BUT NOW WE TURN BACK TO TODAY'S POLITICAL DIVISION.

OUR NEXT GUEST BELIEVES, QUOTE, ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE.

YOU KNOW WHERE YOU'VE HEARD THAT BEFORE.

ARTHUR BROOKS IS A SOCIAL SCIENTIST AND DIRECTOR OF THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, A CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK IN THE UNITED STATES.

HIS NEW BOOK, "LOVE YOUR ENEMIES," ARGUES THAT AMERICA'S POLITICAL BACK AND FORTH NEEDS LESS TROLLING AND MORE RESPECT.

HE TOLD OUR MICHELLE MARTIN THAT WE NEED TO LEARN NOT HOW TO DISAGREE, BUT HOW TO DISAGREE BETTER.

>> YOUR LATEST BOOK, "LOVE YOUR ENEMIES," HOW DECENT PEOPLE CAN SAVE AMERICA FROM THE CULTURE OF CONTEMPT.

>> YEAH.

>> WHAT MOTIVATED THIS BOOK?

WAS THERE A EUREKA MOMENT WHERE YOU SAID TO YOURSELF, THIS IS WHAT I HAVE TO TALK ABOUT?

>> YEAH, IT IS.

YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC PUBLIC POLICIES FOR A LONG TIME.

BUT I WAS READING A STUDY IN 2014 BY RESEARCHERS AT NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY ON SOMETHING CALLED MOTIVE ATTRIBUTION ASYMMETRY, WHICH IS FANCY WAY OF SAYING SOMETHING PRETTY SIMPLE.

WHEN YOU HAVE TWO SIDES IN A CONFLICT AND EACH SIDE THINKS THAT THEY ARE MOTIVATED BY LOVE, BUT THE OTHER SIDE IS MOTIVATED BY HATRED, THEY BOTH THINK THAT.

NOW, WHEN THAT HAPPENS, AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF WAR OR INTRACTABLE HATRED, BOTH SIDES CAN'T BE RIGHT.

BOTH SIDES CAN BE WRONG, BUT BOTH SIDES CAN'T BE RIGHT.

YOU SEE IT IN THE PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT OR THE BALKINS.

HERE'S WHAT THIS PAPER IN 2014 SHOWED ME.

IT DEMONSTRATED WITH SURVEY DATA THAT LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES NOW HAVE THE SAME LEVEL OF POLARIZATION, MOTIVE ATTRIBUTION AS THE PALESTINIANS AND ISRAELIS.

AND I WAS THINKING, AND I THOUGHT, WHAT CAN I DO TO MAKE IT BETTER?

AND RIGHT AFTER THAT, I HAD THIS EXPERIENCE THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH OF AN EPIPHANY FOR ME.

I WAS GIVING A TALK, AND I DO LOTS OF TALKS FOR DIFFERENT AUDIENCES, LEFT WING AUDIENCES ON CAMPUSES AND CONSERVATIVE RIGHT WING AUDIENCES WHO ARE ACTIVISTS, ALL IN BETWEEN.

AND I LOVE TALKING TO EVERYBODY.

BUT IT WAS IN THIS LAST CATEGORY, A BUNCH OF CONSERVATIVE ACTIVISTS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE IN 2014, 700 ACTIVISTS OR SOMETHING.

AND VERY COMMITTED TO THEIR WORK.

AND I STOPPED IN THE MISSION OF MY TALK, AND I SAID, I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT HERE, BECAUSE THEY DON'T AGREE WITH YOU.

THESE ARE POLITICAL PROGRESSIVES.

AND WHAT I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER, THEY'RE NOT STUPID AND THEY'RE NOT EVIL.

THEY'RE SIMPLY AMERICANS WHO DISAGREE WITH US ON PUBLIC POLICY.

AND I KNEW IT WASN'T GOING TO BE AN APPLAUSE LINE, RIGHT?

BUT -- >> IT WAS NOT.

>> IT WAS NOT GOING TO BE AN APPLAUSE LINE, BUT IT CAME LATER WHEN A LADY SAID, ACTUALLY, I THINK THEY'RE A STUPID NEEDLE.

AND IT WAS A JOKE.

