidegger.

John Donvan:

[laughs] Please welcome Kent Scheidegger.

[applause]

Kent, since 1986 you’ve been Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. In this field, you are a leading voice. You are probably the leading public advocate in support of the death penalty. We know that because your writings show up constantly in Supreme Court references. You’re quoted constantly in the newspaper. Part of it is that there aren’t a lot of other people wanting to take your side, but you said that in a recent profile -- in a recent profile, you said that you served in the Air Force six years and that your passion for military service and your support for the death penalty both come from the same core beliefs. What are those core beliefs?

Kent Scheidegger:

Well, my basic belief is that in a civilized society, the most important function of government is to protect people from violent assault. And that is true -- whether the source of the threat be foreign or domestic.

John Donvan:

Okay. Thank you. Kurt -- Kent Scheidegger. And again, this is the team arguing against the motion, Abolish the Death Penalty.

[applause]

John Donvan:

And this is a debate. It’s a contest. It’s a battle of ideas and argumentation. And one side will win, and one side will lose. And that decision will be made by our live audience here in New York by your vote, both before and after hearing the debate. And the team whose numbers have changed the most between those two votes in percentage point terms will be declared our winner. So let’s register your first vote. If you can go to those keypads at your seat, motion is very straightforward, “Abolish the Death Penalty.” If you believe in this motion, support this motion, push number one, if you are dead set against this motion, push number two, and if you are undecided, push number three.

You can ignore the other keys. They are not live. And if you push the wrong key, just correct yourself. The system will lock in your last vote. Okay, looks like everybody’s completed. So, again, I’ll just sort of remind you one more time, right after the closing round, takes, again, about 15 seconds to do the vote the same way, and then we have the results in about a minute and a half after that to conclude the debate. So on to round one, our motion is this, “Abolish the Death Penalty.” Round one, opening statements by each debater in turn. They will be seven minutes each. And here to speak first in support of the motion, “Abolish the Death Penalty,” Barry Scheck. He is cofounder and co-director of the Innocence Project and professor at the Cardozo School of Law.

[applause]

Barry Scheck:

Reasonable people can disagree about whether capital punishment is a morally appropriate sanction for the most heinous of crimes.

And our opponents place tremendous value on retribution by execution. They think that is an incredible benefit. But I think when you reason about this as a public policy issue, and that’s why we’re here, and you look at the costs and benefits of having a death penalty versus life without parole at a maximum security prison, you’re going to reach the same conclusion that six states have reached in the last six years: the death penalty doesn’t work. It should be repealed and abolished. What are the costs? The death penalty creates an undeniable and unacceptable risk of executing innocents. The death penalty does not deter. The National Academy of Sciences recently reviewed all of the studies and found no evidence of a deterrent effect. And common sense tells you that, because the states that execute the most, like Texas and Virginia, do not have lower homicide rates, do not have lower crime rates, than the states that don’t have the death penalty.

The death penalty is administered arbitrarily. It depends on the quality of your representation. And who has money and your race often turns on -- often determines what kind of representation you get. The death penalty also depends on where you’re tried. It’s incredibly arbitrary in this sense. It’s only 2 percent of counties in the United States that are responsible for 60 -- 56 percent of the executions -- of the death sentences and 52 percent of executions. There are race effects that Diann is going to talk to you about at some length, particularly having to do with the race of the victim. And the death penalty, as Diann will also address at greater length, does nothing to increase or insure public safety. So, this undermines the fair administration of justice. Take California.

We know that in California there are over 700 people on death row. And they haven’t had an execution for years. And they have hundreds of people who have been convicted and sentenced to death that don’t have lawyers in a post-conviction setting, and they’re closing down civil courts. And the dockets are clogged, and this led to a judge recently in California saying, “It is the gridlock, it is the -- in California that makes the death penalty unconstitutional, because it is freakish and it is arbitrarily applied.” You are more likely to die of natural causes after 24 years in prison in California than you are to be executed. Now, there should not be any disagreement about one moral and one factual question, and that is the unacceptable risk of executing innocent people. Bob talked about the Boston Marathon bomber trial, but let’s not forget that in April -- early April Anthony Hinton walked off death row in Alabama. Bryan Stevenson -- he had been on death row for 30 years.

He was convicted based on bogus ballistics evidence. And the prosecution held back exculpatory evidence in that case for nine years. And he had an ineffective lawyer as the Supreme Court itself ruled. Just this week a young man in New Orleans, Mr. Stewart -- Kia Stewart, was exonerated with the help of the prosecutors and the Innocence Project in New Orleans. He was tried for murder in New Orleans, represented by law students at Tulane Law School and a supervisor that had no experience in murder cases. This kind of stuff goes on all across the country, and we’ve got to face up to it. What is the error rate of convicting people that are innocent? Sam Gross at the University of Michigan Law School submitted a paper in the National Academy of Science Proceedings and showed that when you look at capital convictions, you can demonstrate on innocence grounds a 4.1 percent error rate, 4.1 percent error rate.

I mean, would you accept that in flying airplanes? I mean, really. Now, there’s no doubt innocents have also been executed. I hope you’re all familiar with the work of our colleague, Jim Liebman, from Columbia Law School, documenting the wrongful execution of Carlos DeLuna. And I certainly hope you’re aware of the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas based on what now is acknowledged by the state itself to be bogus arson evidence for an arson murder, killing his three children. And we now have evidence that there was a jailhouse snitch that committed perjury by his own admission, and you can demonstrate it in the case. And now the Texas Bar has brought the prosecutor in that case up on charges, because he knew about a deal with the jailhouse snitch that he never revealed. Now, that is unbelievable. You cannot anymore kid yourself on the fact that innocents have been executed due to junk forensic science, prosecutorial misconduct, law enforcement misconduct, ineffective lawyers.

This system is incapable not just of determining who’s guilty or innocence in the final analysis when charging them with the ultimate punishment but reliably figuring out who should die and who shouldn’t. We shouldn’t be tinkering with the machinery of death,

and we see prosecutors telling us this every day. Mark Earley, the attorney general of Virginia, who presided and brought about 36 executions, has just come to the position as he left office that “The death penalty is based on a false utopian premise. That false premise is that we have had and do have and will have 100 percent accuracy in death penalty convictions and executions. Who should live and who should die? I can no longer support the imposition of a penalty so final in nature yet so fraught with failures.” Go look at the statement of Marty Stroud, a prosecutor in a Caddo Parish, Shreveport, Louisiana -- Glenn Ford, 30 years on death row, innocent.

Marty prosecuted him. He recently gave this statement, he said it’ll be his only one, where he said, “How did this happen? I knew that the defense lawyers were -- had never tried a capital case, and I wanted to win. We all wanted to win. I was 32 years old, and I wanted to win, and I didn’t see it.” So, I leave this to you: our friend, George Will. All right, George Will has said that “Conservatives -- capital punishment is a government program, so skepticism is in order.”

[applause]

John Donvan:

Thank you, Barry Scheck. And our motion is, “Abolish the Death Penalty.” And here to make his argument against the motion, please welcome to the lectern Kent Scheidegger. He is the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. Ladies and gentlemen, Kent Scheidegger.

[applause]

Kent Scheidegger:

Thank you. Why do we have the death penalty?

There are three reasons. The first reason is that for some crimes, such as the marathon bombing, any lesser penalty is simply a travesty of justice. And Professor Blecker will talk about that in his turn. The second reason is incapacitation. An executed killer never kills again. We cannot say that for certain with a killer sentenced to life without parole. In the cases that I personally have worked on, there are half a dozen cases of murder of people who have been killed by killers who were sentenced to life in prison already, before they committed the murder. One contracted out the murder of the witnesses to his first murder. Another one killed multiple people within prison. Another one escaped from prison and killed people after he left. There -- life without parole is not a zero-risk option. If we choose life in prison for killers, we do risk killing innocent people. Then there is deterrence. It is a basic principle of human behavior that incentives matter, that if you raise the cost of doing anything, fewer people will choose to do that thing.

