In Part I, Dr. Larry Gerston discussed the rise of Trumpism and its threat to democracy. Here, he talks tech, political balance, and what’s next.
You always tend to be positive. But are you angry about the state of the union and what Americans have let it become?
I’m a very positive person. I’m a half-full [kind] of guy, but [you’ve] got to take advantage of the half-full.
This idea of letting other people solve our problems won’t work. In my own small way, … I want to light a fire. I want people to understand their role and to move with it. I guess that’s where I’ve sort of evolved in my life. Being an academic, I don’t regret any of the other books I’ve written because they help me understand how things work, but there comes a point where I have to own it, too.
To what extent are some of our problems, such as partisan echo chambers and lack of exposure to diverse ideas, exacerbated by our increasing sorting into red areas and blue cities?
That’s just sort of an artificial way of people feeling secure, but it doesn’t really solve our problems. Hearing what other people have to say, coming to terms with it, having them hear you doesn’t necessarily solve problems, but at least it makes people aware of what the differences are and allows us to move from there.
Tolerance and acceptance of the rules are things you learn in school. These are things that are just cornerstones of democracy.
There’s no simple pill to get us out of this mess. It took us a good two generations to get here. We weren’t always this way.
When we’re talking about the illiberal movement, we’re often talking about the right. I see the further one goes to the left or the right, when you get to the hardcores, you find more antagonism toward liberal pluralism, about having to deal with people who disagree. Do you agree with that? And if so, is there a way to reinvigorate the center — which has shrunk in this country — which I would say is a critical component of saving our democracy.
I don’t think both sides are screwed up. Now, do I think there are fringes on the left? Yes. I think the problem is far more difficult on the right. … I’m not trying to exonerate the left.
It took us a good two generations to get here. We weren’t always this way.
I don’t know if it’s a matter of going toward the middle. It’s a matter of going to where we think we can get things done in a way where most people feel included. I think the country is basically center right. That’s not me; that’s the country.
There’s always going to be fringes. But the question is, can you take so many who have gravitated there without any real reason and bring them back toward understanding what each side is all about?
You note the capitulation of many big businesses to Trump over DEI and other things, especially some of the big tech in the Bay Area, like Meta. What role does business have?
The first thing we have to do is get rid of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Explain briefly what that is.
That’s the piece of legislation [from] 1996, when social media was just coming into its own. The guys in Congress said, “Let’s let this thing percolate. Let’s not kill it.” Because at first when these social media guys were [saying], “This is going to be where democracy flourishes. Everyone can have their say, and this is going to be a way for society to come together.” Nothing wrong with those ideas in principle, but of course what’s happened is that they’ve allowed terrible things to go on the Internet. They’ve allowed people to say things that are outrageous, to ruin people’s lives, and at the end of that, “don’t sue me; I’m just the company that has the platform.”
Very recently, Meta and Google have been nailed. You know they’re going to appeal. Probably very little will come out, but it does tell me there’s a crack in the door, and one of the things we have to do is get our arms around social media. I believe getting rid of Section 230 is a very, very big step.
By the way, a caveat, two of my three kids worked for Meta.
[You prescribe] increased participation and education on democracy and such. Are there additional constitutional guardrails we need to protect democracy in the future?
The Constitution works if you just use it correctly. If I had a magic wand and I could change the way things work, the one thing I would probably do is get rid of the Electoral College and make elections really reflective of what the majorities are saying. … That’s not going to happen. Other than that, it’s a matter of not abusing the power.
One part of it that’s unfortunate is the way that he’s packed the courts, the Supreme Court. I said to my classes for over 50 years, the most important part of electing the president is not who he is or what his plans are, but the fact that he can nominate judges who will be in power 30, 40 years after he’s gone. If you thought about that, maybe that’d be one reason you wouldn’t have voted for Trump.
There are two things I give Trump credit for. One, what he did with Covid — Operation Warp Speed; fabulous. Two, the fact that he’s been very clear about what he says he is going to do. So you can’t say he hid this from me. He’s been all in the open about it.
Do you have any fear that you can be retaliated against? [Your book title is] Overcoming Trumpism: How to Save American Democracy. That’s probably not Karoline Leavitt’s favorite book.
My wife and I talked about this as I was writing it, and I think there’s some possibility. I don’t think a lot of the possibility, because I’m just a small fish in a big ocean, but it’s possible. …
I can’t sit back and just watch what’s happening without saying something about it, because I think our democracy’s too important. That may sound really corny, but that’s where it is.
