Micah Saul: This project is built on a hypoth­e­sis. There are moments in his­to­ry when the sta­tus quo fails. Political sys­tems prove insuf­fi­cient, reli­gious ideas unsat­is­fac­to­ry, social struc­tures intol­er­a­ble. These are moments of cri­sis.

Aengus Anderson: During some of these moments, great minds have entered into con­ver­sa­tion and torn apart inher­it­ed ideas, dethron­ing truths, com­bin­ing old thoughts, and cre­at­ing new ideas. They’ve shaped the norms of future gen­er­a­tions.

Saul: Every era has its issues, but do ours war­rant The Conversation? If they do, is it hap­pen­ing?

Anderson: We’ll be explor­ing these sorts of ques­tions through con­ver­sa­tions with a cross-section of American thinkers, peo­ple who are cri­tiquing some aspect of nor­mal­i­ty and offer­ing an alter­na­tive vision of the future. People who might be hav­ing The Conversation.

Saul: Like a real con­ver­sa­tion, this project is going to be sub­jec­tive. It will fre­quent­ly change direc­tions, con­nect unex­pect­ed ideas, and wan­der between the tan­gi­ble and the abstract. It will leave us with far more ques­tions than answers because after all, nobody has a monop­oly on dream­ing about the future.

Anderson: I’m Aengus Anderson.

Saul: And I’m Micah Saul. And you’re lis­ten­ing to The Conversation.


Micah Saul: Well howdy, sir. It’s just you and I tonight.

Aengus Anderson: It is. Neil’s off duty, you’re on duty. Hand the baton, change the shift. Something like that.

Saul: So today, Oliver Porter.

Anderson: We’re tak­ing a big change in direc­tions, you know. The last con­ver­sa­tion with Puck was set on this big nation­al, glob­al, strate­gic stage. And now we are going down to the micro lev­el. We’re going down to Sandy Springs, Georgia, where Oliver Porter is the man who helped Sandy Springs incor­po­rate, and in the process of incor­po­rat­ing become large­ly privately-run.

Saul: Right. This is a sort of new idea in city gov­ern­ment. It’s the public-private part­ner­ship.

Anderson: It’s inter­est­ing because it’s one of the things that’s new and yet it’s an exten­sion of an ide­ol­o­gy that is old, right. You know, in this project we talk a lot about the free mar­ket. That’s a dom­i­nant strain in our thought. It’s one of our biggest mod­els for devel­op­ment. It’s one of the nor­mals, I think, that we cri­tique a lot.

And yet what’s inter­est­ing is of course when that idea, applied to the mar­ket, gets extend­ed into oth­er places; when you pri­va­tize gov­ern­ment func­tions. And lat­er in this project we’re actu­al­ly going to have a con­ver­sa­tion with Walter Block, an econ­o­mist down at Loyola New Orleans. And he’s going to take it to its most log­i­cal extreme, where you real­ly talk about pri­va­ti­za­tion and what that means for the indi­vid­ual. But here we’re going to look at it in the urban con­text. So Oliver’s going to take us through that. And since Sandy Springs has been incor­po­rat­ed he’s worked on a lot of oth­er incor­po­ra­tion efforts in cities in Georgia but also in oth­er states, and inter­na­tion­al­ly as well in Japan.

Saul: Right. He’s writ­ten a cou­ple books, one about the cre­ation of Sandy Springs, and anoth­er more gen­er­al one called Public/Private Partnerships for Local Governments. He came to this from the cor­po­rate world. He was an exec­u­tive at AT&T.

Anderson: And he just lived in Sandy Springs and so he kind of fell into this and has undert— I mean, he’s kind of the guy you talk to when you want to talk to peo­ple about this new trend in urban man­age­ment. So, let’s talk to him.


Oliver Porter: It had been an almost thirty-year strug­gle to move to city­hood. The leg­is­la­ture con­trols that in Georgia. And the dri­ver for it was prin­ci­pal­ly to be able to be in con­trol of our future. And that exem­pli­fies itself in the area of zon­ing, plan­ning, zon­ing, per­mit­ting and those sorts of things. The sit­u­a­tion was that the coun­ty seemed to us to be basi­cal­ly approv­ing any­thing; busi­ness, build­ings, what­ev­er it want­ed here as long as it gen­er­at­ed rev­enue. Which they in turn then could take and spend in oth­er part[s] of the coun­ty. So you could almost feel this whoosh­ing sound as mon­ey left town.

But that wasn’t the real dri­ver. I think peo­ple would have con­tin­ued to pay the tax­es and been sat­is­fied if we had got­ten rea­son­able ser­vice and if we felt there was some local con­trol over the future of the com­mu­ni­ty.

Anderson: Now, when I think of oth­er peo­ple who’ve faced sort of local con­trol issues, they may have incor­po­rat­ed in a tra­di­tion­al way. Why did Sandy Springs choose to incor­po­rate and explore a total­ly new option?

Porter: It was a mat­ter of neces­si­ty, to some degree, and a mat­ter of phi­los­o­phy to oth­er degrees. In the bill that we final­ly got through the leg­is­la­ture, all it did was pro­vide a ref­er­en­dum for the peo­ple to vote. But it pro­vid­ed for a very short time­frame for estab­lish­ing the city, and it gave no help in the area— There was no fund­ing, no staffing, and most impor­tant­ly no author­i­ty. And by that I mean we could not hire a per­son, buy or lease a sys­tem or any equip­ment and cer­tain­ly no build­ings, do any­thing until the moment the city was incor­po­rat­ed. And at that moment it had to be a fully-operational city. And it was going to be the fifth-largest city in the state at birth. It was not an insignif­i­cant town. We had focused all those years so hard on fight­ing the leg­is­la­tion, no one had real­ly put togeth­er a method for imple­ment­ing the city, and I did agree to take on that respon­si­bil­i­ty with not a lot of time to do it.

It became obvi­ous to me that with the prob­lem of no author­i­ty, we just could not form a tra­di­tion­al city. And I began to fran­ti­cal­ly search for alter­na­tives. And I sup­pose it’s my cor­po­rate back­ground in part gave me a lot of con­fi­dence in the capa­bil­i­ties of pri­vate indus­try. So I began to look at the idea of well, could a pri­vate com­pa­ny or com­pa­nies do this for us? Became con­vinced that they could. And drew up fair­ly mas­sive RFP to go out to seek bids for com­pa­nies to do this job.

So that was on June 29th, and we had a city December 1st. We had to select a com­pa­ny, then we had to find and nego­ti­ate an actu­al con­tract. The beau­ty of it is on December 1st, at one minute after mid­night, our coun­cil met—brand new coun­cil met for the first time, and we had a fully-operational city.

