WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.259 The deep dive. Lawrence R. Jacobs and the Fed. 00:00:03.620 --> 00:00:06.660 The illusion of American democracy. Political 00:00:06.660 --> 00:00:10.060 science, public policy, and the Fed. Ever wonder 00:00:10.060 --> 00:00:12.039 who is actually pulling the levers in Washington? 00:00:12.679 --> 00:00:15.380 In this deep dive, we explore the groundbreaking 00:00:15.380 --> 00:00:18.420 research of renowned political scientist Lawrence 00:00:18.420 --> 00:00:21.600 R. Jacobs. From the hidden ways politicians use 00:00:21.600 --> 00:00:24.100 polling to manipulate public opinion to the Federal 00:00:24.100 --> 00:00:26.500 Reserve's bias toward finance and the complex 00:00:26.500 --> 00:00:29.039 mechanics of health care reform, we unpack the 00:00:29.039 --> 00:00:32.250 reality of American public policy. Whether you're 00:00:32.250 --> 00:00:34.130 interested in the Affordable Care Act, election 00:00:34.130 --> 00:00:36.329 administration or the unilateral power of the 00:00:36.329 --> 00:00:39.270 presidency, this deep dive offers a nonpartisan, 00:00:39.329 --> 00:00:41.689 evidence based look at how our democracy really 00:00:41.689 --> 00:00:45.070 functions. Keywords Lawrence R. Jacobs, political 00:00:45.070 --> 00:00:48.009 science, American democracy, public policy, health 00:00:48.009 --> 00:00:50.630 care reform, Federal Reserve, political manipulation, 00:00:50.969 --> 00:00:53.189 University of Minnesota, Center for the Study 00:00:53.189 --> 00:00:55.409 of Politics and Governance. Have you ever watched 00:00:55.409 --> 00:00:58.009 a high stakes political debate or maybe read 00:00:58.009 --> 00:00:59.969 a headline about a massive new piece of legislation 00:00:59.969 --> 00:01:01.659 and thought to yourself? How does this actually 00:01:01.659 --> 00:01:04.680 work beneath the surface? Right. Not the sanitized 00:01:04.680 --> 00:01:07.019 textbook version of how a bill becomes a law. 00:01:07.180 --> 00:01:10.099 Exactly. Not the schoolhouse rock version, but 00:01:10.099 --> 00:01:12.920 the real often hidden mechanics that move the 00:01:12.920 --> 00:01:15.659 levers of power. The gears turning behind the 00:01:15.659 --> 00:01:17.959 curtain. Right. So today we are going on a mission 00:01:17.959 --> 00:01:20.799 to bypass those traditional narratives. We're 00:01:20.799 --> 00:01:23.120 going to unpack the reality of American democracy 00:01:23.120 --> 00:01:27.040 by exploring the incredibly prolific career of 00:01:27.040 --> 00:01:30.019 a singular figure. Dr. Lawrence R. Jacobs. Yes. 00:01:30.200 --> 00:01:33.640 He is a powerhouse political scientist holding 00:01:33.640 --> 00:01:35.659 the McKnight Presidential Chair at the University 00:01:35.659 --> 00:01:38.760 of Minnesota. And he has spent decades pulling 00:01:38.760 --> 00:01:41.180 back the curtain on how our system actually operates. 00:01:41.680 --> 00:01:43.540 And just to establish our source material for 00:01:43.540 --> 00:01:45.599 you today, we are pulling these insights directly 00:01:45.599 --> 00:01:48.599 from a comprehensive Wikipedia article detailing 00:01:48.599 --> 00:01:52.319 his career, his 17 books and well over 100 scholarly 00:01:52.319 --> 00:01:55.140 articles. Which is a massive intellectual footprint 00:01:55.140 --> 00:01:57.560 to cover. It really is. What stands out about 00:01:57.560 --> 00:02:00.140 his entire body of work, though, is this consistent 00:02:00.140 --> 00:02:02.599 drive to measure what is actually happening in 00:02:02.599 --> 00:02:04.859 Washington rather than what we simply told is 00:02:04.859 --> 00:02:07.659 happening. And that is exactly our mission on 00:02:07.659 --> 00:02:10.039 this deep dive. We want to figure out how American 00:02:10.039 --> 00:02:13.000 politics actually works. So we're going to look 00:02:13.000 --> 00:02:15.479 at the surprising ways politicians use public 00:02:15.479 --> 00:02:17.960 polling. We'll explore why the U .S. and Britain 00:02:17.960 --> 00:02:20.080 ended up with fundamentally different health 00:02:20.080 --> 00:02:22.199 care system. Right. And we'll even follow the 00:02:22.199 --> 00:02:24.699 money to see who really wins when the Federal 00:02:24.699 --> 00:02:28.340 Reserve acts. OK, let's unpack this, starting 00:02:28.340 --> 00:02:30.939 with one of the most persistent myths in modern 00:02:30.939 --> 00:02:34.039 politics, the idea of the pandering politician. 