Logically, then, you would think that an effective enforced death penalty would save innocent lives for deterrence. And we should demand a very convincing evidence by anyone who claims to the contrary. There are empirical studies, but it’s not a hard science. The one thing all experts agree on is that the case has not been proved either way, for or against deterrence. It certainly is not true that deterrence has been disproved, and the report Mr. Scheck referred to did not say that there is no evidence in favor of deterrence. There are a number of empirical studies showing a deterrent effect estimating between five and 18 innocent lives saved per execution. These studies have their critics to be sure. The authors have responded to the critics and shown that the results still hold, even considering the criticism. The bottom line is we should not get rid of a penalty that is independently justified by just [unintelligible] -- by justice if doing so risks taking innocent lives through lost deterrents.

The arguments against the death penalty are like a game of whack-a-mole. Every time we refute one of the arguments they just come up with another one. The old claim from the old days was that the death penalty was discriminatorily enforced against African American defendants. That claim was uniformly refuted by study after study, including the defendant’s own. Then they came to a backup claim that the death penalty was discriminatorily not imposed on murderers who kill black victims. That -- the evidence there is more mixed. A lot of times somebody with an ax to grind will come out with a study claiming that and a reanalysis of the data taking into account all the relevant variables, will show that that effect just disappears into the statistical grass. Then they fall back to the claim of excessive cost versus life without parole. The problem there is that the studies claiming that are seriously flawed. They often fail to consider the very high costs of medical care for a person all the way to the end of his life if he’s truly going to be held in prison to natural death.

They typically include unnecessary costs as costs of the death penalty. In California the study that was cited to claim the excessive cost of the death penalty counted as the number one cost of the death penalty the cost of keeping a person on death row for 26 years of appeals. Well, three fourths of that cost is unnecessary. In a capital case where there is no doubt who did it, which is most capital cases, you can get it done in six years, which Virginia did with the D.C. sniper. Risk of executing the innocent is much less than the other side says and it’s less today than it was say 15 years ago with all the greater scrutiny that we have on forensic science. In most capital cases, again, there’s no doubt whatever who did it. The claim you may have heard of 152 innocent people, that list has been debunked. People on that list have been proved conclusively guilty by DNA. The same DNA advances that they prove that case guilty were also used for post-mortem testing of people who had been already convicted and already executed.

The other side thought they were going to hit the Holy Grail and they were going to find conclusive evidence through this post-mortem testing of an innocent person executed. In fact, none of them panned out and their poster boy was found conclusively guilty. Now we have the Willingham case. I don’t have time for details, but bear in mind there are two sides to that story. There is material in that case. There is evidence in that case you did not read in New Yorker magazine and that will be coming out later I’m sure. There are a handful of cases, though, of people who were really innocent and who were really sentenced to death. But ask yourself where would those people be if they had been sentenced to life without parole instead? In most cases they would still be in prison and they would never get out, because an inmate who is sentenced to death gets a government paid lawyer for the second review of his case and the third review of his case and that is where this evidence often comes out.

Someone sentenced to life in prison, he may have longer time to prove innocence, but he doesn’t have the resources, and so in most cases nobody’s going to care about his case. The risk of an innocent person dying in prison and never getting out is greater if he’s sentenced to life in prison than it is if he’s sentenced to death. So the death penalty is an important part of our system. It’s important for justice. Reforms are needed to make the process focus more on actual guilt and innocence and less on other issues. And in the process we can make it more sure, more swift, less costly, and more just. So, let’s mend it, not end it, and I ask you to vote no on this motion. Thank you.

John Donvan:

Thank you, Kent Scheidegger.

And a reminder of what’s going on. We are halfway through the opening round of this Intelligence Squared U.S. debate. I’m John Donvan. We have four debaters, two against two, arguing for and against this motion: Abolish the Death Penalty.

You have heard from the first two debaters and now on to the third. Let’s please welcome to the lectern Diann Rust-Tierney. She is the executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish The Death Penalty.

[applause]

Diann Rust-Tierney:

The death penalty should be abolished because it fails to enhance public safety. We all want a criminal justice system that is effective and secure, one that creates more safety and less violence, but that is not what the death penalty is doing. In states where the death penalty is used, as you’ve already heard, we have a higher homicide rate. In the South, for example, which has the highest number of executions -- there’s the highest homicide rate. In the Northeast, by contrast, which has the lowest execution rate, we have a lower murder rate. These differences tell us that we have to take a closer look at what works and what doesn’t, and take a commonsense approach to public safety.

If we take a commonsense approach to public safety, you must vote in favor of the motion to abolish the death penalty. Everyone wants a neighborhood that’s safe and communities that are strong. And in order to do that, we have to focus on the root causes of crime. We know why crime and violence happens, when other things are neglected. Mental health services, safe and affordable housing, schools that prepare us for our future jobs, and jobs that pay living wages. When the nation’s police chiefs were surveyed about what they thought our priorities should be when it comes to enhancing public safety, the death penalty ranked last consistently. Some even went so far as to say that the death penalty was an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars. What do police chiefs think should be our focus and attention? It should be on more resources for law enforcement, particularly training, drug treatment, and again, a stronger economy with better jobs.

Most of these police chiefs also thought the death penalty wasn’t a deterrent. Why? Based on their experience. Because perpetrators rarely consider the consequences when they engage in violence. More evidence that the death penalty is disconnected from at true public safety objective is the fact that it’s used so rarely. In 2014, we only had 72 new death sentences in the entire country. And execution rates continue to drop as well. In 2013, we had 39 executions. In 2014, we had 35. The death penalty was used -- executions took place in mostly three states. 80 percent of the executions in 2014 took place in Texas, Missouri, and Florida.

And even in those states that used the death penalty frequently, the death penalty is really relegated to pockets within those states. Abstract justifications for the death penalty have little meaning in a context where it’s used so rarely and unpredictably. The death penalty does, however, reinforce our nation’s sad and ugly history of slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and racial inequality. A substantial body of research spanning 40 years – it remarkably, consistently shows that race, particularly race of the victim, is the single-most reliable predictor of whether you’re going to get a death sentence. The death penalty is rarely used when the victim is a person of color, particularly African American men, even though African American men are most likely to be the victims of homicide. And that figure correlates with the recent report from the Vera Institute, that found that as a society, we provide very little services for African American men, that we don’t take the victimization of African American men seriously.

And so, that statistic is borne out by what we’re actually doing as a society. We’re also seeing, in recent studies, that the most likely person to receive a death sentence is an African American person who is convicted of killing a white victim. We have a system that treats some lives as worth more than others. And we have current information about how, as a society, we are two sets of people living in the same space with very different experiences, with our interactions with law enforcement. Under those circumstances, we cannot have a system that decides who lives and who dies. The death penalty is an outdated practice that is hindering our nation’s forward progress. Therefore, I urge you to vote for the motion, to Abolish the Death Penalty.

[applause]

John Donvan:

Thank you, Diann Rust-Tierney. That is the motion, Abolish the Death Penalty.

And now, our final debater to speak against this motion, is Robert Blecker. He is professor at New York Law School and author of “The Death of Punishment: Searching for Justice Among the Worst of the Worst.” Ladies and gentlemen, Robert Blecker.

[applause]

Robert Blecker:

So, let the punishment fit the crime. We’ve mouthed that for centuries. But do we believe it? Do we practice it? No. Not at all. We mock it in the very administration of our criminal justice system, because the grand irony is, however counter-intuitive this is, that inside prison, it’s nobody’s job to punish. Nobody’s. I hear Diann Rust-Tierney talking about safety, I think I’m listening to the corrections officers, because that’s what

I asked them, what their mission is, what are you trying to accomplish here? Their answer uniformly, speaking almost with one voice, “Safety. I want to keep the public safe from these guys, I want to keep these guys safe from each other, and I want to keep the staff safe from the inmates.” Safety, safety, safety. And then I ask, “But what about their crime? What do they deserve?”

And their answer is, “It’s none of my business what a guy did out there. I’m only concerned with one thing: how does he behave once he’s inside?” So for lifers, life begins when the sentence of life begins. From the corrections point of view, it’s all a clean slate, and it’s nobody’s job to punish. Look at the mission statements of the departments of corrections. They guide corrections. You will not find the word, “punishment,” in any mission statement in any part -- in any department of corrections in the United States, or its synonyms, not one. So, it’s no surprise that given the fact that no part of their mission is to punish, that they run their prisons in such a way that life becomes relatively pleasant. Now, what am I talking about? I mean, Barry Scheck talks about life without parole inside of a maximum security prison. For one thing, you may not be sentenced to life without parole and end up in a maximum security prison. You’re going to start out there, but you may not end up there.