SHE WASN'T TRYING TO OFFEND.

IT WAS A CROWD.

BUT AT THAT MOMENT, I THOUGHT SEATTLE.

BECAUSE THAT'S MY HOMETOWN.

I GREW UP IN A FAMILY, NOT A SUPER POLITICAL FAMILY.

BUT TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, SEATTLE IS ARGUABLY THE MOST PROGRESSIVE CITY IN AMERICA.

MY MOTHER IS A PAINTER, MY FATHER IS A COLLEGE PROFESSOR.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THEIR POLITICS WERE?

>> I WOULD NOT PRESUME.

>> YEAH, BUT IT'S -- ONE MIGHT.

AND ONE WOULD BE RIGHT THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T COME FROM A CONSERVATIVE FAMILY.

MY OWN POLITICS TEND TO BE TO THE RIGHT.

BUT I'M AN OUTLIER.

AND ONE THING I'LL TELL YOU ABOUT MY FAMILY, THEY'RE NOT STUPID AND EVIL.

THEY'RE GREAT PEOPLE, SMART PEOPLE.

THEY'RE RIGHT ON A LOT OF STUFF.

I'M NOT RIGHT ON EVERYTHING.

AND IT OFFENDED ME.

WHAT IT SHOWED ME WAS THERE WAS A TRAIN COMING DOWN THE TRACKS IN THIS COUNTRY THAT WAS NOT ABOUT ANGER.

IT WAS SOMETHING MIXED WITH ANGER, DISGUST.

IT WAS TO TREAT OTHER PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH US AS A PATHOGEN.

IT WAS WHAT PHILOSOPHERS CALL CONTEMPT, THE CONVICTION OF WORTHLESSNESS OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, IN TERMS OF POLITICS.

AND I SAID, I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.

AND SO I WROTE THIS BOOK.

>> AND TALK TO ME ABOUT HOW CONTEMPT IS DIFFERENT FROM ANGER.

CONTEMPT IS NOT THE SAME AS, SAY, A STRONG DISAGREEMENT.

EVEN WHEN IT'S DEEPLY ROOTED IN RELIGION OR, YOU KNOW -- OR JUST, YOU KNOW, DEEPLY-HELD BELIEF.

HOW IS CONTEMPT DIFFERENT FROM ALL OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT PEOPLE MAY EXPERIENCE?

>> ANGER IS A HOT EMOTION.

IT SAYS I CARE WHAT YOU THINK.

MARRIAGE COUNSELORS HAVE FOUND -- OR SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICALIST VERSUS FOUND THAT DIVORCE IS UNCORRELATED WITH ANGER.

JOHN GOTMAN IS THE WORLD'S LEADING EXPERT ON MARITAL RECONCILIATION.

HE CAN PREDICT AFTER MEETING A COUPLE ONCE WITH 94% ACCURACY IF THEY WILL BE DIVORCED WITHIN THREE YEARS.

HE'S LOOKING FOR EYE-ROLLING.

HE'S LOOKING FOR DISMISSAL AND SARCASM AND HUMOR.

HE'S LOOKING FOR THE THINGS THAT YOU SHOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT DO.

WHAT'S BAD FOR A COUPLE IS BAD FOR A SOCIETY.

WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHERE WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER, NOT WITH CIVILITY, BECAUSE CIVILITY IS BASICALLY A GARBAGE STANDARD.

WE SHOULD HAVE A STANDARD OF BROTHERLY LOVE, OF SOLIDARITY FOR EACH OTHER.

THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE CAN FUNCTION WITH A COMPETITION OF IDEAS.

THAT'S REALLY WHAT WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE LOST.

>> YOU KNOW, A COUPLE THINGS I WANTED TO DIG INTO HERE.

FIRST OF ALL, IS THERE SOMETHING DISTINCT ABOUT THE ERA THAT WE ARE IN?

IS THERE SOMETHING THAT SAYS TO YOU, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE AN ECONOMIST AND I'M AN HISTORIAN.

IS THERE SOMETHING UNIQUE ABOUT THE PERIOD WE'RE IN, OR DOES IT MATTER?

BECAUSE IT'S JUST TERRIBLE SO IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT WAS EQUALLY TERRIBLE SOME OTHER TIME.

