So if you've been following the news, you've heard that there's a pack of giant asteroids headed for the United States, all scheduled to strike within the next 50 years. Now I don't mean actual asteroids made of rock and metal. That actually wouldn't be such a problem, because if we were really all going to die, we would put aside our differences, we'd spend whatever it took, and we'd find a way to deflect them. I'm talking instead about threats that are headed our way, but they're wrapped in a special energy field that polarizes us, and therefore paralyzes us.
Ako ste pratili vesti, čuli ste da će gomila ogromnih asteroida, koja se kreće ka SAD, udariti u narednih 50 godina. Ne mislim na prave asteroide od kamena i metala. To zapravo i ne bi bio neki problem, jer ako ćemo zaista svi da umremo, ostavili bismo po strani sve nesuglasice, potrošili koliko god da je potrebno i pronašli bismo način da ih preusmerimo. Zapravo govorim o pretnjama koje nam se približavaju, a koje su umotane u posebno energetsko polje koje nas polarizuje i samim time paralizuje.
Last March, I went to the TED conference, and I saw Jim Hansen speak, the NASA scientist who first raised the alarm about global warming in the 1980s, and it seems that the predictions he made back then are coming true. This is where we're headed in terms of global temperature rises, and if we keep on going the way we're going, we get a four- or five-degree-Centigrade temperature rise by the end of this century. Hansen says we can expect about a five-meter rise in sea levels. This is what a five-meter rise in sea levels would look like. Low-lying cities all around the world will disappear within the lifetime of children born today. Hansen closed his talk by saying, "Imagine a giant asteroid on a collision course with Earth. That is the equivalent of what we face now. Yet we dither, taking no action to deflect the asteroid, even though the longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive it becomes." Of course, the left wants to take action, but the right denies that there's any problem.
Prošlog marta sam bio na TED konferenciji i slušao sam govor Džima Hensena, naučnika NASA-e, koji je prvi upozorio na globalno zagrevanje još tokom '80-ih, i čini se da se njegova tadašnja predviđanja sada ostvaruju. Krećemo u pravcu globalnog porasta temperature i ako nastavimo tim putem, ostvarićemo porast temperature od 4-5 stepeni Celzijusa do kraja ovog veka. Hansen kaže da možemo očekivati podizanje nivoa mora za oko pet metara. Ovako bi to izgledalo. Gradovi širom sveta koji leže ispod nivoa mora će nestati za vreme života dece koja se rađaju danas. Hansen je završio svoj govor rečima: "Zamislite ogroman asteroid kako se približava sudaru sa Zemljom. To je ekvivalent onoga sa čim se sada suočavamo. Pa mi i dalje oklevamo, ne preduzimamo ništa da preusmerimo taj asteroid, premda, što duže čekamo, delovanje postaje sve teže i skuplje." Naravno, levičari žele da preduzmu neke mere, ali desničari odbijaju da priznaju da problem uopšte postoji.
All right, so I go back from TED, and then the following week, I'm invited to a dinner party in Washington, D.C., where I know that I'll be meeting a number of conservative intellectuals, including Yuval Levin, and to prepare for the meeting, I read this article by Levin in National Affairs called "Beyond the Welfare State." Levin writes that all over the world, nations are coming to terms with the fact that the social democratic welfare state is turning out to be untenable and unaffordable, dependent upon dubious economics and the demographic model of a bygone era.
Vratio sam se sa TED-a, te sam nedelju dana posle toga dobio poziv na večeru u Vašingtonu, gde sam znao da ću se sresti sa nekoliko konzervativnih intelektualaca, uključujući Juvala Levina. Kako bih se pripremio za taj susret, pročitao sam Levinov članak u časopisu National Affairs, pod nazivom "Posle države blagostanja." Levin piše da nacije širom sveta polako prihvataju činjenicu da socio-demokratska država blagostanja postaje neodrživa i nepriuštiva, te da zavisi od neizvesne ekonomije i demografskog modela davno prošlog doba.
All right, now this might not sound as scary as an asteroid, but look at these graphs that Levin showed. This graph shows the national debt as a percentage of America's GDP, and as you see, if you go all the way back to the founding, we borrowed a lot of money to fight the Revolutionary War. Wars are expensive. But then we'd pay it off, pay it off, pay it off, and then, oh, what's this? The Civil War. Even more expensive. Borrow a lot of money, pay it off, pay it off, pay it off, get down to near zero, and bang! -- World War I. Once again, the same process repeats. Now then we get the Great Depression and World War II. We rise to an astronomical level, around 118 percent of GDP, really unsustainable, really dangerous. But we pay it off, pay it off, pay it off, and then, what's this? Why has it been rising since the '70s? It's partly due to tax cuts that were unfunded, but it's due primarily to the rise of entitlement spending, especially Medicare. We're approaching the levels of indebtedness we had at World War II, and the baby boomers haven't even retired yet, and when they do, this is what will happen. This is data from the Congressional Budget Office showing its most realistic forecast of what would happen if current situations and expectations and trends are extended.