In many states that I have visited, a perfectly well-behaved killer, the most vicious of killers, who prey on the vulnerable, are likely to be the most cowardly of killers, will be perfectly compliant once they’re arrested. So, they will be pussycats, and they will be there for a long time. So, they will be reliable, and, therefore, they will be given the best lifestyles, the best hustles inside the prison. It’s fundamentally perverse. Those who deserve it least will often suffer most. Those who deserve it most will have the best lives in prison and may well be transferred to a high medium security prison where they’ll be playing softball and volleyball. And, by the way, you can do that in a maximum security prison in Riverbend. I watched convicted killers playing softball in a softball field with chalk base pads and umpires in uniform, and not prison uniform, and softball uniforms, high-fiving it after they hit homeruns.

The reality of life without parole, given the way that prison is administered, given the television sets, given the first-run movies in many cases, given recreation, given the hours and hours outside of the cell daily, the reality is it’s nobody’s job to punish and there is no punishment going on. The closest we come to serious punishment left in this society is the death penalty. So, when you consider the question, you can’t consider it in isolation. You have to consider it in context, that we are a society that is increasingly disavowing punishment itself. Now, we advocates for the death penalty have to

struggle against different groups. One group, for example, are the indiscriminate “Kill them all” set, “Person kills, kill them.” They don’t want to hear about mercy. They don’t want to -- they don’t want to hear about mitigation, just “kill him.” They are indiscriminate. On the other side, there are the indiscriminates whose heart bleeds for every killer, “Evil? No such thing,” or, “We’re all evil”. Punishment? “Let those without any sin punish, we all have sin,” so, therefore, nobody punishes.

And a third group we have to set ourselves in opposition to are our supposed allies who say, “No, we’re against the death penalty. That’s not nearly enough. You really want to punish him? Give him life without parole. Let him die every day in prison.” Well, the fact is they don’t die every day in prison or at least no differently than we all die every day a little bit.

[laughter]

When you examine what goes on, life takes on new meaning, new pleasures, new communities. So when you consider the motion, don’t consider it in isolation. Consider the actual alternative in practice. And yet I would argue for the death penalty separately from that. Some people deserve to die, and we have the obligation to execute them. Now, who are they? And can we determine them adequately in advance? Yes, we can. We can do it through definition, and we can do it through enumeration. In terms of definition, it’s a function of the attitude, the cruel, the callous, the wanton.

And so I would reserve the death penalty for essentially terrorists, mass murderers, murderers of vulnerable victims, especially children, rapist murderers, contract killers, torture killers, and it -- so definite -- we cannot precisely and fully define it in advance, but we can get to the core. I offer a model death penalty statute based upon thousands of hours and years talking to killers and listening to them. And we can also do it by enumeration. Joshua Komisarjevsky broke into the Petit house, took Michaela and Hayley, tied them to their beds in their upstairs bedroom for six hours. Took Michaela, repeatedly sexually abused her, took cell phone photos of her, and sent them to the friends. And then in order to eliminate the evidence, before he left took gasoline and doused her on and around her and her sister and burnt them to death, alive. He deserves to die. Fedell Caffey and Jacqueline Williams, they wanted another child.

She already had three. So, what did they do? They got Debra Evens. They cut the fetus out of her. And then to eliminate the witnesses, they killed her 10-year-old daughter, abducted her eight-year-old son, and murdered him. They deserve to die. Danny Rolling, the ninja killer, terrorized the whole town of Starke, Florida, broke into houses, tortured, mutilated, murdered. He deserved to die. Lawrence Brewer took an innocent black guy walking down the street, and for sport this white supremacist dragged him to his death in an unspeakable torture. We can enumerate them in advance, not only who should we kill, how should we kill, not by lethal injection, a terrible method, and not because it might cause pain, but because it certainly causes confusion. It confuses punishment with medicine. It’s all part of the deeper issue. And so ultimately we get to the question of, why? Why should we punish? Not for the sake of deterrence, that would be using a person as a means to our own ends.

That would be sending a message by killing a person. That’s immoral. Not for incapacitation, I disagree with Kent. We have the obligation to build escape proof prisons and safe prisons. We should kill for one reason and one reason only: They deserve it, in three words. In one word: justice.

John Donvan:

Thank you, Robert Blecker.

[applause]

John Donvan:

And that concludes round one of this Intelligence Squared U.S. Debate, where our motion is, “Abolish the Death Penalty.” Now we move on to round two of this Intelligence Squared U.S. Debate, where our motion is, “Abolish the Death Penalty.” In round two, the debaters address one another directly, and they take questions from me and from you, our live audience here in New York. The motion, again, is, “Abolish the Death Penalty.” The team arguing for the motion, to abolish, Barry Scheck and Diann Rust-Tierney. We heard them argue that the death penalty represents a broken policy that fails to protect public safety, that undermines the fair administration of justice.

Too many examples of racial bias in execution of the policy. It’s too arbitrary. It -- factors like wealth, location, geography, quality of legal representation come into play. They argue also that there is an alternative punishment, which would be life without parole. The team arguing against the motion, Kent Scheidegger and Robert Blecker, argue that the system is not perfect but it’s not very broken, “Some people deserve to die,” they say, that just desserts are appropriate, and that the death penalty serves a very real, moral, and social purpose. They disagree with one another on whether deterrence is the issue or not, but they make the argument that the data on deterrence is murky as well as the data on racial bias, they say, is murky, and life without parole is described as not very punishing.

I want to go to the team that’s arguing to abolish the death penalty and point out that to some degree what your opponents are saying is that the policy is not perfect but could be perfected. The things that you’re talking about could be fixed. And, given that hypothetical, if the problems that you specify with the death penalty were fixed, would that change your position on the justice of the death penalty? Diann Rust-Tierney.

Diann Rust-Tierney:

I’ll go first. I mean, I think that the real question is whether it can be fixed. I mean, we’ve been at this for over 40 years. The court has looked at this, and what we’ve seen is as the justices have looked at this case, one-by-one they’re coming to say, you know, “This isn’t going to work.” So, I don’t believe it can be fixed. It is something that seems to be beyond us, to get the racism out, to get the mistake out. We’ve been trying this. And so the question really is, “Do we continue to do this?”

John Donvan:

But to my question if it could be fixed, and I take your point that you don’t think it could be, would that change your opinion? I just want to sort of see where the moral parameters are.

Diann Rust-Tierney:

Well, I think the moral ground is this is not necessary for the government to do, and I think the burden is really on the proponents of this policy to say that it does something that is of value. And we haven’t heard that.

Barry Scheck:

Well, the -- and --

John Donvan:

Barry Scheck.

Barry Scheck:

-- you’re missing a point here when you ask a loaded question like that, “if it could be perfected…”

John Donvan:

Well, no. It’s your opponents’ argument is that --

Barry Scheck:

Oh, but my opponents’ argument is, “It should be effective, swift, and sure,” right?

John Donvan:

-- right. And your argument was, “Here’s what’s wrong with it. This is wrong with it. This was wrong with it. So I think it’s quite logical to say if those wrongs could be addressed, what about -- what does that leave for you?

Barry Scheck:

It -- I -- it’s an impossible hypothetical. I’m a law professor. I hate to fight the hypothetical, but what --

John Donvan:

Okay. So, why is it impossible?

Barry Scheck:

You know, if you’re making a public policy argument and you’re living just as the attorney general in Virginia said, in a fairly land, where you actually believe that you’re going to eliminate the risk of executing innocent people, which you didn’t mention, John, is a major cost of the death penalty, which we now know is much greater than we ever did before. Not just because of DNA testing. DNA testing obviously has proven that, but in 2009 the National Academy of Sciences has just indicated in a groundbreaking report that fingerprints, ballistics, bite mark evidence, pattern evidence, all kinds of other evidence that we used to rely on think we’re so sure are in doubt and we’re now trying to get all these resources together to do basic applied research and make it reliable.

John Donvan:

Let me bring it then to Robert Blecker, your opponents point now, that in fact it could not be fixed on this particular point, that we could never get to 100 percent certainty that an innocent person would never be executed. Do you think that’s true and if so does that concern you seriously?

Robert Blecker:

Well, of course I’m concerned about executing an innocent person, every retributist would find that the ultimate horror and I just want to express my respect for what Barry Scheck does with the Innocence Project.