Structurally the only change between this and a tra­di­tion­al city is in one of three areas. A tra­di­tion­al city in this coun­try is set up with a group of elect­ed offi­cials, a pro­fes­sion­al class, a city man­ag­er, and then the work­er bees. The only dif­fer­ence in our mod­el— Elected offi­cials are still there, they set the pol­i­cy, con­trol every­thing. People orig­i­nal­ly were wor­ried oh, a company’s going to run the city— [crosstalk]

Anderson: Right, it will be anti-democratic.

Porter: No, they have noth­ing to do with pol­i­cy, noth­ing to do with set­ting the bud­get. It’s still just like it was. So, you just removed one lev­el and said no, that’s no longer the work­er bees, that’s the com­pa­ny; it’s the only dif­fer­ence.

Anderson: What’s bet­ter about this type of city?

Porter: Well, I think you look at cities from two prin­ci­pal mea­sure­ments of suc­cess. One is effi­cien­cy, and the sec­ond is respon­sive­ness. Is it respon­sive to the needs of the peo­ple? Bringing it clos­er to them has made it far more respon­sive. From an effi­cien­cy stand­point, the city was formed with­out increas­ing tax­es one dime. All around us dur­ing these eco­nom­ic times we’ve seen cities, coun­ties, go into trou­ble. Many oth­er cities are actu­al­ly bank­rupt except for sub­si­dies they receive from state or fed­er­al. If they had to stand on their own they’d be bank­rupt. During that time, we’ve not increased tax­es, we have cre­at­ed a reserve of about $25 mil­lion, we have increased our cap­i­tal spend­ing, all with­out one cent of debt. We have zero long-term lia­bil­i­ties. And that’s what’s sink­ing cities now, the lia­bil­i­ties for pen­sions, for oth­er ben­e­fits, for debt they have incurred. And they can’t bear the load of the inter­est on those. It’s sink­ing them and we have zero long-term lia­bil­i­ties and I hope nev­er will have any long-term lia­bil­i­ties.

Anderson: What’s the dif­fer­ence in terms of the long-term lia­bil­i­ties? Is that some­thing that because these oth­er cities are much old­er, is that some­thing that will hap­pen to Sandy Springs as well or is there a major struc­tur­al dif­fer­ence?

Porter: There’s a major dif­fer­ence. Your pen­sions and lia­bil­i­ties build up because you have employ­ees. We don’t have employ­ees, except in pub­lic safety—police and fire. But the pre­dom­i­nant num­ber of employ­ees are not employ­ees of the city but employ­ees of the com­pa­ny. And so the city will nev­er have a lia­bil­i­ty for them, for their pen­sions. So it is inher­ent­ly a more debt-free sys­tem than what is cur­rent­ly, I won’t use the word enjoyed” but applied in most tra­di­tion­al cities.

Anderson: So think­ing about sort of from the company’s per­spec­tive, did they then get to a point where they could go bank­rupt because the debt is mov­ing from the city as car­ri­er to the com­pa­ny as car­ri­er?

Porter: Sure, but they’ve been smart enough from way back to have moved away from defined ben­e­fit plans towards defined con­tri­bu­tion plans. So they’re able to han­dle their future lia­bil­i­ties in the same way. If the peo­ple have not con­tributed enough to them and they have not earned enough, they just don’t get as large a pen­sion. In a defined ben­e­fit plan, you’ve already promised them the ben­e­fits no mat­ter what sort of earn­ings you have on your assets in the pen­sion plan. And the pub­lic doesn’t even notice because you know, it’s not report­ed as a true debt. And there’s no way it’s going to right—the ship’s not going to right itself.

Anderson: I hear a lot of con­ver­sa­tion about effi­cien­cy, and typ­i­cal­ly pub­lic sec­tor things are viewed as ineffi­cient. Is it some­thing in the nature of those struc­tures—

Porter: Yes.

Anderson: —or is it just that they’re real­ly badly-managed?

Porter: Both, but yes there is some­thing in the nature of it. One, there’s lit­tle incen­tive to cut costs. When a typ­i­cal bud­get is drawn in the pub­lic sec­tor, it’s drawn on a depart­men­tal basis, and each depart­ment starts build­ing what it thinks it needs to meet the demands. Well, the demands are always greater than can be met. No one’s sat­is­fied with this cur­rent lev­el of ser­vice, you always want more. So the depart­ment head, what does he need to do? Get myself more resources. And nobody is say­ing, Wait a minute, what can the city afford?” until it gets to the very top and then it’s a mat­ter of try­ing to squeeze these things out and then maybe say well everybody’s got­ta give up 10%, which is a hor­ri­bly inef­fi­cient way to man­age some­thing. You need be man­ag­ing on the mer­its of the needs.

So that’s the struc­ture that we have got­ten our­selves into in the pub­lic sec­tor, it’s these depart­men­tal bud­get­ings. That is torn down com­plete­ly by these public/private part­ner­ships.

There is the whole issue of employ­ee per­for­mance in the pub­lic sec­tor. Because gen­er­al­ly their jobs are so struc­tured that doing bet­ter doesn’t nec­es­sar­i­ly get you a raise, it doesn’t get you a pro­mo­tion, it doesn’t even get you a pat on the back. On the oth­er hand, since there’s no car­rot there’s also no stick. There’s very lit­tle that can be done to an unpro­duc­tive employ­ee. They’re sort of there for life, in many cas­es. You know, it’s impor­tant be able to say, You know, if you don’t do the job you’re not here.” Well that’s what hap­pens in the pri­vate sec­tor.

Anderson: I guess I just don’t under­stand why we couldn’t make a pub­lic insti­tu­tion work like that, where it couldn’t fire peo­ple more aggres­sive­ly. Or it couldn’t restruc­ture… Setting aside all the cul­tur­al bag­gage, that we have a hard time even imag­in­ing a pub­lic sec­tor that works like that.

Porter: As you get into larg­er and larg­er enti­ties, there is a creep­ing lev­el of inef­fi­cien­cy often there. But, there is a con­trol­ling ele­ment in the pri­vate sec­tor that is not there in the pub­lic sec­tor, and that is prof­it. Ultimately, that inef­fi­cien­cy has to be stopped in the pri­vate sec­tor. If you don’t make mon­ey, even­tu­al­ly you’re not in busi­ness. That does not exist in the pub­lic sec­tor. There’s no cap on this thing of give us more, give us more, give us more resources. There’s not the same incen­tive to dri­ve down cost. The prof­it motive is what basi­cal­ly free enter­prise and our cap­i­tal­ism is based upon. It is the con­trol­ling ele­ment that has made our coun­try grow.