00:02:34.650 --> 00:02:36.710 It is the perfect place to start, largely because 00:02:36.710 --> 00:02:39.409 it completely upends the conventional wisdom 00:02:39.409 --> 00:02:41.590 we all take for granted. Right. If you ask almost 00:02:41.590 --> 00:02:43.650 anyone, the assumption is that politicians are 00:02:43.650 --> 00:02:45.969 constantly licking their fingers, sticking it 00:02:45.969 --> 00:02:48.030 in the wind and just doing whatever the latest 00:02:48.030 --> 00:02:49.669 poll tells them to do. Because they're desperate 00:02:49.669 --> 00:02:52.449 for votes, right? Exactly. The narrative is that 00:02:52.449 --> 00:02:54.949 they pander to majority public opinion just to 00:02:54.949 --> 00:02:57.969 win elections. But Jacobs dug into this deeply 00:02:57.969 --> 00:03:01.110 in his year 2000 book, Politicians Don't Pander, 00:03:01.270 --> 00:03:03.650 which he co -authored with Robert Y. Shapiro. 00:03:04.009 --> 00:03:06.349 And the data they uncovered tells a dramatically 00:03:06.349 --> 00:03:09.210 different story. What's fascinating here is the 00:03:09.210 --> 00:03:12.750 historical timeline they identified. The research 00:03:12.750 --> 00:03:15.710 shows that prior to the 1970s, there were specific 00:03:15.710 --> 00:03:18.229 conditions in American politics, particularly 00:03:18.229 --> 00:03:20.590 within the structures of the political parties 00:03:20.590 --> 00:03:23.490 themselves, that facilitated a genuine level 00:03:23.490 --> 00:03:26.370 of government responsiveness to the public. But 00:03:26.370 --> 00:03:29.389 then something changed. A fundamental shift occurred. 00:03:29.530 --> 00:03:33.389 Yes. The policymaking process became increasingly 00:03:33.389 --> 00:03:37.750 insular. By the 1980s and 90s, Jacobs and Shapiro 00:03:37.750 --> 00:03:40.050 found that the motivations of politicians had 00:03:40.050 --> 00:03:42.710 shifted entirely away from simply reflecting 00:03:42.710 --> 00:03:45.210 majority opinion. But I want to push back on 00:03:45.210 --> 00:03:47.349 that for a second. If they aren't listening to 00:03:47.349 --> 00:03:50.430 the polls, why are campaigns and political committees 00:03:50.430 --> 00:03:53.030 spending hundreds of millions of dollars on polling 00:03:53.030 --> 00:03:55.879 every single election cycle? It's a great question. 00:03:56.060 --> 00:03:58.080 I mean, what is the return on investment if they 00:03:58.080 --> 00:04:00.419 are just ignoring what the public wants? Well, 00:04:00.460 --> 00:04:02.879 they aren't ignoring the polls. They are weaponizing 00:04:02.879 --> 00:04:05.500 them. Wow. According to the research, politicians 00:04:05.500 --> 00:04:07.919 aren't using polling to figure out what policies 00:04:07.919 --> 00:04:10.460 you want. They are using polling to figure out 00:04:10.460 --> 00:04:13.259 exactly which words, arguments, and symbols will 00:04:13.259 --> 00:04:15.080 change your mind to support the policies they 00:04:15.080 --> 00:04:17.420 already intend to pass. So they use polls to 00:04:17.420 --> 00:04:20.360 engineer consent. Precisely. They are testing 00:04:20.360 --> 00:04:23.920 language to convince the public to back the agendas 00:04:23.920 --> 00:04:26.439 favored by political elites, their allies, and 00:04:26.439 --> 00:04:29.180 their donors. The polls are basically sophisticated 00:04:29.180 --> 00:04:31.959 laboratories. So instead of asking should we 00:04:31.959 --> 00:04:35.139 cut taxes, they are using focus groups to see 00:04:35.139 --> 00:04:37.720 whether the phrase tax relief or economic stimulus 00:04:37.720 --> 00:04:40.860 gets a better emotional reaction from a specific 00:04:40.860 --> 00:04:43.639 demographic. Exactly. They already know what 00:04:43.639 --> 00:04:45.899 they want to do. They just need the data to figure 00:04:45.899 --> 00:04:49.060 out. how to sell it to you that reframes the 00:04:49.060 --> 00:04:51.180 entire political theater and this isn't just 00:04:51.180 --> 00:04:54.310 some Brief phenomenon from the 90s. In a 2015 00:04:54.310 --> 00:04:56.629 follow -up book called Who Governs President's 00:04:56.629 --> 00:04:59.449 Public Opinion and Manipulation, Jacobs and his 00:04:59.449 --> 00:05:02.189 co -author James N. Druckmann trace this elite 00:05:02.189 --> 00:05:04.670 manipulation back for decades. Right into the 00:05:04.670 --> 00:05:07.009 presidential archives. Yes, all the way back 00:05:07.009 --> 00:05:09.610 to Lyndon Johnson. Starting with LBJ, presidents 00:05:09.610 --> 00:05:11.730 have systematically used private research on 00:05:11.730 --> 00:05:14.329 public opinion to design their arguments and 00:05:14.329 --> 00:05:16.509 shape their personal images. They use the data 00:05:16.509 --> 00:05:18.870 to build their own personal popularity. Which 00:05:18.870 --> 00:05:20.730 gives them the political capital to actually 00:05:20.730 --> 00:05:23.620 def - defy the policy preferences of most Americans. 