BUT IS THERE SOMETHING SPECIAL ABOUT THE MOMENT WE'RE IN.

>> THERE IS.

POPULISM NEARLY ALWAYS COMES IN THE WAKE OF A FINANCIAL CRISIS.

SO I'LL BE A HISTORIAN.

WHAT A FINANCIAL CRISIS ORDINARILY -- VERY DIFFERENT FROM AN ORDINARY RECESSION.

IT HAPPENS A COUPLE OF TIMES A CENTURY.

AFTER A BURST OF A BIG ASSET BUBBLE LIKE IN 2008 OR 1929 OR THERE WAS A BIG RAILROAD BUST IN 1896 AND GOES BACK THROUGH HISTORY.

AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, WHAT YOU FIND IS NOT THAT GROWTH IS SLOW FOR PEOPLE.

IT'S THAT GROWTH IS UNEVEN FOR A LONG TIME.

USUALLY 10 OR 15 YEARS AFTER A FINANCIAL CRISIS, ALL OF THE FRUITS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH GO TO THE TOP 20% OF THE INCOME DISTRIBUTION.

AND THE POLITICAL RESULT OF THAT IS INEVITABLY POPULISM.

POPULISM SAYS SOMEBODY HAS GOT YOUR STUFF, AND I'M GOING TO GET IT BACK.

WHETHER IT'S IMMIGRANTS OR FOREIGNERS OR RICH PEOPLE OR BANKERS OR PEOPLE FROM THE OTHER PARTY, SOMEBODY HAS GOT YOUR STUFF AND I'M GOING TO GET IT BACK.

YOU BASICALLY HAVE AN ERA WHERE THE POPULAR POLITICIANS ARE KIND OF WALKING MIDDLE FINGERS.

AND THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WANT UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.

THAT'S WHAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT THIS ERA, BUT THAT'S THE OPPORTUNITY TOO.

BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT.

>> SO YOU'RE SAYING -- WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING, IT ISN'T UNIQUE.

WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE.

>> YEAH.

>> I MEAN, WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS THIS IS PART OF A PATTERN.

AFTER THAT PERIOD OF KIND OF DEPRIVATION THAT PEOPLE ARE INCLINED TO THESE KINDS OF FEELINGS, WHICH WOULD SAY TO ME WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE.

SO IS THERE SOMETHING UNIQUE ABOUT THE MOMENT THAT WE ARE IN?

OR IS THIS JUST -- NOT JUST.

YOUR DESCRIPTION IS QUITE TERRIBLE.

>> IT'S QUITE TERRIBLE.

BUT IT'S COMMON.

>> IT'S COMMON.

>> IT DOESN'T HAPPEN EVERY DECADE.

IT HAPPENS A COUPLE OF TIMES A CENTURY.

AND WHAT WE KNOW IS, WE DON'T HAVE STRONG INSTITUTIONS AND WE DON'T SEE IT AS AN OPPORTUNITY.

IT CAN TURN OUT POORLY.

YOU CAN GO RAIL TO RAIL.

YOU DON'T LIKE THIS PARTY THE WAY THE GOVERNMENT -- YOU CAN VET A VERSION OF THAT IN THE PARTY AND IT TAKES LONGER THAN IT SHOULD TO COME BACK TO EQUILIBRIUM.

WHEN IT GOES WELL -- AND WE HAVE DATA ON 800 ELECTIONS OVER 120 YEARS AND WE HAVE SEEN THIS IN A LOT OF PLACES.

WHEN LEADERS START A SOCIAL MOVEMENT AND THEY SAY, I WANT MY CULTURE BACK, BECAUSE HERE'S THE EMPIRICAL REGULARITY OF HOW ECONOMISTS TALK.

SORRY.

THIS IS THE THING WE SEE OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

93 -- RIGHT NOW, 93% OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION HATE HOW DIVIDED WE HAVE BECOME.

WE HAVE A HABIT OF TREATING EACH OTHER WITH CONTEMPT.

I MEAN, I'M GUILTY.

I'M SUPER GUILTY.

AND I'VE SEEN CLIPS OF MYSELF ON TELEVISION WHERE I ROLL MY EYES WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS SOMETHING I DISAGREE WITH.