Anderson: It makes me think like, you know part of the prof­it thing is that you can go bank­rupt. And it makes me won­der for tra­di­tion­al cities, do we need to have a few of them col­lapse, go bank­rupt, fail, with the pub­lic mod­el? And then they could almost rethink the pub­lic mod­el? You know, in a way to have a pub­lic bank­rupt­cy?

Porter: A cri­sis does cause peo­ple to look at alter­na­tives. So yeah, the answer to your question’s I think you’re right that it has to get bad in a sense before it can get bet­ter. But it is so ingrained and so uni­ver­sal, this pub­lic mod­el, that it is going to be hard to shake it. The city pop­u­lace, they don’t rec­og­nize in Sandy Springs on a day-to-day basis that they’re being served by pri­vate indus­try. They’re the city employ­ees to them. And it’s just so much bet­ter. I mean, we used to see— If we had a pot­hole in the coun­ty you couldn’t get it fixed. Now what you have is two guys come out, they have a truck with a mag­net­ic sign that says Sandy Springs— They don’t work for Sandy Springs, they work for a com­pa­ny.

Tomorrow those same two guys, that same truck, may be sit­ting in an adja­cent city with their signs on them, doing the same job. And the third day they might be in a pri­vate park­ing lot some­where fix­ing a pot­hole. You get max­i­mum uti­liza­tion of peo­ple, max­i­mum uti­liza­tion of equip­ment. Sandy Springs owns no equip­ment. We don’t have to main­tain it, we don’t have any costs asso­ci­at­ed with it. In terms of effi­cien­cy, there’s just no com­par­i­son. The inno­va­tion that’s come with it, the cost-sharing that’s come with it, the moti­vat­ed peo­ple that have come with it. All of that adds up to let­ting the com­pa­ny cut our costs and still make a very nice prof­it on its own.

Anderson: When you’re talk­ing about these cities that are shar­ing ser­vices, what’s the point at which it ceas­es to be effi­cient? Or does it actu­al­ly make sense to sort of scale this mod­el up, like if you could blan­ket Georgia and say this is one gigan­tic resource-sharing region of pri­va­tized cities, would it make sense to make it huge? Or would it make sense to break it down even small­er and say, actu­al­ly this is some­thing where each per­son in the com­mu­ni­ty should be con­tract­ing inde­pen­dent­ly? Like, which way do you get more effi­cien­cy from, going up or going down?

Porter: Up to a point it’s going up, but then that changes. As you increase in size from very small to where you might say medi­um you get a low­er cost per capi­ta. You do reach a point, though, where that turns up again. There’s been some good stud­ies that show that going from zero—obviously, that’s not a good-sized city. Moving larg­er and larg­er, your cost per capi­ta goes down, down, down. And then in the about a hun­dred to a hun­dred and fifty thou­sand range it sort of flat­tens out and starts up again. And that’s where your bureau­cra­cy and your com­plex­i­ty and all of that starts com­ing into the pic­ture.

But, for every per­son you add to it, you lose just that much more local con­trol. So even if you could be more effi­cient on an ever-increasing scale, you should not be, because you’re mov­ing too far away from the peo­ple. The con­cept should be bring gov­ern­ment as close to the peo­ple as pos­si­ble, con­sis­tent with effi­cien­cy.

Anderson: There’s a very Greek notion of like the ide­al size for the demo­c­ra­t­ic polis there, right?

Porter: Exactly. And I think there’s some­thing to that. As you get too large, you just lose that con­tact with the indi­vid­ual, and the individual’s lib­er­ties, the individual’s abil­i­ty to con­trol their own des­tiny goes away as you do that.

Anderson: One of the big ten­sions that sort of comes up in con­ver­sa­tion after con­ver­sa­tion is sort of, in the prob­lem of gov­ern­ment how do we bal­ance the indi­vid­ual ver­sus the col­lec­tive. Like if you think strict­ly in terms of the indi­vid­ual you go well, why have cities at all? And then there are peo­ple who say well, the prag­mat­ic response to that is, Are you kid­ding? We’re social ani­mals. We func­tion best in groups.” And oth­er peo­ple say, Well, but once you focus on that too much you lose the indi­vid­ual in these bureau­cra­cies.”

Porter: Yeah, and I think that’s what I’m say­ing. You know, a small group can’t have a police force. It can’t have an ade­quate fire. It can’t sup­ply its own water or build its own roads.

Anderson: Mm hm. And when we were talk­ing about effi­cien­cy, we were talk­ing about an effi­cien­cy with­in our finan­cial sys­tem. There are a lot of dif­fer­ent ways to mea­sure that. Finance is one, but I’m think­ing of a woman I spoke to at The Happiness Initiative in Seattle. And she has a whole series of met­rics for mea­sur­ing the hap­pi­ness of a com­mu­ni­ty. And there’s a finan­cial effi­cien­cy that’s built into that, but there are a whole vari­ety of oth­er things like open space, free time… She’d say a more effi­cient com­mu­ni­ty takes these oth­er things into account which a strict dol­lars and cents point of view might not.

Porter: I would not dis­agree at all because remem­ber I said the two mea­sures are effi­cien­cy and respon­sive­ness. To me what she’s say­ing about those hap­pi­ness ele­ments are being respon­sive to the community’s needs. That you absolute­ly have to weigh that in. If you had to pick one that is the greater of the two, its respon­sive­ness. Because gov­ern­ment giv­ing to the peo­ple what they need and want is the start­ing point and then you try to make that as effi­cient as you can. You don’t start by mak­ing it as low-cost as you can and then see­ing what you can do.

So I would agree with her. I think maybe we term it dif­fer­ent­ly but I agree [with] that. Measurement, that’s a soft mea­sure­ment, though, on respon­sive­ness. Efficiency is a much more hard mea­sure­ment, our finite mea­sure­ment.

Anderson: When I think about waste—because we’ve just been talk­ing about effi­cien­cy. And so in these oth­er sys­tems where we’ve got all this waste, it seems like we’ve talked about pen­sions, bureau­crat­ic non­sense, drag, stuff like that. I’m try­ing to stack about waste in my mind up against kind of the waste of con­sid­er­ing like, a company’s in it for prof­it, right, so they still have to have a cer­tain amount for them. So as far as the taxpayer’s con­cerned, that’s waste. So you’re com­par­ing pub­lic waste in these ways ver­sus pri­vate waste, hop­ing that the pri­vate waste is small­er. I’m kind of curi­ous about where that waste actu­al­ly goes. This is a project where I talk to a lot of peo­ple about very big sys­tems. So for all of the peo­ple who would’ve had pen­sion mon­ey, would that have cycled back into the com­mu­ni­ty and in a way like, will we sort of see the short-term effi­cien­cy of a city like Sandy Springs in the long-term maybe hav­ing a retired class that can’t spend as much mon­ey with­in the com­mu­ni­ty?