00:05:23.860 --> 00:05:26.879 It is a profound realization about the modern 00:05:26.879 --> 00:05:29.920 presidency. And this pattern of government unresponsiveness 00:05:29.920 --> 00:05:32.300 isn't limited to domestic issues like health 00:05:32.300 --> 00:05:35.579 care or taxes. It extends deeply into international 00:05:35.579 --> 00:05:39.040 relations. It does. If we look at a 2005 study 00:05:39.040 --> 00:05:42.379 published by Jacobs and Benjamin Page, we see 00:05:42.379 --> 00:05:44.980 the statistical reality mapped out clearly in 00:05:44.980 --> 00:05:48.379 foreign policy. Their analysis confirmed that 00:05:48.379 --> 00:05:50.579 the views driving the foreign policy of senior 00:05:50.579 --> 00:05:53.120 U .S. government officials do not align with 00:05:53.120 --> 00:05:55.439 the general public. Okay, let me guess. They 00:05:55.439 --> 00:05:57.480 align with the foreign policy experts instead. 00:05:57.959 --> 00:05:59.759 Actually, no. They don't even align with the 00:05:59.759 --> 00:06:02.139 policy experts. The statistical evidence from 00:06:02.139 --> 00:06:04.300 that study shows that it is the views of business 00:06:04.300 --> 00:06:07.100 executives that primarily drive U .S. foreign 00:06:07.100 --> 00:06:11.100 policy. Business executives. That is heavy. And 00:06:11.100 --> 00:06:12.800 I think it's really important to point out here 00:06:12.800 --> 00:06:15.939 that this research spans multiple administrations 00:06:15.939 --> 00:06:18.120 across different eras and political parties. 00:06:18.240 --> 00:06:21.160 Right. We are looking at a systemic reality of 00:06:21.160 --> 00:06:23.980 the modern executive branch, neutrally reported 00:06:23.980 --> 00:06:26.399 by the data. But think about what this means 00:06:26.399 --> 00:06:28.360 for you, the listener. It changes everything. 00:06:28.699 --> 00:06:30.639 How does it change the way you watch a stump 00:06:30.639 --> 00:06:33.879 speech or read a quote in a news article knowing 00:06:33.879 --> 00:06:36.519 that the specific language being deployed was 00:06:36.519 --> 00:06:39.100 likely engineered in a polling lab specifically 00:06:39.100 --> 00:06:41.800 to trigger your pre -existing beliefs? It requires 00:06:41.800 --> 00:06:44.500 a much more critical analytical lens from the 00:06:44.500 --> 00:06:46.480 citizen. You have to constantly ask yourself 00:06:46.480 --> 00:06:49.980 what underlying, perhaps unpopular policy is 00:06:49.980 --> 00:06:52.639 being quietly packaged inside those carefully 00:06:52.639 --> 00:06:55.579 tested symbols. Speaking of complex policies 00:06:55.579 --> 00:06:58.199 that require a critical lens, I want to pivot 00:06:58.199 --> 00:07:00.819 to an area that literally touches every single 00:07:00.819 --> 00:07:03.639 one of us. And one where Jacobs has done some 00:07:03.639 --> 00:07:07.100 of his most defining work. Health care. A massively 00:07:07.100 --> 00:07:09.399 complicated subject. Oh, absolutely. Going back 00:07:09.399 --> 00:07:11.620 to his 1993 book, The Health of Nations, Jacobs 00:07:11.620 --> 00:07:14.319 looked at two countries that share a lot of cultural 00:07:14.319 --> 00:07:17.160 and historical DNA. The United States and Britain. 00:07:17.240 --> 00:07:19.660 Two very similar democracies. Exactly. It's like 00:07:19.660 --> 00:07:21.319 giving two people the exact same ingredients 00:07:21.319 --> 00:07:23.600 and they somehow bake completely different cakes. 00:07:23.779 --> 00:07:27.199 In 1946, Britain created the National Health 00:07:27.199 --> 00:07:30.060 Service, a completely nationalized system. Right. 00:07:30.139 --> 00:07:33.860 Almost two decades later, in 1965, the U .S. 00:07:33.879 --> 00:07:36.000 passed the Medicare Act, which was a much more 00:07:36.000 --> 00:07:39.639 fragmented public -private hybrid. How do two 00:07:39.639 --> 00:07:42.680 similar democracies end up with such dramatically 00:07:42.680 --> 00:07:45.740 divergent results? The answer lies in the archives. 00:07:46.300 --> 00:07:48.839 Jacobs demonstrated that these divergent paths 00:07:48.839 --> 00:07:51.620 weren't random and they weren't just the result 00:07:51.620 --> 00:07:53.620 of one public wanting something different than 00:07:53.620 --> 00:07:55.959 the other. So what drove it? It was a highly 00:07:55.959 --> 00:07:58.279 specific combination of three critical factors. 00:07:58.759 --> 00:08:01.079 First, the preferences of the citizens at that 00:08:01.079 --> 00:08:03.899 moment in history. Second, the organization and 00:08:03.899 --> 00:08:06.139 power of interest groups. Like the doctors themselves? 