AND I'M REALLY SORRY FOR THAT.

BECAUSE I DIDN'T MEAN ANY HARM.

I REALIZE I HAVE AN INGRAINED HABIT, A NEUROLOGICAL PHENOMENON.

BUT WHAT WE FIND IS THAT 93% OF US AT THE SAME TIME DON'T LIKE IT.

>> SO WHAT ARE WE AIMING FOR HERE?

I'VE HEARD YOU SAY THAT STRIVING FOR CIVILITY -- OR STRIVING FOR TOLERANCE IS WEAK SAUCE.

>> IT'S TOTALLY WEAK SAUCE.

>> SO WHAT DO WE NEED?

WHAT IS IT THAT WE ARE STRIVING FOR?

>> IF I SAID -- AND A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE THINKING, WHAT'S WRONG WITH CIVILITY?

AND I'LL TELL YOU F. I SAID, YOU KNOW, MY WIFE ESTHER AND I, WE'RE CIVIL TO EACH OTHER.

YOU WOULD SAY -- YOU GUYS NEED SOME COUNSELING.

OR IF I SAID, YOU KNOW, MY EMPLOYEES, THEY TOLERATE ME.

YOU WOULD SAY, THEY TOLERATE YOU?

THIS IS A HUGE PROBLEM.

YOU'VE GOT TO A MORALE PROBLEM ON YOUR HANDS.

THE OTHER THING IS AGREEMENT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE GOING FOR, EITHER.

BECAUSE DISAGREEMENT -- >> WHY NOT?

AGREEMENT IS NOT WHAT WE WANT.

>> AGREEMENT IS MONOPOLY.

THE IDEA OF AGREEMENT -- DISAGREEMENT IS THE COMPETITION OF IDEAS.

DISAGREEMENT ACTUALLY IS IRON SHARPENING IRON, THE SECRET TO SUCCESS.

I DON'T WANT AGREEMENT INSIDE THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE.

I WANT A COMPETITION OF IDEAS.

YOU -- I KNOW YOU BELIEVE IN THAT AS A JOURNALIST.

YOU WANT DISAGREEMENT.

BUT WHAT YOU NEED -- NOT TO DISAGREE LESS, YOU NEED TO DISAGREE BETTER.

>> ACTUALLY, I'M GOING TO DIES AGREE WITH YOU.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT.

>> WHAT WE WANT IS CLARITY OF IDEAS.

WE WANT CLARITY OF IDEAS WELL-EXPRESSED.

>> YEAH, WELL, AND INDEED -- >> NOT CONTEMPT.

>> YOU NEED PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO DISAGREE.

AND POINT OF FACT, IF YOU'RE NOT SURROUNDED BY SOME PEOPLE WHO DO DISAGREE WITH YOU, YOU BECOME WEAK.

YOU BECOME FULL OF GROUP THINK.

THAT'S MY POINT.

SO AGREEMENT IS NOT THE GOAL.

CIVILITY IS NOT THE GOAL.

TOLERANCE IS NOT THE GOAL.

WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER, COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER AND DO SO IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT'S FILLED WITH RESPECT.

WITH KINDNESS, WARM-HEARTEDNESS.

WITH LOVE.

>> WITH LOVE.

YOU MAKE A COMPELLING CASE IN THE BOOK THAT, A., THERE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM.

RIGHT?

THAT CONTEMPT IS KIND OF LIKE THE OPIOID CRISIS OF OUR CIVIL DISCOURSE OF OUR PUBLIC LIFE TOGETHER.

YOU MAKE A COMPELLING CASE THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT INFECTS SO MANY AREAS OF LIFE, INCLUDING INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS.

THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM.

I HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ONE NAME YOU AVOID MENTIONS IN THIS BOOK IS DONALD TRUMP.

AND I DO HAVE TO ASK WHY.

BECAUSE IF ANYBODY EXPRESSES CONTEMPT FOR PEOPLE ON AN ONGOING BASIS, PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR HIM, PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH HIM, CAN WE NOT AGREE THAT IT IS HE?

IT IS HIS -- IT IS HIS FUEL?

>> THIS IS NOT A BOOK ABOUT POLITICS.