Porter: I sup­pose that that’s pos­si­ble, but you’re com­par­ing apples and oranges. In the first case you’re talk­ing about hav­ing peo­ple have spend­ing mon­ey in retire­ment that is com­ing out of the community’s tax­es. Alright, that’s not new mon­ey. You haven’t put any more mon­ey into the com­mu­ni­ty, you’ve tak­en it from one pock­et and put it in anoth­er.

In this oth­er case, you’re talk­ing about not hav­ing more tax­es but still hav­ing pen­sion mon­ey, and maybe it’s less but it’s still a plus. So I don’t think the two things are com­pa­ra­ble. The same thing is hap­pen­ing to us on the fed­er­al lev­el, but when we tax to be able to spend more, we aren’t cre­at­ing any­thing. We’re just shift­ing it and then the government’s tak­ing a per­cent out of it as it goes by. So I don’t think that’s an apples to apples com­par­i­son. I think that if we can keep the cost and there­by the tax­es low­er, the com­mu­ni­ty has more mon­ey to spend, peri­od. And if some of that also even flows back through pen­sion, that’s just—that’s gravy. But to start with, the com­mu­ni­ty has more resources because it is taxed less.

Anderson: If there was any big theme to this series that I’ve seen it’s that a lot of peo­ple work­ing in a lot of dif­fer­ent areas dis­con­nect­ed from each oth­er are inter­est­ed in a move to the local. Our con­ver­sa­tion fits right into that frame­work. Why is local bet­ter? What do we gain by hav­ing more direct rep­re­sen­ta­tion or small­er, more rep­re­sen­ta­tive sys­tems?

Porter: Well once again, I hate to be redun­dant but it goes back to being respon­sive. How can some­one who rep­re­sents a mil­lion peo­ple be respon­sive to indi­vid­ual needs?

Anderson: It seems like there’s a real opti­mism embed­ded in there that peo­ple can make the best choic­es for them­selves.

Porter: They may not be the best choic­es but they’re what they think they want. And isn’t life real­ly about that? It’s not nec­es­sar­i­ly what’s best for you. I mean, right now I’m on a ter­ri­ble med­ical diet. What I want and what is best for me are two entire­ly dif­fer­ent things, I can tell you that every time a pass a McDonald’s.

But who’s to decide what’s best for me? I have to ulti­mate­ly take that respon­si­bil­i­ty. What is your trade­off between liv­ing long and liv­ing well? There are some of us who might say I’d rather live well than live long. We need sys­tems that allow peo­ple to make indi­vid­ual choic­es, or col­lec­tive choic­es in small­er groups. To make crit­i­cal deci­sions about their future, about whether they want to live well or live long, to use it as an exam­ple, and not try to cook­ie cut­ter every­body in our soci­ety.

Certainly giv­ing peo­ple some guid­ance as opposed to laws, you might say, about what is good for them is fine. And to me that’s the per­fect sys­tem, is where you cre­ate a fac­tu­al knowl­edge base for as many peo­ple as pos­si­ble and then they are able to make those deci­sions for them­selves. And where that deci­sion does over­lap and impinge upon some­one else’s life is where it gets sticky and where you have to have elect­ed gov­ern­ment to help man­age the dif­fer­ent needs of two dif­fer­ent peo­ple or two dif­fer­ent groups, to bring them to some kind of com­pro­mise. That’s what gov­ern­ment essen­tial­ly ought to be, I guess, is an arbiter between one set of choic­es and anoth­er. And we do it on a demo­c­ra­t­ic process say­ing the major­i­ty wins in that. There’s some great philo­soph­i­cal argu­ments against that, too. But right now I don’t know a bet­ter sys­tem. But there are a lot of peo­ple who real­ly have come to think that gov­ern­ment is the answer for every­thing and that we should real­ly basi­cal­ly look to it to be our provider and our decider. And I just can’t come to that as a con­clu­sion that that leads to a bet­ter way of life for us.

Anderson: You know, obvi­ous­ly I’ve talked to a lot of peo­ple on both sides of that line in this project. For peo­ple who see it…maybe not as a provider but, I’ve talked to peo­ple who see it as maybe it should have a floor. There’s a con­ver­sa­tion I’m edit­ing right which I’ll prob­a­bly post lat­er this week with a guy named Chuck Collins. He’s the great-grandson of Oscar Mayer. And he’s been real­ly active in sort of…basically a group of multi-millionaires and bil­lion­aires who advo­cate for high­er tax­es and to keep estate tax­es.

He used the metaphor of soil. That they had good soil pre­pared for them and that they may have worked extreme­ly hard to grow things in that soil, but they’re basi­cal­ly pay­ing back for the soil itself. Whereas if they’d been born in maybe Guatemala that might not have been the soil to start Oscar Mayer or some­thing like that. So for him there sort of a role for gov­ern­ment to pro­vide a floor that peo­ple can’t fall through. So he’s not inter­est­ed in a sys­tem of any kind of per­fect equal­i­ty, but he’s inter­est­ed in rais­ing the floor a lit­tle bit so that the peo­ple who do the worst in soci­ety don’t die, you know. And for him that’s a moral argu­ment, ulti­mate­ly, and that’s also ara­tional. What do you think of argu­ments like that? Does that have any place in our polit­i­cal con­ver­sa­tion?

Porter: It obvi­ous­ly has a place in it cause it’s there. The con­cept of the safe­ty net, floor, what­ev­er you want to call it is a huge one. Where one runs into real­ly prac­ti­cal con­sid­er­a­tions with regard to that is, as you raise that floor do you leave the lev­el of neces­si­ty and move into the lev­el of okay you’re just going to make it bet­ter off. And when you do that do you dri­ve away the incen­tive to do it on your own?

We now have forty mil­lion peo­ple on food stamps. Huge abuse in it, every­one knows that. And yet it’s per­form­ing a vital func­tion for those who real­ly need it. We have peo­ple who are on unem­ploy­ment. One can make a very ratio­nal argu­ment that that is a dis­in­cen­tive to find a job, par­tic­u­lar­ly the way the pro­grams are run some­times. So there is a trade­off between that human­i­tar­i­an floor and cre­at­ing a soci­ety in which the gov­ern­ment is the provider. Which means that what you’re get­ting is com­ing from some­one else. The gov­ern­ment doesn’t make it. People who real­ly need­ed it are some­times suf­fer­ing, and peo­ple who are just wast­ing it are out there galore, and we can’t dis­tin­guish because the pro­gram has such mag­ni­tude.