That is fundamentally a retributive program. We don’t want the innocent being executed. You say 100 percent certainty. I’m not 100 percent certain that this ceiling won’t fall, collapse, and kill us, neither are we all, but we’re very brave to sit here. The fact is we trust our lives constantly. We trust our lives for a tiny risk of death and for the sake -- when I walk my beloved grandchildren and do it down Broadway where a truck might jump the curb and kill them for the sake of convenience. Surely if I’m willing to take an infinitesimal risk for those I love for the sake of convenience, I’m willing to take that same kind of risk for those I detest for the sake of something much more sacred, which is justice. It can be refined. I’d love to talk about how it can be refined and improved. And one last point if I might, which is they ducked the question and the reason they ducked the question is because abolitionists -- your question, because abolitionists are divided into two categories

Some will admit and have admitted to me yes, people do deserve to die, I just don’t trust the government to do it. Others deny that anybody can deserve to die. And so when you ask the question you asked, you’re using the entering which to split the ranks of the abolitionists.

John Donvan:

Barry Scheck.

Barry Scheck:

That’s -- I’ll admit I don’t trust the government to get it right. I’m like George Will--

Robert Blecker:

But do people deserve to die, Barry?

Barry Scheck:

It’s a government program.

Robert Blecker:

Do people deserve to die?

John Donvan:

Diann.

Diann Rust-Tierney:

Yeah, I want to bring this back to what this is really a conversation about, which is a public policy question. It is not an abstract conversation about whether some people deserve to die. And I think that’s the point. We’ve been proceeding down this road as if that’s the question. The question is do we do things that don’t add up to a real product and we’ve yet to hear. We hear oh, both sides of the story about --

John Donvan:

Diann, why don’t you feel the abstract question is relevant?

Diann Rust-Tierney:

Because we’re talking about a public policy like everything else. And when you have a public policy decision to make you look at does this thing that we’re doing actually produce what it’s supposed to? Does it work in a way that it’s supposed to work? And our opponents concede that this thing is broken.

They just say we need to keep trying to fix it. The point is it’s broken.

John Donvan:

All right. Kent Scheidegger, just a little bit more on the abstractness of this issue.

Kent Scheidegger:

Okay. Yeah.

John Donvan:

Your opponents are saying that it -- that the abstractions are irrelevant to this conversation. For example, the question that maybe some people do deserve to die does not belong in this conversation because we’re talking about a policy. What’s your response to that?

Kent Scheidegger:

I believe that both the retributive and the utilitarian aspects have to be considered. I think Robert is right that it is a matter of justice and a matter of who deserves to die and I also think that the practical aspects also need to be considered, the questions of deterrence and incapacitation, and I think we need to weigh all three of these factors when we consider the public policy such as this.

Barry Scheck:

I should add one thing on the -- I don’t want to be perceived as ducking the moral question. I think that there are plenty of people in this country that are pro-life, that believe that it is wrong to take a life.

You know, the Pope -- in the corner with the Pope and others on that question, but when you’re debating a public policy issue about something like this that doesn’t work and is causing incredible suffering for the wrongly convicted, even for many families of murder victims that don’t find closure in this process and go through it, some do, I just, you know, nobody wants to say that the moral question is irrelevant, but it is a factor to be weighed. That’s all. And there are plenty of people on the right that think it’s morally wrong to take a life.

John Donvan:

I just find it a little bit difficult to disentangle from the policy question, for example, and the question I’m going to put to you, Robert Blecker, where I think I heard you say that if society makes some mistakes and some innocent people do die on rare occasions, as much as you abhor that, that’s the price that we need to be willing to pay in order to preserve the right to execute. Am I hearing you correctly, that you’re willing to pay that price of mistakes being made?

Robert Blecker:

In order to preserve the responsibility for justice. But then the question is, what is that probability? What is that threshold? And it --

John Donvan:

But let’s say it’s one in a million. Let’s say it’s one in a billion.

Robert Blecker:

Yes. Yes. I mean, we consciously allocate resources in this society. We could make our bridges safer. We could make our roads safer, and we don’t. We can statistically calculate how many people will die on the highways that otherwise wouldn’t die if we made them safer. We choose to let them die because we think we have other priorities. My point is that justice, which is the second purpose listed in the preamble of the United States constitution, along with “a more perfect union, and general welfare, and common defense,” et cetera, et cetera, is a fundamental value that we embrace in this society and that we need to unfortunately take some very small risks. But I would minimize them, and I do have practical solution -- not solutions. Practical suggestions for refining the death penalty.

John Donvan:

Let me bring it to -- let me bring Diann back in.

Diann Rust-Tierney:

I would just say, you know, we’re talking as if we’re -- the only thing out there is the death penalty.

The vast majority of homicides do not result in a death sentence. The vast majority of cases that are resolved have justice because people are serving long prison sentences, including life without parole. So, the idea that unless we have the death penalty, we cannot have justice, is just a false premise.

John Donvan:

Kent Scheidegger?

Kent Scheidegger:

For the vast majority of homicides, yes. Life in prison is justice. But for a very few, for the worst of the worst, no it isn’t. It’s not for the marathon bomber. It wasn’t for Charles Manson. He’s grinning at us to this day, because we temporarily abolished the death penalty, networking with his fan base on his smuggled cell phone. And he just has not been sufficiently punished and will not be sufficiently punished.

John Donvan:

Barry Scheck.

Barry Scheck:

Well, I -- first of all, I think Bob ducked your question about how many --

Robert Blecker:

Really?

Barry Scheck:

-- how many innocents -- what is the error rate for executing the wrongly-convicted that would be tolerable in the cost-benefit analysis?

And I know that you’d want to see the system perfected, but when you have really good analysis by Sam Gross in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, pointing that we have a 4.1 error rate -- percent error rate in capital cases in the United States, I’d submit to you that’s really an unacceptable number.

John Donvan:

That would be 4,000 in a million.

Robert Blecker:

But it’s actually a number that’s not characterized correctly. But we’d be getting into a very complex statistical debate over that, and that -- the audience would be uninterested in -- and I’m probably not qualified to --

Barry Scheck:

Well, it’s not even a question.

Robert Blecker:

-- do --

Barry Scheck:

You don’t even have to characterize it.

Robert Blecker:

There’s no 4 percent error rate, Barry.

Barry Scheck:

Let’s just say --

Robert Blecker:

And you know it.

Barry Scheck:

-- John asked you, if it’s one in a million. What if it’s 1 in 400? What if it’s one in 1,000? I mean, let’s get to numbers that, frankly, are pretty close to that error rate. I mean, you know, we’re not even getting into -- there’s over 1,500 people whose convictions in this country, since 1989, were vacated based on new evidence of innocence.

And you may say, “Oh, that’s two” -- the Registry of Wrongful Convictions says that, and maybe Kent will say, “Well, not all of them were innocent. Maybe some of them just got unfair trials” or something like that. But these numbers are substantial. The 326 --

John Donvan:

Okay.

Barry Scheck:

-- post-conviction DNA exonerations, they were all innocent.

John Donvan:

Let’s dig down into some of the points that were made earlier. Kent Scheidegger, your opponents are saying that the deterrence argument is pretty solid, they say, that the science more or less shows that deterrence doesn’t work. They cite examples of states that have high murder rates and high -- and the death penalty -- Texas, for example, as an example. Very compelling argument. What’s your response to it?

Kent Scheidegger:

Well, actually, it’s not a very compelling argument. And if you --

John Donvan:

I -- oh, I -- well, I bought it, but --

[laughter]

Kent Scheidegger:

It’s pretty elementary social science that that kind of one-item comparison, between two different groups, is not valid. Texas is different from Vermont in a lot of ways, besides the death penalty. And you’re comparing apples and oranges, to just take that one item, compare two groups, and assume that that difference is what caused the difference in the murder rates.

That’s the basic problem of correlation and causation. We -- I often hear the argument, “Well, you compare the United States and Europe, and compare their murder rates.” Well, you can take the exact same argument and compare Europe and Japan, and you get the opposite result. So, it is not valid to make that kind of simplistic argument.

Barry Scheck:

But -- but one thing that we can all agree on -- because Bob believes it, and tell me if you don’t --

Male Speaker:

I’m sorry?

Barry Scheck:

-- that you believe it -- and tell me if you don’t -- and I thought you conceded it, Ken -- and that is the National Academy of Sciences, when it looked at all the studies on deterrence, said there is no persuasive evidence that it deters. And my point to you is that if you’re going to use the ultimate punishment and you want to justify it on the basis of deterrence when there’s no persuasive evidence that it deters, we win that point in the public policy debate.