POLITICS IS LIKE THE WEATHER.

IT CHANGES.

PEOPLE DON'T HAVE -- YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ALL HAVE VIEWS ON IT, BUT VERY FEW PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY EXPERTS.

THIS IS A BOOK ABOUT THE CLIMATE.

I'M A CLIMATOLOGIST, NOT A METEOROLOGIST.

AND IF I ACTUALLY START TALKING ABOUT THE CURRENT -- THE WEATHER, THE POLITICS, ABOUT DONALD TRUMP OR ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ OR BERNIE SANDERS OR ABOUT ELIZABETH WARREN OR ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE IN THE REPUBLICAN FIELD, IT'S LIMITED TO THIS POLITICAL WEATHER.

>> EXCEPT THAT THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE POLITICIAN FOR THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT IN TIME.

THIS IS A POLITICAL FIGURE WHO EXPRESSES CONTEMPT, EVEN FOR THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE WORKED FOR HIM, WHO HE HAS APPOINTED TO KEY POSITIONS ON A REGULAR BASIS, WHO HAS ADDRESSED PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT RACES, CONTEMPTUOUSLY.

AND I HAVE TO ASK YOU, THERE ARE OTHER PRINCIPLED CONSERVATIVES LIKE YOURSELF WHO HAVE FELT IT NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY AND SPEAK TO THIS IN THE SAME WAY THAT OTHER PRINCIPLED PEOPLE HAVE FELT IT NECESSARY TO SPEAK ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF THE OPIOID CRISIS.

AND I HAVE TO ASK WHY YOU ARE NOT.

>> WELL, I HAVE A CHAPTER ABOUT LEADERSHIP THAT TALKS ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE TWEENS OWERSIVE AND AUTHORITARIAN LEADERSHIP AND I TALK ABOUT THE RISE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AS SOMEBODY WHO TRIED TO SHAKE UP THE SYSTEM.

AND AS A RESULT, WHO ALIENATED A LOT OF PEOPLE, BECAUSE COERCIVE LEADERSHIP GENERALLY TENDS NOT TO LAST.

SO I DO TALK ABOUT THE TRUMP PHENOMENON IN THE SAME WAY I TALK ABOUT THE SANDERS PHENOMENON, WHICH WAS VERY POPULIST ON THE OTHER SIDE.

I THINK, UNDER VERY REALISTIC SCENARIOS, LOTS OF REALISTIC SCENARIOS, WE COULD HAVE HAD A PRESIDENT, BERNIE SANDERS, AND WE WOULD HAVE BEEN HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT SANDERS TALKING ABOUT -- MAKING ADD WHOM THEM A ADD HOMONYM ARGUMENTS, INCLUDING PRESIDENT TRUMP.

BUT THAT NOTWITHSTANDING, IT'S VERY LIMITING TO SAY THIS IS POLITICAL FIGURE.

A KEY POINT I MAKE IN THIS BOOK IS THAT THE POPULISM OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP OR FOR THAT MATTER OF BERNIE SANDERS OR ANYBODY ON THE LEFT WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, THESE ARE SYMPTOMS.

THESE ARE NOT THE CAUSE.

THE CAUSES ARE CULTURE OF CONTEMPT.

OUR CULTURE OF CONTEMPT, WHICH IS REMEDIATABLE.

WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THE CULTURAL CAUSE AND NOT THE SYMPTOMS OF THE CAUSE.

>> THIS IS ONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS THAT IT'S JUST VERY DIFFICULT FOR YOU SORT OF TO ANSWER IN A HYPOTHETICAL.

BUT WHEN YOU GOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHO REFUSES TO -- OR WHO MORALLY EQUIVOCATES ABOUT WHITE SUPREMACISTS, WHO HAVE ACTUALLY KILLED A PERSON.

>> YEAH.

>> WHAT IS ONE TO DO?

IS ONE TO IGNORE THAT?

>> NO, NO.

ONE IS NOT TO IGNORE THAT.

I WOULD NEVER SAY SOMEBODY -- WE SHOULD -- DISAGREE, AND WE SHOULD DISAGREE VOCALLY AND WE SHOULD GO HAMMER AND TONGS AFTER THE THINGS WE THINK ARE INAPPROPRIATE AND INCORRECT AND EVEN EVIL.