I think there is a strong debate to be held about whether we’re mov­ing in the right direc­tion with that, and I’m more con­cerned about that than I am pro­vid­ing the safe­ty net at this point. I think we’re doing a pret­ty good job of— Anyone who’s trav­eled in oth­er coun­tries and seen what they call pover­ty and what we call pover­ty, are two total­ly dif­fer­ent crea­tures. We don’t know what pover­ty is, almost, com­pared to going into Africa or areas of Asia. This country’s nev­er been about say­ing every­one must be equal in their sta­tus of earn­ings, but it has been about try­ing to give every­one the oppor­tu­ni­ty to grow in that way.

Anderson: You know, a lot of peo­ple talk about the social lot­tery and the nat­ur­al lot­tery. Where you’re born with­in a soci­ety, and then the gifts that you were born with. But how do you make it lev­el, espe­cial­ly because it often involves really—what we were talk­ing ear­li­er about, soft issues. Places where I could try to go do some­thing and some­one else from a very dif­fer­ent back­ground could go try to do the same thing, and there are these invis­i­ble struc­tur­al things that make it pos­si­ble for me and not for them.

Porter: It is my opin­ion that you can­not lev­el the play­ing field for every­one. There are peo­ple who are born into cer­tain capa­bil­i­ties that oth­ers don’t have. We shouldn’t penal­ize them for it, but we shouldn’t nec­es­sar­i­ly reward them. Let them get out and use them. There are peo­ple who are born into social sit­u­a­tions that are bet­ter than oth­ers.

I don’t suf­fer from the guilt of the rich that feel like we’ve got to go do it, because I came from a very hum­ble begin­ning, mate­ri­al­ly. I had a won­der­ful fam­i­ly. And then you can say well, you won the social lot­tery there. You had a lov­ing fam­i­ly, that is huge. Absolutely huge. But we didn’t have any mon­ey. I mean, we had out­door plumb­ing and a small, tiny lit­tle house. Lived in a single-room apart­ment in my great aunt’s house till I was four. So what I’ve man­aged to achieve in life I can feel very good about hav­ing earned. I don’t think oth­er than say a lov­ing fam­i­ly that I won the social lot­tery at all. So I am aware that in this coun­try you can by hard work and some native abil­i­ties, you can do well.

Anderson: Well we’re also speak­ing as white guys, right?

Porter: Yeah. Yeah. Sure, absolute­ly. And so that’s a part of the social lot­tery that we won. One can go back in time on that and say well Africa, appar­ent­ly from every study, began before Europe. So the white guy’s must’ve done some­thing right to sort of pass them by. So you know, what all that is all about is well beyond my scope to talk about. But there are peo­ple who’ve had advan­tages who’ve made a rot­ten mess of their lives. I can cite num­bers of those. So it isn’t that you are guar­an­teed just because you have an advan­tage to do well because of it. You still have to put your­self out there.

To me, com­ing back to this whole idea of sat­is­fac­tion, we all draw our sat­is­fac­tion from what we our­selves have been able to do with our lives. And if some­body, some gov­ern­ment or some­one else is just giv­ing to me, I’m not going to be a hap­py per­son. I think we deprive a large part of our pop­u­la­tion from being as hap­py as they can be by think­ing we know what’s best for them and hand­ing it to them. And by the way at the same time tak­ing that away from some­one else.

Anderson: So there’s almost a greater moral good to self-fulfillment than there is to a sort of char­i­ty?

Porter: Certainly if you are starv­ing your imper­a­tive is get me food.” Go beyond the starv­ing lev­el and talk about what makes life worth liv­ing. If sat­is­fac­tion is a good word for that, then I think there is a strong moral imper­a­tive that says we need to give peo­ple the right to sat­is­fac­tion.

Anderson: This project is built on the idea of there are these his­tor­i­cal moments of con­ver­sa­tion, and it’s typ­i­cal­ly when an exist­ing sys­tem, be that social or eco­nom­ic or reli­gious or what­ev­er isn’t answer­ing ques­tions any­more. Do you think we’re at a point now… One, where we need that? And two, where it’s even pos­si­ble because of our sort of lin­guis­tic frag­men­ta­tion?

Porter: I think that it would be a kind of a neat thing to have a con­sti­tu­tion­al Congress called. And I don’t think it would be the lin­guis­tic dif­fer­ences that would be the more over­ween­ing prob­lem. It would be again that basic philo­soph­i­cal prob­lem about what is the role of gov­ern­ment.

Anderson: Do you think that’s kind of the cen­tral ques­tion of our time?

Porter: I do. I do. It’s…this ques­tion that America has to answer to con­tin­ue to grow. And it is deeply, deeply divid­ed, we as a coun­try are on that issue.

Anderson: Are you opti­mistic that we’ll be able to have a con­ver­sa­tion about it?

Porter: No. I think I have crossed the point where I believe that we have now cre­at­ed a major­i­ty of peo­ple who are look­ing to gov­ern­ment for sup­port. That it doesn’t make sense for them to change until the whole sys­tem blows up. Maybe at that point we do have a new begin­ning. But I think we’re going to have to come to cris—financial cri­sis, basically—before we get a change of direc­tion.

People all the way back to Greece have pre­dict­ed that— In dif­fer­ent words, but have said that when a major­i­ty of the peo­ple are being able to vote them­selves more from the minor­i­ty of peo­ple, you have end­ed democ­ra­cy. It’s hard to see how you reverse a sit­u­a­tion like that.

Anderson: And I guess, you know, cir­cling way back to when I was ask­ing what if we choose the McDonald’s when we need the health food, when we were talk­ing about what actu­al­ly is a bet­ter choice. If the oth­er choic­es col­lapse or don’t, maybe we can said don’t” is the bet­ter choice?

Porter: Well, I think at that point we final­ly have a com­mon ground for dis­cus­sion. But at this point you don’t have peo­ple believ­ing col­lapse is pos­si­ble.

Anderson: What if the major­i­ty of peo­ple want some­thing that ulti­mate­ly destroys itself.

Porter: Yeah. That’s… And I think we’re near­ing that sit­u­a­tion. And that’s ter­ri­bly dis­cour­ag­ing to say, but I think it’s true.

Anderson: I don’t know. I feel like I hear a sim­i­lar nar­ra­tive arc from peo­ple who feel that we are too indi­vid­u­al­is­tic. But it’s always the sto­ry of like, the oth­er side’s not lis­ten­ing, the oth­er side’s basi­cal­ly won the bat­tle, we’re going down­hill, nothing’s going to get bet­ter until a cri­sis. And some peo­ple say well you know, you can still have a con­ver­sa­tion. But oth­ers don’t. So it’s inter­est­ing for me that I hear kind of, you know, the same sto­ry.