00:08:06.480 --> 00:08:09.319 Yes. For example, how unified the medical professionals 00:08:09.319 --> 00:08:12.139 were in the U .K. compared to the highly fragmented 00:08:12.139 --> 00:08:14.500 but very powerful American Medical Association 00:08:14.500 --> 00:08:17.259 in the U .S. Got it. And the third factor. The 00:08:17.259 --> 00:08:19.740 administrative capacity of the government institutions 00:08:19.740 --> 00:08:21.939 themselves. Right. Because coming out of World 00:08:21.939 --> 00:08:25.040 War II, Britain had essentially built a massive 00:08:25.040 --> 00:08:28.040 centralized administrative state just to survive 00:08:28.040 --> 00:08:31.620 the war. Exactly. Whereas the U .S. still relied 00:08:31.620 --> 00:08:33.899 on a highly decentralized federalist system, 00:08:34.080 --> 00:08:37.080 it was the unique intersection of those three 00:08:37.080 --> 00:08:40.080 forces, citizen preferences, interest groups, 00:08:40.139 --> 00:08:42.960 and state capacity, that dictated the dramatically 00:08:42.960 --> 00:08:45.120 different architectural designs of their health 00:08:45.120 --> 00:08:47.039 programs. It wasn't just a matter of political 00:08:47.039 --> 00:08:49.179 will. It was a matter of institutional constraints. 00:08:49.500 --> 00:08:51.620 Exactly. Here's where it gets really interesting, 00:08:51.700 --> 00:08:54.220 though. We typically think about how public opinion 00:08:54.220 --> 00:08:57.039 and interest groups shape a policy, like with 00:08:57.039 --> 00:09:00.190 the NHS or Medicare. But Jacobs flipped that 00:09:00.190 --> 00:09:02.789 entire premise on its head when studying more 00:09:02.789 --> 00:09:04.590 recent health care legislation. The Affordable 00:09:04.590 --> 00:09:08.309 Care Act. Yes. When looking at the ACA of 2010, 00:09:08.649 --> 00:09:11.070 Jacobs collaborated with political scientists 00:09:11.070 --> 00:09:14.340 Suzanne Medler and Ling Zhu. Instead of studying 00:09:14.340 --> 00:09:16.279 how public opinion led to the creation of the 00:09:16.279 --> 00:09:19.399 ACA, they studied how the passage of the ACA 00:09:19.399 --> 00:09:21.799 actually created public opinion. This brings 00:09:21.799 --> 00:09:24.259 us to a vital concept in political science known 00:09:24.259 --> 00:09:27.220 as policy feedback. The traditional view, the 00:09:27.220 --> 00:09:29.259 one we are taught in civics class, is that politics 00:09:29.259 --> 00:09:31.759 creates policy. People demand a change, they 00:09:31.759 --> 00:09:33.500 elect representatives, and those representatives 00:09:33.500 --> 00:09:37.039 pass a law. Exactly. But Jacobs' research explores 00:09:37.039 --> 00:09:40.090 the reverse. How policy creates new politics. 00:09:40.789 --> 00:09:43.289 Passing a massive piece of legislation like the 00:09:43.289 --> 00:09:46.370 Affordable Care Act alters the entire landscape. 00:09:46.610 --> 00:09:49.009 So how does a law actually change how people 00:09:49.009 --> 00:09:52.750 think? By changing their material reality and 00:09:52.750 --> 00:09:55.710 their expectations. Over time, as people interact 00:09:55.710 --> 00:09:58.190 with a new law, whether it's getting coverage 00:09:58.190 --> 00:10:00.669 for a pre -existing condition or receiving a 00:10:00.669 --> 00:10:03.870 subsidy, their baseline expectations shift. The 00:10:03.870 --> 00:10:06.269 new law becomes the new normal. Right. The research 00:10:06.269 --> 00:10:08.669 shows that a major policy actually changes public 00:10:08.669 --> 00:10:11.809 opinion to support the law as people integrate 00:10:11.809 --> 00:10:14.330 it into their lives. More than that, it spurs 00:10:14.330 --> 00:10:16.509 Americans to alter their political behavior. 00:10:16.889 --> 00:10:21.419 How so? to back the health reform that now benefits 00:10:21.419 --> 00:10:23.879 them. The law itself becomes an engine for its 00:10:23.879 --> 00:10:26.159 own political survival. Just think about the 00:10:26.159 --> 00:10:28.379 implications of that for a second. The laws you 00:10:28.379 --> 00:10:30.940 live under right now might be subtly reshaping 00:10:30.940 --> 00:10:33.340 your own personal views over time, fundamentally 00:10:33.340 --> 00:10:35.379 changing your expectations of government and 00:10:35.379 --> 00:10:37.700 altering how you vote without you even realizing 00:10:37.700 --> 00:10:40.769 it. The policy isn't just a set of rules. It 00:10:40.769 --> 00:10:43.389 is an environment that actively shapes your political 00:10:43.389 --> 00:10:46.269 psychology. It completely underscores why the 00:10:46.269 --> 00:10:49.190 legislative battles in Washington are so incredibly 00:10:49.190 --> 00:10:52.669 fierce. When political elites are fighting over 00:10:52.669 --> 00:10:55.549 a major reform, they aren't just fighting over 00:10:55.549 --> 00:10:58.210 a temporary budget allocation. They are fighting 00:10:58.210 --> 00:11:01.029 to establish the long -term cognitive and behavioral 