John Donvan:

Robert Blecker.

Robert Blecker:

Well --

John Donvan:

Robert Blecker.

Robert Blecker:

-- well, first of all, in terms of the neighboring states, and the New York Times published a famous study about that neighboring states, and the states without the death penalty had a lower homicide rate than the states with them.

And they conveniently left out Washington, D.C., which is right between Virginia and Maryland, which at the time both had the death penalty. Washington, D.C., did not, and Washington, D.C., had a much higher murder rate. Now, I was in Lorton Prison for 12 years and interviewed and spent time listening to convicted killers in D.C. And you read sometimes in the literature that there’s no evidence that it deters. Well, in fact, one of them told me about a situation in which he broke into the house of a drug dealer expecting many keys of coke and found many keys of heroin. In addition to the keys of coke, had him duct taped and a gun to his head and didn’t kill him. And I asked him, “Why? What went through your mind at that moment?” He said, “Well, when I was a child, I used to look through the window of the D.C. jail and look at the electric chair, and when I was on Virginia’s penitentiary, I used to sweep the hall and look at the electric chair. And what went through my mind at the moment before I let him live was the electric chair, and that I didn’t want to have that.” That was half the evidence.

The other half was he told me the situation in D.C without a death penalty, same situation, drug dealers had them duct taped, and I said, “What’d you do?” And he said, “I killed them because I can face what they have waiting for me here. I just couldn’t face what they had waiting for me there.” That’s only a single datum, but that is as close as you will ever get to primary evidence that sometimes the death penalty is a more effective deterrent than its alternative, life without parole.

John Donvan:

Diann.

Diann Rust-Tierney:

But our point is we need more evidence than that, and the burden is on you to show that this is useful. There is no affirmative strong argument or evidence to suggest that the death penalty is a deterrent, and you’ve admitted that. You said, “It’s equivocal, but we should keep going forward,” and that’s really the public policy question.

John Donvan:

Diann, I want to take to you a point that I believe I understood Kent to make, which was that the -- that your side, the abolitionist’s side, moves arguments when the data fails your first arguments.

And the example he gave was on the race question, where he said, if I have this right, Kent, that at one time the argument was that most of the convicts facing -- on death row were disproportionately African-American, but that the argument, failing data confirmation, that you move the argument to “Most of the victims are white,” and that, that’s a little bit of a dance. So, I’d like you to respond both to his point that you’re moving the goalpost and just to go to the point itself.

Diann Rust-Tierney:

I wish I had the power to move goal posts the way Kent was talking about, but we don’t do that. The facts are the same. What I see is sort of Kent looking selectively at the evidence. The case has always been that the death penalty actually tracks our history of racial apartheid when it comes to criminal justice, that the death penalty when we had slave codes actually was meted out based on the race of the victim and the race of the defendant, and even though the slave codes and -- we’ve made some progress, the -- the process -- the system still works the same way. The core issue is that the death penalty values some lives more than others.

And when it comes to the good that our opponents are saying the death penalty offers, that good is only used when the victim is white, because that’s where the system currently sees the value lying.

John Donvan:

And the data is there?

Diann Rust-Tierney:

And the data is there. And the reason --

John Donvan:

Okay. I’ll let you finish and then bring it to Kent.

Diann Rust-Tierney:

Sure. Well, first of all --

[talking simultaneously]

Diann Rust-Tierney:

-- finish.

John Donvan:

No, no, you finish, Diann, and then I want Kent to respond.

Diann Rust-Tierney:

There was a recent study that just came out that looked at death sentences from 1976 to 2013, and what that study found was two things, first, that the race of victim discrimination continued, that the least likely -- as I said earlier, the least likely victim for whom the death penalty is sought will be an African-American man even though African-American men are the most likely to be the victims of homicide. And they also found that the defendant -- a defendant who was convicted and sent to death for murdering a white victim who was African-American is far more likely.

One other point, prosecutors -- every study -- there’s been over 200 studies over 40 years -- every study has found that prosecutors seek the death penalty for crimes against white victims more frequently than other victims.

John Donvan:

Okay, [unintelligible] I want to bring this to Kent.

Kent Scheidegger:

Okay.

John Donvan:

Kent Scheidegger.

Kent Scheidegger:

Well, first of all, I’m very glad to hear that we are agreed that seeking the death penalty constitutes honoring the life of the victim. I appreciate that you’re conceding that point.

Diann Rust-Tierney:

I’ve not said that.

[laughter]

Kent Scheidegger:

On the studies, the pattern of offending across racial groups is not uniform. That’s a demographic reality. If you take these studies and if they are litigated and if they are reanalyzed, if you have competing experts looking at the same data, what you find over and over again is that when additional factors, legitimate factors explaining the differences between cases are taken fully into account, that these racial differences vanish down into the statistical grass where we can say that it’s hardly even apparent there’s any effect there.

John Donvan:

Well, in the interest of intellectual honesty on all sides, are you all saying that the data we’re talking about can be cooked by either side to produce the results it wants?

Diann Rust-Tierney:

Absolutely not.

John Donvan:

You’re not saying that?

Diann Rust-Tierney:

40 years of -- 40 -- we have studied the death penalty in every state that had it 40 years, different researchers, different approaches, and the data -- the outcome is remarkably consistent, remarkably consistent finding racial bias.

John Donvan:

Robert Blecker.

Male Speaker:

You’ll have to --

John Donvan:

Oh, Barry [unintelligible].

Barry Scheck:

-- it’s the Baldus study in the McCleskey case, that went off on the issue of race of the victim, that is the effect that has been replicated countless times no matter who looks at the data and how often, and that’s what you’ll find the weight of criminologists and scientists saying, “The race of the victim makes a difference, period.”

John Donvan:

So, let me just bring this back to Kent for one more round on this point of -- your opponents are basically saying that the data is really consistent.

You’re basically saying that it’s not. Do we just declare impasse on this or is there --

Kent Scheidegger:

No, this is very soft science. These are mathematical models, and there’s a lot of leeway when you put together a mathematical model. And you can choose the variables the way you want. You can get the result you want. What we see time and again is the same authors who have a axe to grind put out study after study. And I do want to mention the Baldus study from Georgia, that study went to trial in Federal District Court, and the finding of the Federal District Court was that Baldus’s study did not, in fact, prove what he said it proved.

John Donvan:

Robert Blecker.

Robert Blecker:

Yeah, I want to dig down and talk about the meaning of this race of victim effect, if it’s real, and I believe it is real. Lorton Prison was the only all-black prison system in the United States, where I spent 12 years. And I explored this issue in depth. Diann Rust-Tierney says that it shows that if it’s more likely, that we will execute the killer of a white than the killer of a black, that means that we devalue black life. That’s not true. There are alternative explanations for it.

Most killings are same-race killings, whites on whites, blacks on blacks. The budget for death penalty trials, which is very high, tends to be more available -- the money is more available in white jurisdictions than black jurisdictions. The odds of picking a jury that’ll go death is greater in white jurisdictions, although there is substantial support for the death penalty in a black -- in black communities, it’s less than half. It’s in the range of 40 to 45 percent. So, what does it really mean? The victim’s family is consulted, “Do you want me to go death?” If it’s been a black victim, often they have a much more nuanced appreciation of what the conditions were that produced that killing. They realize that “There, but for fortune, my child who is now dead could just as easily be accused of the killing because he ran in the wrong crowd, he was part of a drug life, et cetera, et cetera. So why compound the tragedy?” So they will say, “Don’t go death.” That doesn’t show that they’re devaluing black life. That shows they’re continuing to value black life, including the life of the killer. There is --

John Donvan:

All right, let me stop you, and let Diann respond.

Diann Rust-Tierney:

You know, we have to keep bringing this back to reality. We’re in the midst of a conversation in this country right today where African-Americans and people of color do not have the same experience with law enforcement that other people have. And we’re telling people that we have essentially two systems of justice, and in that context we cannot have a death penalty. And what we’re talking about in terms of years of study is the same science that we use to look at implicit bias generally. It’s the same science that we use to determine that there’s a glass ceiling for women. It’s the same science that we’ve used to determine that women are not receiving equal pay. I mean, this is not some made-up science. This is how we determine whether a system, even a neutral system, operates in a way that has a discriminatory impact.