Porter: Yeah. And that is inter­est­ing that you would. You know, human nature being what it is prob­a­bly not all that big a sur­prise. The dif­fer­ence in my case is, just a few years ago I would not have been near­ly so pes­simistic, I guess, about the future.

Anderson: Really?

Porter: I thought we still had a chance to turn back. So there’s been a dra­mat­ic change in my view of both this coun­try and the world. And I have come to the con­clu­sion that there’s not much that I as an indi­vid­ual, or indi­vid­u­als can do about some­thing as large as our nation­al gov­ern­ment, our fed­er­al gov­ern­ment. Or even the state lev­el. And that’s why I’ve focused my ener­gies into the local gov­ern­ment, because I believe it’s pos­si­ble to have an effect there. I guess I’m look­ing for a trickle-up effect.

Anderson: You know, I think that’s… That real­ly feels like a lot of the peo­ple I’ve spo­ken to who would prob­a­bly be on the far oth­er end of the polit­i­cal spec­trum, in the same way that it does make me won­der if you go around to the same point again, you know.

Porter: Probably so.

Anderson: Maybe that’s the com­mon denom­i­na­tor that I’m see­ing here, it’s that a lot of peo­ple feel that things are so big and so com­pli­cat­ed, the indi­vid­ual doesn’t mat­ter much. And I won­der if that isn’t part of the cri­sis of the world we live in now. It’s a size thing.

Porter: Yeah, and the growth of the pow­ers that we have allowed to take place in the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment have made that sit­u­a­tion far more dif­fi­cult. Everywhere you turn you’re now faced with an expand­ing role of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment in your life.

Anderson: Is that also con­nect­ed to the con­cen­tra­tion of cap­i­tal. The point where the gov­ern­ment becomes enor­mous and reg­u­la­to­ry but is also being pres­sured to be that way by giant com­pa­nies? I mean, they’re pur­su­ing their own self-interests—

Porter: True.

Anderson: —in a way that could hurt small busi­ness.

Porter: All com­pa­nies want to be rid of com­pe­ti­tion. You want com­pe­ti­tion out, you want bar­ri­ers to com­pe­ti­tion thrown up. You don’t want any restric­tions placed on you. That’s the name of the game. It’s nat­ur­al. But I can’t see where com­pa­nies are able to dri­ve the types of reg­u­la­tions that we are see­ing put in place. They tend to be dri­ven more by a per­ceive social need. Because most of the com­pa­nies come to the point where oops, I have over­reached if I make this be reg­u­lat­ed any fur­ther. Because it’s going to get me too, now.

Anderson: Okay, so larg­er cor­po­ra­tions in terms of chang­ing laws aren’t the prob­lem.

Porter: I don’t think they are. Obviously they try to be. In most cas­es I think large com­pa­nies intend to coun­ter­bal­ance each oth­er and their polit­i­cal impact. One of ridicu­lous things is most large com­pa­nies give a lot of mon­ey to both par­ties. In a sense they off­set them­selves, their own influ­ence—

Anderson: Or do they just win.

Porter: Yeah, they don’t just win. They’ve been tend­ing to just lose recent­ly. I don’t think that their impact is near­ly as much as the press would have us believe. I have seen large com­pa­ny lob­by­ing from the inside and I think it’s prob­a­bly a lot less effec­tive than peo­ple think it is. So no, I don’t think it dri­ves out of that. I think it’s dri­ving out of a nat­ur­al ten­den­cy of polit­i­cal fig­ures to play to the major­i­ty. And I think we’re see­ing a shift­ing major­i­ty.

My family’s always laughed at me when I have said that on the whole the world is get­ting bet­ter. And they say, And you say all these things you don’t like or that both­er you.” And I say yeah I do, and those are true, but on the whole. And again I’m look­ing at peo­ples who have absolute pover­ty. And no hope for the future. Forty, fifty years ago we didn’t even know they were there. We didn’t even know they were there; we now know they’re there, we may not be doing a lot about it. But we are. They are able for instance through cell phones, TV, com­put­ers, all kinds of things, they’re able to learn there’s more out in the world, and just the very fact that things exist bet­ter is pulling them up over time. Are we get­ting bet­ter as a coun­try? I don’t think so. But that’s not the world.


Anderson: So there’s some kind of hope there, I guess? There’s this hope that we as a species are march­ing for­ward despite this appar­ent decline in America?

Saul: Apparently. Apparently that’s his big vision.

Anderson: That’s a real dif­fer­ence between him and Mark in our last con­ver­sa­tion. You know, Mark giv­ing us the sense of bat­tle but also of rise, of new hope. And Oliver seems to feel that over the past cou­ple of years we’ve tak­en a pret­ty dark turn and that the hope now is else­where.

Saul: You know, I think key to where that turn is, like how we are in decline comes down to one of the big questions…certainly in this con­ver­sa­tion and in the project as a whole, and that’s the role of gov­ern­ment. What is gov­ern­ment for?

Anderson: Right.

Saul: And sort of the big ten­sion in this con­ver­sa­tion is cen­tral­ized ver­sus local­ized con­trol. Or even more fun­da­men­tal­ly that ten­sion between the indi­vid­ual and the col­lec­tive again.

Anderson: Right. It feels like a lot of the begin­ning part of our con­ver­sa­tion, you know, as we talk about Sandy Springs and gov­ern­ment, that’s the cen­tral local. As we moved through the con­ver­sa­tion we’d get clos­er to phi­los­o­phy. Then it becomes a real individual/collective, what are the respon­si­bil­i­ties, what are the roles of gov­ern­ment…

Saul: Right.

Anderson: I think there are a lot of ques­tions of fair­ness that we’re going to want to get into here.

Saul: Mm hm.

Anderson: Let’s get into some of those things and talk about the way Oliver thinks about what gov­ern­ment should do. He gives us two things that he’s real­ly inter­est­ed in. The first is mak­ing gov­ern­ment more rep­re­sen­ta­tive to peo­ple. He wants it to be more respon­sive. And sub­sidiary to that would be mak­ing it more effi­cient.

And some­thing I real­ly liked here was that he says effi­cien­cy should not be the dri­ver there. You know, we shouldn’t go what can we do in terms of effi­cien­cy and then decide what do we want to do. We should real­ly have a con­ver­sa­tion about what do we want to do? Where are we going? And then fig­ure out how to best exe­cute that.