00:11:01.029 --> 00:11:03.509 landscape of the American electorate. Win the 00:11:03.509 --> 00:11:05.990 policy today and you might secure the voting 00:11:05.990 --> 00:11:08.870 block for a generation. Let's follow that thread 00:11:08.870 --> 00:11:12.090 of elite power and long -term strategy straight 00:11:12.090 --> 00:11:14.330 to one of the most powerful institutions in the 00:11:14.330 --> 00:11:17.350 world. The Federal Reserve. Exactly. Yeah. I 00:11:17.350 --> 00:11:19.590 want to shift our focus to Jacob's research on 00:11:19.590 --> 00:11:22.490 central banks, specifically his book Fed Power, 00:11:22.629 --> 00:11:24.950 How Finance Wins, which he co -authored with 00:11:24.950 --> 00:11:27.460 Desmond King. We talk a lot about Congress and 00:11:27.460 --> 00:11:29.559 the president, but the Federal Reserve Bank is 00:11:29.559 --> 00:11:32.740 arguably one of the most consequential yet least 00:11:32.740 --> 00:11:35.259 understood institutions in our democracy. It 00:11:35.259 --> 00:11:37.820 operates with a level of insulation that is practically 00:11:37.820 --> 00:11:41.299 unheard of in other branches of government. Imagine 00:11:41.299 --> 00:11:45.279 a massive imposing bank vault. In Fed power, 00:11:45.580 --> 00:11:47.960 Jacobs and King launched a rigorous empirical 00:11:47.960 --> 00:11:50.779 investigation into the Fed, paying particular 00:11:50.779 --> 00:11:53.860 attention to its response during the 2008 financial 00:11:53.860 --> 00:11:56.940 crisis. And their findings highlight a distinct 00:11:56.940 --> 00:12:00.120 systemic bias toward the finance sector. When 00:12:00.120 --> 00:12:02.299 you say a bias toward the finance sector, what 00:12:02.299 --> 00:12:04.399 does that actually look like in practice during 00:12:04.399 --> 00:12:07.120 a crisis? It looks like a prioritization of capital 00:12:07.120 --> 00:12:10.200 access. When the system was collapsing in 2008, 00:12:10.379 --> 00:12:12.799 the Federal Reserve utilized its immense power 00:12:12.799 --> 00:12:15.559 to inject liquidity and stabilize the massive 00:12:15.559 --> 00:12:17.919 financial institutions on Wall Street while Main 00:12:17.919 --> 00:12:20.259 Street struggled. The research illustrates how 00:12:20.259 --> 00:12:22.539 the mechanisms of the Fed are structurally aligned 00:12:22.539 --> 00:12:25.419 to protect the heights of high finance, often 00:12:25.419 --> 00:12:27.980 at the expense of broader economic relief for 00:12:27.980 --> 00:12:30.639 ordinary citizens. The insulation that is supposed 00:12:30.639 --> 00:12:32.820 to keep the Fed neutral actually makes it more 00:12:32.820 --> 00:12:34.899 responsive to the banking sector it interacts 00:12:34.899 --> 00:12:37.759 with daily than to the public at large. Exactly. 00:12:37.980 --> 00:12:40.120 And Jacobs has continued to track this dynamic. 00:12:40.620 --> 00:12:42.519 Right. The second edition of Fed Power was updated 00:12:42.519 --> 00:12:45.360 in 2021. And just reporting the facts from the 00:12:45.360 --> 00:12:47.980 source material, this update covered how massive 00:12:47.980 --> 00:12:50.399 social movements like the Black Lives Matter 00:12:50.399 --> 00:12:52.860 protests and the growing influence of progressives 00:12:52.860 --> 00:12:56.159 within the Democratic Party actually placed unprecedented 00:12:56.159 --> 00:12:58.539 pressure on the Biden administration regarding 00:12:58.539 --> 00:13:00.740 the Fed. It shows that even a highly insulated 00:13:00.740 --> 00:13:03.799 institution isn't entirely immune to the tectonic 00:13:03.799 --> 00:13:06.779 shifts in social politics. And their scope of 00:13:06.779 --> 00:13:09.379 analysis is expanding well beyond the United 00:13:09.379 --> 00:13:12.450 States. now. Really? Yes. More recently, Jacobs 00:13:12.450 --> 00:13:14.710 and King have been investigating variations across 00:13:14.710 --> 00:13:17.470 multiple Western countries. They are analyzing 00:13:17.470 --> 00:13:20.169 how different central banks regulate risk, how 00:13:20.169 --> 00:13:22.629 they manage access to capital, and crucially, 00:13:22.629 --> 00:13:25.169 how they respond to the economic inequality that 00:13:25.169 --> 00:13:27.649 is often exacerbated by their own monetary policies. 00:13:27.950 --> 00:13:30.149 It is a stark look at how institutional power 00:13:30.149 --> 00:13:32.570 functions at the highest levels. And honestly, 00:13:32.669 --> 00:13:34.570 hearing about all of this, politicians engineering 00:13:34.570 --> 00:13:36.950 our consent with focus groups policies, programming 00:13:36.950 --> 00:13:39.029 our behavior through feedback loops, and the 00:13:39.149 --> 00:13:41.470 Fed favoring high finance words that it can feel 00:13:41.470 --> 00:13:44.409 incredibly heavy. It can feel like the individual 00:13:44.409 --> 00:13:47.549 citizen is just a pawn on the board. Exactly. 