John Donvan:

Robert Blecker.

Robert Blecker:

I --

John Donvan:

Before you speak, I just want to say after Robert speaks, I want to go to you for questions, and I’m telling you this now before Robert so you can prepare. The way it will work is I’ll -- if you raise your hand, I’ll call on you.

We would appreciate if you would stand up, wait for a microphone to reach you. They’ll be brought to you. Hold it about as far away from your mouth as I am with this microphone so that we can hear you on all the podcasts and the radio broadcasts. Tell us your name and ask a question that’s on point and very terse. Thanks. Go ahead, Robert Blecker.

Robert Blecker:

I just want to acknowledge where there is a real race effect in the death penalty. And that’s not the way it’s administered. It’s the way it’s defined. That is to say, because felony murder is the most common aggravator, and robbery murders put more people on death row than any other aggravator, and because robbery is an economic crime and correlates with race, that creates the disparity in terms of percentage of population of population of those who are on death row, if you eliminate the robber aggravator from felony murder as a death penalty aggravator you eliminate the racially disparage effect and the other place that it occurs is the place that nobody wants to talk about, but that I became aware of. There is deep prejudice in both the black and the white community against those who have prototypically African features.

Studies have shown that the hue of the skin, this is true in the black community, as well as the white community, will influence the probability of being convicted and condemned. That is a pernicious form of racism that is extraordinarily troubling and almost impossible to eradicate in both communities.

John Donvan:

Barry Scheck.

Barry Scheck:

So, I’ve heard you say this before and it’s true, all right, and the -- you say well if we eliminate the felony aggravator then we’ll get rid of some of these race effects, which Bob, you acknowledge exist in the system, and we’ve got to be in the real world. That’s not happening.

Robert Blecker:

Oh, I think you’re wrong about that.

John Donvan:

Let’s go to some questions. Right there. And remember, I need you to not make a

speech --

[laughter]

John Donvan:

But to ask a question.

Female Speaker:

Hi. I’m D.C. If you -- this is for the against side.

If you are sort of talk so strongly about justice and deterrents, would you then be willing for deterrents in justice to have other ways rather than the death penalty such as caning or cutting off the hand that, you know, may work as a deterrent and maybe bring some kind of justice.

John Donvan:

An eye for an eye. Thank you. So, that’s -- that question is put to the side that’s arguing against the motion -- I just want to be clear. That means they are arguing against abolition of the death penalty. Would you like to take the question Robert?

Robert Blecker:

Sure.

John Donvan:

Robert Blecker.

Robert Blecker:

First of all, an eye for an eye is a measure. It’s not a justification as is pointed out classically. If a one-eyed person takes out one of two good eyes of a victim he’s left him sighted. If you take out his eye you’ve blinded him. So we’ve -- I’m sorry. We’ve traded the notion of proportional punishment. Now, to directly answer your question what would I have? No, not physical mutilation by any means, but I would have something that I call permanent punitive segregation, which means life should be unpleasant.

The food that they eat every day, I’m talking about the worst of the worst of the worst who are never getting out, they should eat only nutraloaf, which is a tasteless, but nutritionally complete patty, gives you absolutely no satisfaction. I saw Komisarjevsky, Hayes’ cohort on death row with his Hershey bar. He’ll wake up, watch a ballgame, and eat a Hershey bar. That’s wrong. There should be no such thing as play. Play? Exercise yes. Play for the worst of the worst of the worst? Absolutely not.

John Donvan:

Are you talking about a life without parole scenario or a death row scenario?

Robert Blecker:

I’m talking about both. Life without parole is a fundamentally retributive punishment. When we commit someone to life without parole we’re saying --

John Donvan:

Well, your opponents are arguing for life without parole as the alternative to death penalty.

Robert Blecker:

Yeah, but they’re saying live in the real world and then they’re ignoring what the real world is for the lifer’s who serve life without parole.

John Donvan:

Barry Scheck.

Barry Scheck:

Bob, I mean, people should know your real position and I understand it intellectually.

Yes, you are saying that, you know, logical extension of your argument is if we had that kind of punitive segregation and -- that that would make life without parole a more acceptable alternative to you than the death penalty. Just in case people missed it, you were objecting to the way that lethal injection is done because you don’t want people anesthetized so that it looks like you want people to see that there is suffering at the time of the execution. You think that’s important. You favor firing squads, right?

Robert Blecker:

I do.

Barry Scheck:

Right. So, let’s just look -- I mean, your argument is a retributive argument. You’re not arguing deterrence. You’re not arguing that there is a high risk of executing innocents. You have a position which I understand, but I actually don’t think that that is a generally shared view.

John Donvan:

I’m sure everybody gets this, but I know that when I was studying for this I stumbled a little bit on the word retributive until I realized doh, retribution, that’s -- it’s obviously sort of the just desserts argument as Kent put it on early today. So, it’ s -- again, it does come back to eye for an eye. Let’s go to another question. Down here, sir.

Male Speaker:

Thank you to all the panelists. My name is Evan Katz from Manhattan. I’ve always been anti-death penalty for the reasons we’ve discussed. There is a debate now going on whether this country and the Supreme Court should look to other countries at all, somewhat, or a lot regarding what they are doing. And I’ve got a question for all the panelists, but especially those against the motion -- it seems that most of the rest of the world is going against the death penalty, especially developed nations. And if you look at who’s for it, who’s against it abroad, the U.S. is much more aligned -- vastly more aligned with the countries that have abolished the death penalty. Could the panelists discuss what’s going on abroad, and especially the panel against the motion, please?

John Donvan:

Only to the degree that this can be relevant to whether we should abolish here. And I’m not sure that it is. Does anybody feel that what’s happening abroad is relevant to what we do here?

Diann Rust-Tierney:

I think --

Male Speaker:

Yeah.

John Donvan:

Do you? Yeah. Diann Rust, take it.

Diann Rust-Tierney:

Well, I would say --

John Donvan:

[unintelligible] --

Diann Rust-Tierney:

-- you know, most of our allies who are committed to the advancement of human rights and civil rights really are looking to the United States to abolish the death penalty because we do have a reputation for leading in these areas. And so, I think that in addition to the good that it would do for us to get rid of the death penalty, we could actually make a larger contribution to the broader struggle that many in other countries that you mentioned are fighting. You know, there -- we have a trial. There are people who are sentenced to death without the kind of trial and protections that we have. There are people who are sentenced to death who don’t know when they’re going to be executed. The guard comes from the -- and those kinds of situations can’t really be addressed as long as the United States can be pointed to as still having it.

So, there’s a very important benefit for us to abolish the death penalty, because we can advance human rights in other places where we could all agree that human rights need to be advanced.

John Donvan:

We haven’t heard from Kent in a few minutes, so I’d like to --

Kent Scheidegger:

Okay.

John Donvan:

-- hear Kent [unintelligible].

Kent Scheidegger:

My short answer is no.

[laughter]

Kent Scheidegger:

I think the United States can and should decide this issue for itself. I think it’s entitled to decide this issue for itself. As far as examples to other countries, I think we can serve as an example to those countries that don’t want to abolish the death penalty, that yes, you can have the death penalty consistently with human rights. We can do that.

John Donvan:

Robert Blecker? If you can be brief on this one, because --

Robert Blecker:

Sure. You hear “Follow Europe’s lead.” Let’s talk about Europe’s lead. Anders Breivik in Norway set off a bomb outside the parliament building in Oslo, killing eight, then went to an island and killed 69 youths. You know what his sentence was? 21 years in prison, the maximum that Norway has. But lest you think they’re treating him too well, he’s right now on a hunger strike. Why is he on a hunger strike inside prison? Because they’re not giving him Playstation 3.

[laughter]

John Donvan:

Okay.

Robert Blecker:

They’re only giving him -- Europe has abolished life without parole.

Do you know that? If we follow Europe’s lead, we abolish life without parole -- not only have they abolished the death penalty. You don’t read that in the Times.

John Donvan:

Right down in front, please.

[laughter]

Female Speaker:

Hi. My name is [unintelligible].

[applause]

Female Speaker:

I’m interested in something that Kent Scheidegger said. You said that comparing Vermont and Texas is not apples to apples. So, I’m wondering, what are the elements that distinguish your examples of Vermont and Texas as being not apple to apple? And if those elements that are Vermont-ish could be replicated in the Texas examples, then would that be sufficient to justify abolishing the death penalty?