BUT WE SHOULD SEPARATE THE PEOPLE FROM THE IDEAS.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE MANIPULATING US IN THIS COUNTRY, THE PEOPLE THAT -- AND POLITICS AND MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES WHO ARE SAYING THE OTHER SIDE IS STUPID AND EVIL.

>> BUT YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE.

AND I FIND THAT WHEN PEOPLE WANT TO CRITICIZE THAT DONALD TRUMP THAT THEN THEY WRAP THEMSELVES AROUND TRUMP SUPPORTERS, SAYING YOU'RE CALLING ALL TRUMP SUPPORTERS RACIST.

NO, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO FIND PRESIDENT TRUMP, THEY FIND HIS UTTERANCES RACIST, MISOGYNISTIC, IN SOME CASES ANTI-SEMITIC, COARSE, DESTRUCTIVE, NARCISSISTIC AND DESTRUCTIVE TO THE BODY POLITIC.

>> RIGHT.

>> TRUMP SUPPORTERS, THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE.

>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S UTTERANCES.

>> SO THEN THE QUESTION IS, WHAT IS ONE TO DO ABOUT THAT?

>> MY BELIEF IS THAT WHEN YOU DON'T LIKE THE -- WHEN YOU DISAGREE WITH -- STRONGLY, WHEN YOU REPUDIATE THE UTTERANCES OF ANOTHER PERSON, ANOTHER POLITICIAN, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT, YOU HAVE THE OBLIGATION, YOU HAVE THE PRIVILEGE IN THE UNITED STATES OF REPUDIATING THOSE UTTERANCES.

I STRONGLY WOULD SUGGEST TO PEOPLE THAT THEY NOT REPUDIATE THE PERSON, PER SE.

WHY?

NUMBER ONE, IS THAT'S AD HOMINEM .

THERE'S A LOT OF CASES IN WHICH WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT ACTUAL PERSON, BUT WE DO KNOW ABOUT THE UTTERANCES.

THE SECOND POINT IS, IT'S NOT VERY CONVINCING TO OTHER PEOPLE.

LOOK, IF YOU'RE IN THE BUSINESS OF PERSUASION.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE HOW DONALD TRUMP TALKS OR, BY THE WAY, WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A BIG CONTROVERSY RIGHT NOW ABOUT ANTI-SEMITISM.

IT'S A BIG MISTAKE TO SAY SHE IS ANTI-SEMITE.

IT'S A BIG MISTAKE, BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW THAT.

WHAT YOU DO KNOW IS WHAT SHE SAID IS ANTI-SEMITIC IN YOUR JUDGMENT.

AND THAT'S COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE TO SAY THAT.

>> IS IT YOUR VIEW THAT THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL PROBLEM THAT IS TO BE ADDRESSED IN AN INDIVIDUAL WAY?

BECAUSE YOU ARE DESCRIBING A CULTURAL PROBLEM.

SOMETHING THAT IS INDEED SYSTEMIC, AS YOU'VE LAID IT OUT IS YOUR VIEW THAT THIS HAS TO BE HANDLED INDIVIDUALLY?

THAT THIS REALLY IS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL DISCIPLINE, INDIVIDUAL EMOTIONAL DISCIPLINE?

>> I'VE COME TO THAT CONCLUSION.

>> REALLY?

>> YEAH, I HAVE.

>> TELL ME WHY.

>> PART OF IT IS, I HAVE SPENT MY CAREER STUDYING INSTITUTIONS.

LOOKING FOR INSTITUTIONAL SOLUTIONS TO CULTURAL PROBLEMS.

YOU KNOW, AND A LOT OF TIMES, IT'S REALLY APPROPRIATE.

YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A CULTURAL PROBLEM, AND YOU WANT TO SOLVE PROBLEMS OF POVERTY, FOR EXAMPLE.

AND YOU WANT A BETTER WELFARE SYSTEM.

GREAT.

I THINK THAT'S TERRIFIC.

YOU WANT TO IMPROVE INCENTIVES FOR PEOPLE AND YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE BENEFITS IN A DIFFERENT AND MORE EFFICIENT OR MORE HUMANE WAY.