00:13:47.710 --> 00:13:50.870 But to balance this picture of massive elite 00:13:50.870 --> 00:13:54.070 power, I want to bring in another critical piece 00:13:54.070 --> 00:13:57.450 of Jacob Z's research. In 2009, he published 00:13:57.450 --> 00:14:00.450 a book with Fay Lomax Cook and Michael Extelli 00:14:00.450 --> 00:14:03.730 Carpini called Talking Together, Public Deliberation 00:14:03.730 --> 00:14:06.529 in America and the Search for Community. It is 00:14:06.529 --> 00:14:09.419 a vital counterweight. to the narrative of elite 00:14:09.419 --> 00:14:12.259 domination. It really is. It challenges the pervasive 00:14:12.259 --> 00:14:16.000 myth of the apathetic American citizen. The research 00:14:16.000 --> 00:14:18.299 and talking together was the first national empirical 00:14:18.299 --> 00:14:21.000 study to look at how Americans actually attempt 00:14:21.000 --> 00:14:23.000 to persuade each other about politics. And how 00:14:23.000 --> 00:14:24.919 they meet in formally organized deliberative 00:14:24.919 --> 00:14:27.539 forums. Think neighborhood councils, school board 00:14:27.539 --> 00:14:29.899 meetings, and local zoning discussions. And they 00:14:29.899 --> 00:14:32.779 found a wildly optimistic statistic. More than 00:14:32.779 --> 00:14:35.580 one out of four Americans join organized deliberations 00:14:35.580 --> 00:14:38.200 to discuss community concerns. That rate of participation 00:14:38.200 --> 00:14:40.720 is remarkable. It means that engaging in deep 00:14:40.720 --> 00:14:43.500 face -to -face deliberation is on par with traditional 00:14:43.500 --> 00:14:45.779 political actions, like contacting a government 00:14:45.779 --> 00:14:48.139 official or trying to persuade a neighbor to 00:14:48.139 --> 00:14:51.139 vote for a specific candidate. Over 25 percent 00:14:51.139 --> 00:14:54.179 of Americans are actively giving up their evenings 00:14:54.179 --> 00:14:56.940 and weekends to get together and talk through 00:14:56.940 --> 00:14:59.419 complex local issues. If we connect this to the 00:14:59.419 --> 00:15:02.870 bigger picture, the contrast is striking. On 00:15:02.870 --> 00:15:04.850 one side of the ledger, you have the insular 00:15:04.850 --> 00:15:07.750 power of the Federal Reserve and you have politicians 00:15:07.750 --> 00:15:10.429 using sophisticated data to manipulate public 00:15:10.429 --> 00:15:12.990 discourse. But on the exact same stage, you have 00:15:12.990 --> 00:15:16.250 the genuine grassroots desire of regular Americans 00:15:16.250 --> 00:15:19.230 to deliberate, to connect and to solve community 00:15:19.230 --> 00:15:21.870 problems. It shows that the Democratic impulse 00:15:21.870 --> 00:15:24.590 at the citizen level remains remarkably robust, 00:15:24.870 --> 00:15:27.669 even when the macroeconomic and federal institutions 00:15:27.669 --> 00:15:30.210 above them become less responsive. That perfectly 00:15:30.210 --> 00:15:32.620 bridges us to the next chapter. of Jacobs' career, 00:15:32.860 --> 00:15:35.500 because he hasn't just spent decades diagnosing 00:15:35.500 --> 00:15:37.360 these systemic issues from an academic tower. 00:15:37.580 --> 00:15:39.860 He has actively worked to build up that local 00:15:39.860 --> 00:15:42.500 civic infrastructure. In 2005, he founded the 00:15:42.500 --> 00:15:44.460 Center for the Study of Politics and Governance, 00:15:44.480 --> 00:15:47.500 or CSPG, at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey 00:15:47.500 --> 00:15:50.240 School of Public Affairs. He took the theoretical 00:15:50.240 --> 00:15:53.080 understanding of democracy and applied it to 00:15:53.080 --> 00:15:55.299 actively training the people who run it. The 00:15:55.299 --> 00:15:57.200 practical achievements of the center are substantial. 00:15:57.919 --> 00:16:00.320 Under his direction, it became a regional hub 00:16:00.320 --> 00:16:02.940 with a specific mission to foster conversations 00:16:02.940 --> 00:16:05.820 and collaborations across deep partisan divides. 00:16:06.299 --> 00:16:08.860 Which is incredibly rare these days. Very rare. 00:16:08.980 --> 00:16:12.460 For example, CSPG developed the first online 00:16:12.460 --> 00:16:15.019 nonpartisan professional training program for 00:16:15.019 --> 00:16:17.940 election administrators. Which is such a crucial 00:16:17.940 --> 00:16:20.700 under the radar piece of keeping a democracy 00:16:20.700 --> 00:16:23.559 functioning. Yeah. We obsess over the candidates, 00:16:23.720 --> 00:16:26.320 but the actual invisible mechanics of running 00:16:26.320 --> 00:16:29.519 an election. safely and accurately rely entirely 00:16:29.519 --> 00:16:32.299 on those local administrators. The center also 00:16:32.299 --> 00:16:34.620 runs a highly influential leadership program 00:16:34.620 --> 00:16:37.320 called the Policy Fellows. What stands out here 00:16:37.320 --> 00:16:39.320 is the genuine bipartisanship of the network 00:16:39.320 --> 00:16:41.440 it has built. Right. The alumni list includes 00:16:41.440 --> 00:16:44.139 current U .S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat, 00:16:44.279 --> 00:16:46.899 and former U .S. Senator Norm Coleman, a Republican. 00:16:47.100 --> 00:16:49.220 They even convene an annual one -day retreat 00:16:49.220 --> 00:16:51.700 for the entire Minnesota state legislature called 00:16:51.700 --> 00:16:54.179 One Minnesota, and they work on similar engagement 00:16:54.179 --> 00:16:56.929 initiatives across the Midwest. Commitment to 00:16:56.929 --> 00:17:00.230 this nonpartisan community engagement has been 00:17:00.230 --> 00:17:03.350 recognized widely. He was awarded the Minneapolis 00:17:03.350 --> 00:17:05.950 University Rotary Club Citizen of the Year Award 00:17:05.950 --> 00:17:09.809 in 2017, and the University of Minnesota gave 00:17:09.809 --> 00:17:12.089 him their Outstanding Community Service Award 00:17:12.089 --> 00:17:15.289 in 2014. It's a testament to his impact outside 00:17:15.289 --> 00:17:17.809 the classroom. But there is one specific detail 00:17:17.809 --> 00:17:19.789 in his teaching career that I find absolutely 00:17:19.789 --> 00:17:23.960 fascinating. For nearly 15 years, Jacobs co -taught 00:17:23.960 --> 00:17:26.440 a class at the Humphrey School with none other 00:17:26.440 --> 00:17:29.019 than former Vice President Walter Mondale. That 00:17:29.019 --> 00:17:32.819 is a rare pedagogical dynamic. You have a rigorous 00:17:32.819 --> 00:17:36.059 empirical political scientist paired with a practitioner 00:17:36.059 --> 00:17:38.380 who operated at the very highest levels of the 00:17:38.380 --> 00:17:40.859 executive branch. The focus of their course was 00:17:40.859 --> 00:17:43.019 profoundly serious, concentrating on the U .S. 00:17:43.039 --> 00:17:45.940 Constitution and national security. But the specific 00:17:45.940 --> 00:17:48.619 trend they analyzed together is vital for our 00:17:48.619 --> 00:17:51.400 understanding of modern politics. They meticulously 00:17:51.400 --> 00:17:54.039 tracked the growing pattern of unilateral exercises 00:17:54.039 --> 00:17:57.140 of executive power across both Democratic and 00:17:57.140 --> 00:17:58.880 Republican administrations since the end of the 00:17:58.880 --> 00:18:01.059 Second World War. Meaning the use of executive 00:18:01.059 --> 00:18:03.920 orders, national security memorandums and other 00:18:03.920 --> 00:18:06.529 tools that essentially. bypassed the legislative 00:18:06.529 --> 00:18:09.470 branch entirely exactly they were looking at 00:18:09.470 --> 00:18:12.289 a systemic accumulation of power in the executive 00:18:12.289 --> 00:18:15.900 branch that transcends partisan lines It is a 00:18:15.900 --> 00:18:19.380 slow, steady concentration of authority that 00:18:19.380 --> 00:18:21.980 fundamentally alters the balance of power envisioned 00:18:21.980 --> 00:18:24.779 in the Constitution. It is intense stuff to study 00:18:24.779 --> 00:18:27.880 for 15 years. But before we wrap up this journey, 00:18:27.960 --> 00:18:30.259 I do want to share one wonderful detail about 00:18:30.259 --> 00:18:33.359 his personal life. Because behind every prolific 00:18:33.359 --> 00:18:36.000 academic churning out books on executive overreach 00:18:36.000 --> 00:18:38.380 and central banking, there is a real human being. 00:18:38.599 --> 00:18:40.779 Always nice to remember that. Jacob is married 00:18:40.779 --> 00:18:43.599 to Julie Schumacher. They met in an English class 00:18:43.599 --> 00:18:46.200 during their first year at Oberlin College. She's 00:18:46.200 --> 00:18:48.079 now a Regents Professor of English at the University 00:18:48.079 --> 00:18:51.039 of Minnesota, and she is a highly acclaimed novelist. 