John Donvan:

All right. Great question. A fruit based question --

[laughter]

John Donvan:

But it’s actually an excellent question. Let’s take that to you, Kent.

Kent Scheidegger:

Yeah. I mean, there’s a huge cultural difference between various regions of the country. And the countries that have abolished the death penalty, by and large, are those countries that already had lower crime rates before they abolished the death penalty.

It’s just built into the whole culture of the state. To do the analysis, you have to try to control mathematically through models for these other factors. And that’s what the deterrence studies do. And I think there is a very substantial body of literature showing a deterrent effect through that kind of mathematical modeling. I do not concede that -- what Barry said, that there’s no good evidence. The report that he refers to says very clearly, in the front matter of the report, that it is simply the personal opinions of the authors whose name appear on that report. There are plenty of other experts who disagree with that, so I think there is a substantial basis, once you do that kind of modeling, to believe that there is a deterrent effect. If I really believe there wasn’t a deterrent effect, as things stand now, I think -- I still think that justice would be enough by itself to justify the penalty.

John Donvan:

Barry Scheck.

Barry Scheck:

Oh, giving little ground there on deterrence, I see.

But look, the question brings up the statistic I cited at the very beginning. If you have counties -- counties is really what you have to look at, although most of them are in the South. But there are a few that over-produce death in California. If two percent of the counties in this country are producing 56 percent of the death sentences and 52 percent of the executions, when two-thirds of Americans reside in counties, where there hasn’t been -- there’s been one execution or less in 45 years, right? All of a sudden you begin to see -- and it doesn’t take much to see it -- that there are just a small number of counties in this country and a small number of states that are engaged in capital punishment in a serious way.

John Donvan:

Another question? Ma’am, right down here. Yep, that’s you.

Female Speaker:

Okay, so this is for I guess all the panelists.

John Donvan:

I -- if you can just sort of throw it out there. I don’t -- we don’t -- wouldn’t have time for everybody to answer.

Female Speaker:

Sure.

John Donvan:

Okay.

Female Speaker:

Just so a quick question.

John Donvan:

Sure.

Female Speaker:

You mentioned that for someone who’s on death row, they have to go through the appeals process and get multiple, you know, government-issued attorneys. Do you think, you know, I guess people for the motion, if that’s actually someone, you know, of color or an African-American, if they had a poor attorney given to them from -- for life on parole, and then they got to go through this process, do you think it would be more helpful for getting truly innocent people off?

John Donvan:

Diann Rust-Tierney.

Diann Rust-Tierney:

I think one of the sad things about the death penalty is because the punishment is so severe that the limited resources -- as much as Barry is able to do with the Innocence Projects across the country, have to focus on, you know, those people who are sentenced to death. I think if there were no death penalty, there would be many more resources and much more opportunity to look for and address the question of innocence of people who are serving other sentences.

You know, keep in mind, there’s one underlying theme, we make mistakes, and we’re being told that, you know, “Well, some mistakes are tolerable,” but I think your point is the fact that we have to focus on the death penalty means we cannot focus the resources that we need to address the problem of a system that makes mistakes.

John Donvan:

Barry Scheck.

Barry Scheck:

And let’s be clear about what those costs are. When Maryland studied the death penalty before they abolished it, they were able to determine that a capital case was seven times more expensive than a noncapital case, that the executions in Maryland averaged $37 million per execution, it’s $23 million in Florida, it’s $185 million in California, and, you know, California’s system is completely crazy. There’s 734 people on the row, right, hundreds that don’t have lawyers, who have been sentenced to death. And there are some pretty good death penalty lawyers there, but there are also some that are not very good.

And we can’t fund it. I mean, why would you put all this money into propping up a system where they have no persuasive evidence of deterrence, right, that we need all this money to finance an underfunded criminal justice system that has so much to be fixed, particularly when it comes to forensic science?

John Donvan:

All right, let me -- Barry, let me let the other side respond because the question was to all sides. If you’d like to, Kent Scheidegger.

Kent Scheidegger:

Well, yeah, the California one is the one I’m most familiar with, and the study counted in as costs of the death penalty a great many things that are not costs of the death penalty. They’re costs of the obstruction of the death penalty. The length of time spent on death row was cited as the number one cost. We spend a lot of money in California going over and over and over the same case, litigating issues that have nothing whatever to do with whether the person is guilty or not. And we have been to the legislature and proposed reforms to fix that. They have been killed in the legislature, but we do have an initiative process in California, and I believe that it will be fixed, and it will be both a better system and a cheaper system.

And ultimately the death penalty does not need to cost more than life without parole.

John Donvan:

I want to remind you that we are in the question and answer section of this Intelligence Squared U.S. Debate. I’m John Donvan, your moderator. We have four debaters, two teams of two, arguing it out over this motion, “Abolish the Death Penalty.” And let’s go back to some audience questions. Sir, right in the middle here, the mic’s going to come from your right side. Do you see it? Excellent questions tonight so far, folks, really.

Male Speaker:

Impressive.

John Donvan:

Yeah, yeah, keep it up. Yeah.

[laughter]

Male Speaker:

This question is for both of those against the motion. I think it was asked several times, but I never really heard an answer. If you accept the fact that there are 4.1 percent of false positives, if you accept that and you accept that, that cannot be changed, does that change your position, and, if not, why? And [unintelligible] preferably if both of you could answer that…

John Donvan:

Kent Scheidegger.

Kent Scheidegger:

If I believed that were really true, I would be against the death penalty. I don’t believe it’s true, not for a minute.

The author who came up with that number is one of the people I’ve referred to, who just pumps out paper after paper after paper every time supporting abolition of the death penalty. It’s easy to cook books in studies like that.

John Donvan:

Robert Blecker.

Robert Blecker:

I, too, if I thought there were a 4.1 percent true error rate, would be opposed -- would impose a moratorium until we fixed it and there was nothing like that. I don’t believe it’s anything like that.

John Donvan:

Is there evidence against your side in the fact that so many states have moved to abolish the death penalty and in the -- what your opponents claimed is the preference of police chiefs or the -- or the lack of preference of police chiefs for the death penalty, where they rank it last among the things that are [unintelligible].

Kent Scheidegger:

Yeah, the Death Penalty Information Center surveyed police chiefs because they knew that was where they were likely to get the result they wanted. If you surveyed line police officers, you would get a very different result. When my organization has spoken to police groups, the police officers who were actually on the line actually dealing with the bad guys every day, the support is practically uniform in favor of keeping and maintaining capital punishment.

John Donvan:

Diann.

Diann Rust-Tierney:

But that -- that --

John Donvan:

Let’s let Diann speak.

Diann Rust-Tierney:

-- I want to bring it back to what the question was. The question is not -- because many of the people that were surveyed did support the death penalty in theory, but when they were asked from their position of having to manage law enforcement resources and from their experience about what they thought it needed to take -- what it took to make the community safer, they made a choice that said that the death penalty, among all the things that we could have, is the least useful thing that we would need. So, the distinction is not whether these people support the death penalty in theory. The question is whether when you have to make tough choices about resources, whether this is the thing that’s going to get the result.

John Donvan:

And, Robert, the part of the question about the fact that states have been moving to

abolish more than the other way around.

Robert Blecker:

Oh, so I don’t get to answer that. You know what? I wanted to respond to that in terms of management and resources, but -- and why police chiefs aren’t the right people to -- there’s an analogy inside the prison about why corrections officers are the last people to ask also about the death penalty, because for them it’s a management question and it’s much easier to manage without it than it is to manage with it.

It’s not -- they’re not the people to consult about justice. The states are increasingly abolishing the death penalty in my view because they are abetted by the media, which is overwhelmingly anti-death penalty, overwhelmingly, and which skews the perspective on it. You know, just to give you an example of that, the Gallup Poll from the -- not the latest one, the one before that -- had 60 percent of the American people supporting the death penalty, answering the standard question which they’ve been asking since 1936. The headlines were, “Death Penalty Support a 40-Year Low.” The next year, last year, the result was 64 percent. So it had risen by 4 percent. What’s the headline? “Death Penalty Support Stays Fairly Constant Over the Last 10 Years.” It reminds me of the Russian report of the famous race, the horserace between the Russian horse and the U.S. horse. And the U.S. horse whips the Russian horse, and the report the next day is, “In Major International Horserace, Gallant Russian Horse Takes a Wonderful Second. The U.S. Horse Gets a Disappointing Next to Last.”