I THINK THAT'S GREAT.

BUT IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, LOVE IS NOT AN INSTITUTION THAT STARTS AT THE GOVERNMENT LEVEL.

IT DOESN'T START AT THE LEVEL OF A MILLION.

YOU DON'T LOVE PEOPLE STARTING AT 1 MILLION AND ABOVE.

YOU LOVE OTHER PEOPLE.

AND SO THAT MEANS IF WE WANT TO START A MOVEMENT, THAT MOVEMENT ACTUALLY STARTS -- IT'S A LITTLE TINY MOVEMENT THAT STARTS BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS AND IT STARTS WITH MY OWN BEHAVIOR.

NOW, THIS IS -- THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I CAME TO THROUGH A LOT OF THOUGHT AND THROUGH A LOT OF MISTAKES, QUITE FRANKLY, BECAUSE I'M AN INSTITUTIONALIST.

BECAUSE I'M A SOCIAL SCIENTIST DEALING WITH PUBLIC POLICY.

BUT I REALIZE I WAS GOING ABOUT IT IN THE WRONG WAY.

I NEEDED TO CHANGE MY HEART.

I NEEDED TO TREAT PEOPLE WITH MORE LOVE.

AND I NEEDED TO TEACH PEOPLE AS WELL AS I COULD USING THE PLATFORM THAT I'VE GOT THAT THEY CAN BE THE -- AS BARACK OBAMA USED TO SAY, THEY CAN BE THE CHANGE THAT THEY REALLY WANTED.

>> YOU KNOW, IT'S INTERESTING, BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHEN TALKING ABOUT RACE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THIS COUNTRY -- OBVIOUSLY, I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT RACISM HAS BEEN A STAIN ON THE AMERICAN CHARACTER.

I THINK THAT'S -- FAIR.

>> I AGREE WITH YOU.

>> A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE ARGUED ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE SYSTEMICALLY ADDRESSED.

AND SOME PEOPLE SAY, OH IT'S CHANGED PEOPLE'S HEARTS.

OKAY, YOU HAVE TO CHANGE PEOPLE'S HEARTS.

THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SUFFERING UNDER RACIST SYSTEMS WOULD SAY, NO, ACTUALLY, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CHANGE OTHER PEOPLE'S BEHAVIOR.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO STOP SCREAMING AT MY ABILITY TO ACCESS CREDIT AND EDUCATION.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO STOP KILLING ME WHEN I DON'T HAVE A WEAPON.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?

SO HAVE WE RESOLVED THAT?

WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THEM?

WAIT FOR PEOPLE'S HEARTS TO CHANGE?

>> NO, I SAY THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

YOU CAN CHANGE INSTITUTIONS AND YOU CAN CHANGE HEARTS.

WE CAN WALK AND CHEW GUM.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE KNOW, THERE ARE LOTS OF CASES WHERE INSTITUTIONS HAVE TO CHANGE.

LAWS, FOR EXAMPLE.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT IS A CLASSIC CASE WHERE YOU CHANGE THINGS THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN THE 1950s AND 1960s DESPITE THE FACT WE'RE LIVING IN REALLY RACIST PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

AND THAT MADE TREMENDOUS GAINS.

PEOPLE'S HEARTS CAUGHT UP SOME LATER, WE STILL HAVE MORE WORK TO DO.

BUT IT WAS INVEST VERY IMPORTAN CHANGE THE INSTITUTIONS.

AT THE SAME TIME, WITE DON'T WA TO PASS LAWS AGAINST CONTEMPT.

WE DON'T WANT TO PASS LAWS AGAINST TREATING PEOPLE WITH CONTEMPT WHO DISAGREE WITH US ON POLITICS, BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE RADICAL VIOLATIONS OF OUR RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND FREE EXPRESSION.

SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS WHERE OUR HEARTS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE INSTITUTIONS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE AT OUR DISPOSAL.

AND IN EVERY CASE WHERE WE NEED TO CHANGE INSTITUTIONS AND HEARTS, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO BOTH.

AND I WANT TO WORK ON THE LATTER IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING >> I APPRECIATE THE INTERVIEW.