00:18:51.059 --> 00:18:54.119 And an award -winning one at that. Yes. She actually 00:18:54.119 --> 00:18:56.259 became the first woman to win the Thurber Prize 00:18:56.259 --> 00:18:59.380 for American Humor for her brilliant book, Dear 00:18:59.380 --> 00:19:01.819 Committee Members. It is a wonderful balance, 00:19:02.039 --> 00:19:04.650 isn't it? You have Lawrence Jacobs analyzing 00:19:04.650 --> 00:19:07.750 the manipulation of democracy, the power of central 00:19:07.750 --> 00:19:10.410 banks, and the expansion of the presidency, sharing 00:19:10.410 --> 00:19:13.670 a life with an award -winning humorist. It suggests 00:19:13.670 --> 00:19:16.470 a profound appreciation for both the serious 00:19:16.470 --> 00:19:19.390 mechanics of the world and the human comedy within 00:19:19.390 --> 00:19:22.670 it. So what does this all mean? We have covered 00:19:22.670 --> 00:19:25.309 a massive amount of ground today, exploring the 00:19:25.309 --> 00:19:27.289 realities of the American system through Jacobs' 00:19:27.490 --> 00:19:30.589 research. We started by unpacking how political 00:19:30.589 --> 00:19:33.710 elites don't actually follow public polling to 00:19:33.710 --> 00:19:35.960 write policy. Instead, they use it as a laboratory 00:19:35.960 --> 00:19:38.859 to test language designed to engineer our consent. 00:19:39.200 --> 00:19:41.420 We looked at health care, exploring how this 00:19:41.420 --> 00:19:43.700 specific combination of interest groups and state 00:19:43.700 --> 00:19:45.940 capacity creates entirely different national 00:19:45.940 --> 00:19:48.680 systems. And how massive reforms like the Affordable 00:19:48.680 --> 00:19:51.240 Care Act actually create feedback loops that 00:19:51.240 --> 00:19:53.279 reshape the electorate's voting behavior over 00:19:53.279 --> 00:19:55.420 time. We followed the money to the Federal Reserve 00:19:55.420 --> 00:19:57.799 to see the structural bias toward the finance 00:19:57.799 --> 00:20:00.700 sector during times of crisis. We traced the 00:20:00.700 --> 00:20:03.039 steady expansion of unilateral executive power 00:20:03.039 --> 00:20:05.640 since World War II. But alongside all of that 00:20:05.640 --> 00:20:08.180 institutional dominance, we also found that millions 00:20:08.180 --> 00:20:11.319 of regular citizens are still actively gathering 00:20:11.319 --> 00:20:14.299 to deliberate and solve local problems. And that 00:20:14.299 --> 00:20:17.339 institutions like CSPG are doing the quiet, vital 00:20:17.339 --> 00:20:20.579 work of training election officials and bridging 00:20:20.579 --> 00:20:23.220 political divides. This raises an important question 00:20:23.220 --> 00:20:26.359 for you. When you consume information, are you 00:20:26.359 --> 00:20:29.369 being informed or are you being managed? It's 00:20:29.369 --> 00:20:31.410 a tough question to face. It is. The research 00:20:31.410 --> 00:20:33.470 we've explored today suggests that the surface 00:20:33.470 --> 00:20:35.549 level arguments we see on television and social 00:20:35.549 --> 00:20:38.029 media are often just carefully tested symbols. 00:20:38.549 --> 00:20:41.809 The real work of democracy and the real exercise 00:20:41.809 --> 00:20:45.130 of power happens beneath the surface. It happens 00:20:45.130 --> 00:20:47.349 in the administrative capacity of our institutions. 00:20:47.730 --> 00:20:50.230 In the policy feedback loops that slowly change 00:20:50.230 --> 00:20:53.049 our expectations and in the quiet ongoing accumulation 00:20:53.049 --> 00:20:56.230 of executive and financial authority, we must 00:20:56.230 --> 00:20:58.799 train ourselves to look past the careful engineered 00:20:58.799 --> 00:21:01.980 message to see the underlying institutional gears 00:21:01.980 --> 00:21:04.279 moving the money and the power. And I want to 00:21:04.279 --> 00:21:06.339 leave you with one final, somewhat provocative 00:21:06.339 --> 00:21:09.079 thought to chew on. We know from Jacobs' work 00:21:09.079 --> 00:21:11.839 that political elites are spending millions on 00:21:11.839 --> 00:21:14.339 private data, not to listen to your preferences, 00:21:14.480 --> 00:21:17.140 but to figure out the exact symbols needed to 00:21:17.140 --> 00:21:19.420 change your mind. To manipulate the public. Right. 00:21:19.480 --> 00:21:22.460 So what would happen if voters flipped the script? 00:21:22.880 --> 00:21:26.000 What if everyday citizens started organizing 00:21:26.000 --> 00:21:28.799 and using their own data? to manipulate the politicians 00:21:28.799 --> 00:21:31.700 right back. What if the same sophisticated tools 00:21:31.700 --> 00:21:34.420 used to engineer our consent were crowdsourced 00:21:34.420 --> 00:21:36.859 and used to engineer their compliance? Something 00:21:36.859 --> 00:21:39.420 to mull over the next time you see a carefully 00:21:39.420 --> 00:21:42.140 crafted, focus -grouped political ad on your 00:21:42.140 --> 00:21:44.680 feed. Thank you so much for joining us on this 00:21:44.680 --> 00:21:46.799 deep dive into the work of Lawrence R. Jacobs 00:21:46.799 --> 00:21:49.200 and the hidden mechanics of our political system. 00:21:49.539 --> 00:21:52.039 Keep asking the hard questions, keep looking 00:21:52.039 --> 00:21:54.440 beneath the surface, and always keep questioning 00:21:54.440 --> 00:21:57.380 the narrative. We will catch you on the next 00:21:57.380 --> 00:21:57.859 deep dive.