[laughter]

John Donvan:

In the back, sir, can you come down?

Barry Scheck:

[unintelligible] wait a second. John, John.

John Donvan:

Yeah, I --

Barry Scheck:

I have a [unintelligible] --

John Donvan:

-- I just want to position this gentleman [unintelligible] come forward. So, if you can come down a little bit.

Barry Scheck:

-- but let me -- let me --

John Donvan:

Barry Scheck.

Barry Scheck:

-- but let’s get to the heart of it now, because let me see if I just heard what our opponents are saying. They’re saying, “The last people to ask about whether the death penalty is going to make you safer are police chiefs”?

Robert Blecker:

I didn’t say that.

Barry Scheck:

No? Well, Kent certainly did. He said, “Ask the line cop.” Here’s the point. The reason why police chiefs, who as Diann pointed out very frequently would count in the votes, they say, “Are you for or against the death penalty in principle or for moral purposes?” and they would say, “Yes.” But if you ask police chiefs, “Should we have the death penalty now?” as a public policy matter, they’d say, “No.”

And the reason they’d say, “No,” are all the issues that we’ve raised in this debate about public policy, that they see no evidence of deterrence, it’s extremely expensive, it’s taking away resources they need to keep your community safe, right? What they need to have good crime labs, to have good police officers, to have good training, to make the community safe, they are saying, “This is not helping us, it’s hurting us.”

John Donvan:

Sir.

Barry Scheck:

That has to be respected.

Male Speaker:

I just wanted clarification from Robert on -- it’s related to the media. And our notion of prison is not the research notion that you have, and I think perhaps you might have taken it for granted that it is a cushy type of -- that sentence, waiting period. Please clarify that. And also --

John Donvan:

Wait, wait, I’m not following your question.

Male Speaker:

-- oh, the life in prison aspect. You seemed to -- I -- feel it wasn’t a punishment aspect.

Male Speaker:

That’s right.

Male Speaker:

And to address the nature of the simply -- the freedom itself being taken away.

I felt like that was somewhat dismissive and that I would like clarification on how --

John Donvan:

So, you’re questioning -- you’re saying, “Come on, Robert, are you really telling me life without parole is the party you’re describing?”

Male Speaker:

-- yeah, because the media presents it as a [unintelligible] differently.

John Donvan:

Okay, and your point is that the media makes it seem like it’s not so nice?

Male Speaker:

Yeah, exactly.

John Donvan:

I’m actually -- I actually am a little bit between the two of you, because, Kent, you got up there and said that if you are convicted of life without parole, your odds of getting a lawyer and getting legal representation are a lot less than if you are sentenced to die, which makes it sound like it’s not so great to have life without parole. And Robert is portraying it as a sort of --

Robert Blecker:

Well, we’re talking about different aspects of it.

John Donvan:

Okay. All right. So, Robert, why don’t you take the question then?

Robert Blecker:

Yeah, we are talking about -- if you’re innocent you’re better off getting the death penalty in terms of your odds of it being proven -- you being proven innocent. This is the consistency. In terms of the -- I’m not taking anything for granted. I’ve got it on videotape. I was given privileged access.

I have tens and tens and tens of hours of lifer’s playing softball, first run movies of group rec, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The point is that the prison system is being run indiscriminately. It is not on the basis of the nature of the crime you committed. It has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with how you behave when you’re inside. Of course it’s a loss of liberty. I don’t want to spend my life in prison. I’m not saying that that’s not punishment. I’m saying that’s not punishment enough for the worst of the worst of the worst and it’s often much too much punishment for people who’ve committed relatively trivial crimes and are put into the same prisons --

John Donvan:

Diann Rust.

Robert Blecker:

-- with the same experience.

John Donvan:

Diann Rust-Tierney.

Diann Rust-Tierney:

My first observation is that --

[applause]

Diann Rust-Tierney:

My first observation is that the death penalty has to stand and fall on its own accord. The conversation that Robert is having about punishment whether it’s enough and whether -- it’s a whole different conversation. We are here to talk about whether this policy actually advances public safety and it doesn’t. The other point I want to make is that, you know, it’s not the media is [unintelligible].

The public when it thinks about the death penalty has to learn more about it. Most people don’t think about the death penalty and so the support is uninformed. What we’re seeing is as things like botched executions explode in the media, as we’re hearing about states going and getting drugs to kill people from the back of a driving school and all these crazy things, the public is starting to focus on it and when they focus on it they see that they don’t like it. So, that’s why we’re seeing state after state that examines this practice decide hmm, we don’t need this. That’s why we’re seeing the public support for the death penalty continue to decline. It’s no magic that the media is doing. It’s no magic that I’m doing. When you look at this system and you really understand how it works, you cannot support it. You cannot square it with our other values.

Barry Scheck:

I’d like to just --

John Donvan:

Very quickly.

Barry Scheck:

--what the questioner said is very important because something that should be corrected.

I understand, Bob, that in your view life in maximum security prisons is not harsh enough punishment for people, and you’ve described what you think would be harsher punishment, but I can tell you from all the clients I’ve represented, all these exonorees that I’ve talked with about what their prison experiences were like and some knowledge of maximum security prisons and familiarity with the literature, it’s a terrible place to be. You wake up every morning. You have no idea who’s going to kill you and when. You walk into the lunchroom. You look at somebody wrong, you can get stabbed. I mean, there are gangs in prison. There’s horrible violence in prison. You know, they should be safe, and that is why the correction people, Bob, tell you that they’re interested in keeping it safe and that is their job. And so the whole characterization of maximum security prison is, you know, Club Fed or something --

[laughter]

Barry Scheck:

-- it’s just really misleading and wrong.

[applause]

Robert Blecker:

Under court order I went into every maximum security prison in Illinois with a video camera. Illinois is not -- and also not everyone, but most of them in Oklahoma. These are not known as warm and fuzzy states. The number of stabbings inside the maximum security prisons are negligible. The -- in those, now I’ve not been to every state of course, and some are worse than others, but the point is not that, Barry. The point is this. Why are we having the same day-to-day lifestyle for the worst of the worst of the worst, and that’s why, Diann, you’re wrong. This is relevant.

John Donvan:

Okay. I’m going to stop this. Diann, you’re right that we are kind of getting off the point of whether to abolish the death penalty. I’m going to take one more question. Sir, right here.

Male Speaker:

Sorry. Hi. David Seaburg [spelled phonetically], and I am for the death penalty. Question to Barry, actually. I mean, you talk about prisons being so harsh and, you know, painful for these people that experience that.

Why isn’t that a deterrent for criminals, one, but when you’re talking about --

John Donvan:

Wait. I’m going to give you one question. Is that your best one?

Male Speaker:

Well, no. I have another one actually.

[laughter]

John Donvan:

All right. We’re going to not do the first one. We’re going to do this one.

Male Speaker:

When you talk about -- as a deterrent, right, when you think about measuring deterrents, whether or not it actually is effective or not, we’re talking about murderers. We’re talking about people that have gone out and taken lives of other people, innocent human beings. They’re irrational. You can’t possibly deter an irrational person in this world. It’s just an absolute farfetched --

John Donvan:

Okay, Barry Scheck. Can you deter a person that’s irrational?

Barry Scheck:

Well, I think your -- both parts of your question, I think, kind of make our point on the issue of deterrence, which is -- that’s what the studies show. I mean, that there is no evidence that you can deter somebody that is going to commit a murder for irrational reasons -- many homicides and family situations. That’s not how deterrence works, and you don’t get it from the threat of capital punishment.

And so, you know, that’s --

John Donvan:

Kent --

Barry Scheck:

-- so, capital punishment is not the answer on the issue of deterrence.

John Donvan:

Kent Scheidegger.

Kent Scheidegger:

And that’s why second-degree murder is not a capital offense. I mean, we do divide murder into degrees for exactly that reason. The heat of passion killing is not a capital offense. We reserve capital punishment for the worst crimes. A person who commits torture does this crime methodically. And he knows what he’s doing. And he’s thinking about what he’s doing. And these are not irrational in the sense that a person doesn’t know what he’s doing and doesn’t know the consequences. They are bizarre and they are demented, but they are not irrational.

John Donvan: