The video presents a session led by a political philosophy professor from Harvard, discussing the widespread issue of polarization in global democracies. Using John Stuart Mill's mid-19th-century proposal for weighted voting based on education, it prompts reflections on democratic principles and the current representation in parliament. The audience participates in a dynamic discussion, revealing varied opinions on education's role in voting power and governance.

It offers an insightful analysis of how educational disparities contribute to political polarization and societal divides. The session closely examines how the global economy's evolution over the past decades has intensified these divides and discusses the role of Credentialed elites in this dynamic. The audience explores contrasting views about the fairness and representation of educational and social statuses within democratic systems and governance.

Main takeaways from the video:

Please remember to turn on the CC button to view the subtitles.

Key Vocabularies and Common Phrases:

1. Polarized [ˈpoʊləˌraɪzd] - (adj.) - Divided into sharply contrasting groups or sets of opinions or beliefs.

Why are we so Polarized?

2. Universally [ˌjuːnɪˈvɜːrsəli] - (adv.) - By everyone or all; applicable to every case.

John Stuart Mill was in favor of universal Suffrage.

3. Suffrage [ˈsʌfrɪdʒ] - (n.) - The right to vote in political elections.

Debates were raging about universal Suffrage.

4. Discontent [ˌdɪskənˈtɛnt] - (n.) - Dissatisfaction with one's circumstances.

What he calls democracy's discontent.

5. Meritocratic [ˌmɛrɪtəˈkrætɪk] - (adj.) - Relating to a system where success is based on ability and talent.

A kind of Meritocratic scramble.

6. Credentialed [krɪˈdɛnʃəld] - (adj.) - Having a qualification, achievement, or aspect of a person’s background, typically when used to indicate suitability for something.

Credentialed elites, professional elites.

7. Polarization [ˌpoʊlərɪˈzeɪʃən] - (n.) - Division into two sharply contrasting groups or sets of opinions or beliefs.

The polarization that afflicts our democracies.

8. Reckoning [ˈrɛkənɪŋ] - (n.) - A time when one's actions are judged as either successful or unsuccessful.

A reflection on the polarization connected to the diploma divide.

9. Resentment [rɪˈzɛntmənt] - (n.) - Bitter indignation at having been treated unfairly.

Resentment of grievance that has been exploited.

10. Upended [ʌpˈɛndɪd] - (v.) - To affect dramatically or radically change the nature of.

Figures who have challenged, who have upended really mainstream political parties.

Exploring Democracy's Discontent Challenges and Reflections in Polarized Societies

These are hard times for democracy, angry times. In countries around the world, citizens are frustrated about how deeply Polarized our societies have become. Why are we so Polarized? And what, if anything, could we do to begin to heal the divides that separate us and that cast a shadow over the future of democracy?

To diagnose the discontent that afflicts democracy, we have to ask what democracy is about. We've seen from the video that it's about voting. But suppose people elect when they vote the wrong leaders. Suppose they elect Authoritarian figures with little respect for democratic norms. What then? I'd like to invite you to respond to a proposal about voting that was offered in the mid 19th century by John Stuart Mill, a British philosopher.

John Stuart Mill was in favor of universal Suffrage. Everyone should be able to vote, but those who are well educated should get more votes than those with lesser education. He had a whole scheme for this. He said, for example, unskilled laborers should get a vote, those who are skilled should get two votes. A foreman or a supervisor? Three. Farmers, traders, four. Professionals, like lawyers and physicians, should get maybe five votes. And university graduates, he said, should get at least six.

Here's our first question. How many of you like John Stuart Mill's proposal for more votes for the better educated, and how many object to it? Let's begin with a show of hands. The majority here is against. Let's begin by hearing why most people here are against John Stuart Mill's proposal.

My name is Ahmad Abbas. I'm from Egypt. I'm not against or with. I didn't raise my hand and vote. You didn't vote? Yeah, I didn't vote. I come from Egypt, and democratic election brought us the Muslim Brotherhood. Right. So I'm actually. I don't have an answer to your question. I think it's a very difficult. And I think it's even a trick question.

Lionel, go ahead, stand up. I'm against because a graduate of Wharton School would have six votes under John Stuart Mill's proposal. He's running for president, by the way, this year. He's very well educated.

My name is engineer Abaynomisha from Uganda. Yes, I voted against because I've met people who have a lot of wisdom but have not necessarily gone through formal education. So with that proposal, they would be disadvantaged.

Clare Enders. His proposals did not include women or people of color. So that's my core objection to his proposals. They were always wrong. In fact, many countries still do not have universal Suffrage today.

Now, let's. Here I have another question for you, which is not a hypothetical voting scheme like John Stuart Mills, but the actual composition of parliaments of Europe, the Congress of the United States today with respect to educational background.

Now, what percentage today of citizens of European countries and of the US. What percentage have university degrees, would you say? Just call it out. In the US, it's less than 5% of congress is without a university degree.

Almost everyone here objected to John Stuart Mill's proposal to give better educated people more votes. In practice, if you look at parliaments around the world, those without university degrees have almost no votes within parliament.

How many consider this state of affairs to be objectionable? And how many think it's a good thing that we're governed by people who have university degrees? Alright. How many find it objectionable?

Hi, I'm Sophie. I am British, so I'm only really familiar with the UK system. But there's this fascinating fact in the UK that out of our last 20 prime ministers, 17 of them went to Oxford University. So, for me, it's the principle that talent is equally distributed, but opportunity is not. And I don't know how we solve it.

What's something that we've not resolved? But the questions that we've just been discussing shed light on a feature of contemporary democratic life, and in particular on the polarization that afflicts our democracies.

Because one of the deepest divides in politics today in voting behavior is the divide between those who do and those who do not have a diploma, a university degree.

We saw this in the 2016 election in the United States with Donald Trump, who won overwhelmingly among those without university degrees. We saw it in the vote for Brexit, when those with degrees overwhelmingly voted for, remain.

Why is this? Why is the polarization connected to the diploma divide? We have to think back over the way the global economy unfolded over the past four or five decades. During these decades, the divide between winners and losers deepened, poisoning our politics, setting us apart.

This had partly to do with the widening inequalities of income and wealth that developed during these decades. But it's not only that. It has also to do with the changing attitudes towards success that accompanied the widening inequalities.

Those who landed on top came to believe that their success was their own doing. And, by implication, that those who struggled must deserve their fate, too. It's one of the most potent sources of the populist backlash against elites.

Is the sense among many working people without degrees that elites don't respect the work they do or the contributions they make. Even as globalization brought widening inequality, its proponents offered working people some bracing advice.

If you want to compete and win in the global economy, go to university. What you earn will depend on what you learn. You can make it if you try. What these politicians and political parties missed was the insult implicit in this advice.

It's no wonder that many working people turned against Meritocratic elites. This led to the politics of resentment, of grievance, that has been exploited by a great many figures.

What should we do to try to heal the polarization? I think we have to shift the terms of public Discourse away from focusing on encouraging individual upward mobility through higher education.

Focus instead on the dignity of work, on asking, how can we recast political Discourse to debate how we can create conditions so that everyone can lead a decent life, whether or not they have a university degree?

Education, Philosophy, Politics, Harvard, Democracy, Polarization