Saul: Yeah. I real­ly like that. I also just liked his focus on rep­re­sen­ta­tive­ness and local­ness. I mean, that whole idea that he men­tions of the trickle-up the­o­ry. Like, fix the local first.

Anderson: Yeah.

Saul: That real­ly real­ly appealed to me. My own per­son­al bias­es.

Anderson: Mm hm. And I mean, that’s some­thing that I think we’ve talked before about. If there’s any major title move­ment under­neath all of the peo­ple in this project, it’s a dri­ve towards the local.

Anderson: the same time, though, by the end of the con­ver­sa­tion we’re talk­ing about rep­re­sen­ta­tive­ness in a very dif­fer­ent light. Because as we men­tioned ear­li­er he’s con­cerned about where we’re going, specif­i­cal­ly we” being America.

Saul: This comes back to the con­ver­sa­tion we’ve had, only once or twice before, of democ­ra­cy eat­ing itself.

Anderson: Yeah.

Saul: It’s very easy to tout the won­ders of rep­re­sen­ta­tive democ­ra­cy, as long as it’s going your way.

Anderson: So can we square these things? On one hand, push­ing towards greater rep­re­sen­ta­tion, on the oth­er hand per­haps see­ing the fruits of rep­re­sen­ta­tive gov­er­nance yield­ing a result he doesn’t agree with. How do we con­nect one to the oth­er? You know, what’s the jour­ney that takes us from point A to point B. Or are they fun­da­men­tal­ly con­tra­dic­to­ry?

Saul: I think we can con­nect them. I think the way to start is to talk about one side first and just see where we get. There is some­thing going on here.

Anderson: Well let’s take the jour­ney, then. Let’s start with where he begins us, with pub­lic and pri­vate insti­tu­tions and the ques­tion of how they deal with the role of gov­ern­ment. He seems to feel that pub­lic insti­tu­tions are uncom­pet­i­tive. There’s no dri­ve to do any­thing bet­ter. They’re not very account­able, except to the elec­torate. And that many things that a pub­lic insti­tu­tion can do can be done bet­ter by pri­vate insti­tu­tions which have both the prof­it motive but also the account­abil­i­ty of true bank­rupt­cy.

Saul: Why is the pub­lic sec­tor inher­ent­ly dis­in­cen­tivized? Or is it inher­ent­ly dis­in­cen­tivized? Can you imag­ine a pub­lic sec­tor that you can include incen­tives, be those prof­it incen­tives, or risks of fail­ure incen­tives, or you know, more along the lines of Laura Musikanski and The Happiness Initiative more sort of happiness-related incen­tives? You pushed him a lit­tle bit on this and he didn’t real­ly have much of a response.

Anderson: And is account­abil­i­ty to an elec­torate… Is that enough account­abil­i­ty? Because that does seem like in a way get­ting vot­ed out is akin to get­ting fired by your board, right. There is an account­abil­i­ty. It may be that that account­abil­i­ty could become greater if per­haps his oth­er aims to encour­age rep­re­sen­ta­tive­ness were achieved.

Saul: Yeah, absolute­ly.

Anderson: Yeah, if we go from there we can back up a lit­tle bit and we can get into the real phi­los­o­phy ques­tion beneath this, which is a ques­tion of human nature, I think. It seems to be that a lot of how you inter­pret human nature’s going to deter­mine how you inter­pret this public/private ques­tion. And if you think that peo­ple need incen­tives, like finan­cial ones, and if you think that with­out those peo­ple are basi­cal­ly going to be inef­fi­cient and lazy, that’s a human nature assess­ment, right?

Saul: Yeah, oh absolute­ly. If that is your view of human nature, then the way we cur­rent­ly view the dif­fer­ence between pri­vate and pub­lic becomes obvi­ous, right.

Anderson: Right.

Saul: Because clear­ly you need that car­rot— You need the car­rot and stick if human nature doesn’t reward peo­ple just based on, you know, the joy of work.

Anderson: And on the flip side of that I would think that if you assumed that peo­ple did things for rea­sons of say, ethics or moral­i­ty or virtue, or pride? That maybe you could have a sys­tem that did not reward or did not encour­age that same lev­el of com­pe­ti­tion that was still func­tion­ing.

I like it. There’s kind of a deep opti­mism pes­simism about what we are, right. If you’re the opti­mist you might think that like, maybe we haven’t got­ten there yet but we could have more moral, bet­ter peo­ple doing the job for the right rea­sons because they believe in it and they take pride in their work, ver­sus per­haps the more pes­simistic approach just say­ing that real­ly we need to just know that peo­ple respond to fear and greed. And if we want to struc­ture good gov­ern­ment we take that into account front and cen­ter.

Saul: I think we know where Oliver stands on that one.

Anderson: Yeah, and I think it would actu­al­ly be inter­est­ing to kind of go through the project again and look at it through that lens and go who, leans more towards the human­i­ty as fear and greed,” who leans more towards the human­i­ty as on a scale of virtue/vice but train­able?” So we’re mov­ing for­ward from a point of human­i­ty is fear and greed-driven.

Saul: Then you know, some of the lat­er parts of the con­ver­sa­tion make a lot more sense in that light. If human­i­ty is dri­ven by fear and greed, then his issues with the wel­fare sys­tem, or the safe­ty net sys­tem, becomes

Anderson: Oh, it seems quite self-evident. Because if—yeah, if we’re fear and greed-driven then real­ly what you want to do is you want to cre­ate a sys­tem which is pret­ty hands-off but guar­an­tees that no one’s going to rig it. And that with­in that fair­ness, peo­ple can work as hard or as lit­tle as they want. And if you work min­i­mal­ly you don’t do well. There’s that deep sense of per­son­al respon­si­bil­i­ty and fair­ness… There’s almost a math­e­mat­i­cal qual­i­ty to it, right?

Saul: Yeah. Interesting. Yeah.

Anderson: Like, the amount you put in yields x amount of return, and it’s kind of assumed— Like, it’s very decon­tex­tu­al­ized, I think. As a his­to­ry per­son that was some­thing that I was think­ing about. That it doesn’t real­ly take his­to­ry into account. He acknowl­edges that well no, it’s not fair. The play­ing field’s not lev­el.

But I think where we need to break that apart is, social­ly and bio­log­i­cal­ly and cul­tur­al­ly. Like there are lots of dif­fer­ent types of fair­ness and lev­el­ness, right. So it seems like Oliver will total­ly say that yeah, we’re not all cre­at­ed bio­log­i­cal­ly the same. We don’t all come from the same social back­grounds. He cites his own exam­ple, com­ing from a real­ly poor back­ground and end­ing up doing remark­ably well. So while things are not equal there, Oliver does assert that things are equal in terms of our abil­i­ty to bet­ter our­selves, right. Sort of like the sys­tem of com­pe­ti­tion has giv­ing every­one a fair shot, and is nev­er going to be per­fect.

Saul: But that didn’t— That ignores a lot of things, right? And you sort of…jokingly brought it up and he kind of ran with it in an inter­est­ing way. But you said well you know, we’re say­ing this and we’re two white guys.

Anderson: Yeah. He says look, his­tor­i­cal­ly there have been a lot of changes, essen­tial­ly. And I think what he’s try­ing to get to is everyone’s been king of the hill at some point. Specifically, though, he cites that like, Europe (and white peo­ple pre­sum­ably) have out­com­pet­ed every­one else. Which is sort of a racial, social, Darwinian thing. I mean, I know that he’s try­ing to say that like look, the peo­ple in con­trol have changed through­out his­to­ry and there’s no sense in feel­ing guilty about the point that we’re in now where we have an advan­tage. At some point oth­er peo­ple will have an advan­tage, maybe if they com­pete more effec­tive­ly.

Saul: Right.

Anderson: Now the ques­tion there is, is that a cul­tur­al thing? Is that a racial thing? It’s cer­tain­ly a tele­o­log­i­cal thing. We’re look­ing at the present moment that we inhab­it, where it’s pret­ty advan­ta­geous to be a white guy. Right? And he’s say­ing that the rea­son we are here now is because white peo­ple have out­com­pet­ed oth­er peo­ple, his­tor­i­cal­ly. I have real trou­ble with that. Actually… I don’t buy it. I just don’t buy it. And uh—

Saul: Yeah.

Anderson: That’s some­thing that I would actu­al­ly like to talk to him more about. Because I’m not sure if he sees that as a cul­tur­al thing…or if it’s just racist.

Saul: It came across to me as racist.

Anderson: But again I don’t know if that’s how he meant it.

Saul: Even set­ting that aside, regard­less of why whites are more priv­i­leged now, is the fact that they weren’t at one point or that some­body else was more priv­i­leged at a dif­fer­ent point… Is that good jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for not try­ing to…level the play­ing field?

Anderson: And I think this is one of these things— I’m going back to Mark Mykleby’s con­ver­sa­tion where he’s talk­ing about break­ing apart truths and assump­tions. And it feels like here we’re look­ing at the past through the assump­tion of peo­ple are in a com­pet­i­tive envi­ron­ment, always. And it’s fear and greed-driven, always. And if you look at the past that way, you see a nar­ra­tive of groups claw­ing on top of each oth­er and beat­ing each oth­er down. If you view it through that light of com­pe­ti­tion I think you’ll feel that that’s some­thing we can nev­er escape from.

Saul: But if you view it through some oth­er lens, the sto­ry looks dif­fer­ent, right?

Anderson: Right. And I guess that oth­er lens would be at dif­fer­ent points in his­to­ry we’ve been bet­ter or worse in terms of qual­i­ty of life. There’s noth­ing inevitable and noth­ing cycli­cal about it. You know, some civ­i­liza­tions got it right, some got it wrong. But if you look at it that way, then you would look at our civ­i­liza­tion now and you might be more inclined to say…we’re more plas­tic. We’re not locked in this inevitable com­pe­ti­tion.

Saul: Right. And can we look to the past, look at what was done well, look what was done poor­ly, learn from the past and maybe, maybe make our sys­tem a lit­tle more fair?

Anderson: So going back to your orig­i­nal point, I don’t think— I mean for me at least, right. I don’t think we can jus­ti­fy inequity now by say­ing oh there’s been inequity in the past. I think that sells our­selves short as actors. And maybe that’s naïve of me. But God knows this is a naïve project, right.

Saul: Yeah, no. Exactly. That’s part of what makes it— Well, it’s part of what makes us able to actu­al­ly do it.

Anderson: Well, and I think it’s a pre­req­ui­site. Because if you didn’t believe to some extent that peo­ple weren’t a lit­tle bit plas­tic, that we couldn’t actu­al­ly change, then there’d be no point in hav­ing this con­ver­sa­tion at all.

Saul: If that’s tru­ly human nature we would nev­er get past Torcello’s chair-throwing stage.

Anderson: We get a lit­tle bit of that vibe from Oliver as well, when we talk about con­ver­sa­tion. And he’s not real­ly opti­mistic that we’ll be able to have a con­ver­sa­tion about the American future with­in America because we’re so polar­ized. And because it feels like the tak­ers have basi­cal­ly out­com­pet­ed.

Saul: So this brings us back to some­thing we were talk­ing about at the begin­ning of this out­ro, that we should kind of end on. And it comes in this con­text of democ­ra­cy is mak­ing the wrong deci­sions. They’re mak­ing the deci­sions that are going to col­lapse the sys­tem. It’s real­ly inter­est­ing that it’s the same lan­guage used by both the left and the right. And it’s always the oth­er side that’s win­ning. What do you make of that?

Anderson: I want to go back to Mark Mykleby be again and go our assump­tions are our truths.” For every­one, in every part of the spec­trum. And I think this project is pret­ty well beyond a left/right bina­ry in any way. I mean, we’ve got so many peo­ple who are all over the place. And yet it’s a declen­sion nar­ra­tive, right? And it’s one that we like. I think. I mean, there’s kind of a fas­ci­na­tion with it. But I mean, I’ve talked about this before, and this is what I wrote in my op-ed in Boing Boing about like, maybe we have so many declen­sion nar­ra­tives across the spec­trum because there’s some­thing to it.

So let’s just leave those as points of con­tem­pla­tion. This was an amaz­ing con­ver­sa­tion that took us a long way from ques­tions of how do you make Sandy Springs, Georgia work, to these enor­mous ques­tions of fair­ness, the role of gov­ern­ment, race, his­tor­i­cal tra­jec­to­ries. There’s a lot I enjoyed about this, and I’m real­ly glad we’ve got this one in the project.

Saul: Yeah, me too.

Anderson: That was all Oliver Porter, record­ed in his home in Sandy Springs, Georgia, November 26th, 2012.

Micah Saul: And you are of course lis­ten­ing to The Conversation. Find us on the web at find​the​con​ver​sa​tion​.com.

Neil Prendergast: You can fol­low us on Twitter at @aengusanderson.

Saul: I’m Micah Saul.

Prendergast: I’m Neil Prendergast.

Anderson: And I’m Aengus Anderson. Thanks for lis­ten­ing.

Further Reference

This interview at the Conversation web site, with project notes, comments, and taxonomic organization specific to The Conversation.


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.