U redu, ovo sada možda ne zvuči tako zastrašujuće kao asteroid, ali pogledajte ove grafikone koje je Levin pokazao. Ovaj grafikon pokazuje nacionalni dug kao procenat američkog BDP-a i kao što vidite, ako se vratimo na sam početak od osnivanja, vidimo da smo mnogo pozajmili da bismo vodili Rat za nezavisnost. Ratovi su skupi. Ipak, otplaćujemo ih i otplaćujemo i onda, oh, pa šta je ovo? Građanski rat. Još skuplje. Pozajmi mnogo novca, otplaćuj, otplaćuj, otplaćuj, dođeš do nulte tačke i beng! - Prvi svetski rat. I opet se celi taj proces ponavlja. I onda Velika depresija i Drugi svetski rat. Uzdigli smo se do astronomskog nivoa, otprilike 118% BDP-a, što je zaista neodrživo, zaista opasno. Ali mi i dalje otplaćujemo, otplaćujemo, otplaćujemo i onda, šta je sad ovo? Zbog čega ponovo raste od '70-ih? Jednim delom zbog nefinansiranih poreskih rezova, ali prvenstveno zbog porasta u ovlaštenju potrošnje, naročito za medicinsku negu. Približavamo se nivoima zaduženosti kakve smo imali u Drugom svetskom ratu, a generacije "bejbi bumera" još uvek nisu u penziji, a kada se penzionišu, desiće se sledeće. Ovo su podaci budžetske službe Kongresa koji pokazuju najrealističnije predviđanje onoga što će se desiti ako se trenutna situacija, očekivanja i trendovi nastave.
All right, now what you might notice is that these two graphs are actually identical, not in terms of the x- and y-axes, or in terms of the data they present, but in terms of their moral and political implications, they say the same thing. Let me translate for you.
U redu, ono što možete primetiti je da su ova dva grafikona zapravo identična, ne u smislu x i y osa ili podataka koje predstavljaju, već da u smislu svojih moralnih i političkih posledica, govore istu stvar. Dozvolite mi da vam pojasnim. "Osuđeni smo na propast ukoliko ne počnemo da delujemo sada.
"We are doomed unless we start acting now. What's wrong with you people on the other side in the other party? Can't you see reality? If you won't help, then get the hell out of the way."
Ljudi, šta nije u redu sa vama koji ste na drugoj strani, u drugoj stranci? Zar ne vidite stvarnost? Ako nećete da pomognete, onda se gubite."
We can deflect both of these asteroids. These problems are both technically solvable. Our problem and our tragedy is that in these hyper-partisan times, the mere fact that one side says, "Look, there's an asteroid," means that the other side's going to say, "Huh? What? No, I'm not even going to look up. No."
Možemo preusmeriti oba asteroida. Oba problema su tehnički rešiva. Naš problem i tragedija je da u ovim prenaglašeno partijskim vremenima, samo činjenica da jedna strana kaže: "Pogledaj, evo ga asteroid", znači da će druga strana reći: "Hmm? Šta? Ne, ne pada mi na pamet čak ni da pogledam gore. Ne."
To understand why this is happening to us, and what we can do about it, we need to learn more about moral psychology. So I'm a social psychologist, and I study morality, and one of the most important principles of morality is that morality binds and blinds. It binds us into teams that circle around sacred values but thereby makes us go blind to objective reality.
Da bismo shvatili zašto nam se to dešava i šta možemo uraditi po tom pitanju, moramo naučiti nešto o psihologiji morala. Ja sam socijalni psiholog i bavim se izučavanjem moralnosti, a jedan od najznačajnijih principa moralnosti je da ona povezuje i zaslepljuje. Moralnost nas povezuje u timove koji kruže oko svetih vrednosti, ali nas istovremeno čini slepima prema objektivnoj stvarnosti.
Think of it like this. Large-scale cooperation is extremely rare on this planet. There are only a few species that can do it. That's a beehive. That's a termite mound, a giant termite mound. And when you find this in other animals, it's always the same story. They're always all siblings who are children of a single queen, so they're all in the same boat. They rise or fall, they live or die, as one. There's only one species on the planet that can do this without kinship, and that, of course, is us. This is a reconstruction of ancient Babylon, and this is Tenochtitlan.
Razmislite o tome ovako. Saradnja na širokoj osnovi je izuzetno retka na ovoj planeti. Svega nekoliko vrsta su u stanju da ostvare saradnju. To je pčelinja košnica. To je ogromni mravinjak termita. I kada opazite nešto slično kod drugih životinja, uvek je ista priča. Uvek su svi braća i sestre, deca jedne matice, tako da svi dele istu sudbinu. Uspinju se ili padaju, žive ili umiru kao jedno. Samo jedna vrsta na planeti može to da učini i bez srodstva, a to smo, naravno, mi. Ovo je rekonstrukcija drevnog Vavilona, a ovo je Tenočtitlan.
Now how did we do this? How did we go from being hunter-gatherers 10,000 years ago to building these gigantic cities in just a few thousand years? It's miraculous, and part of the explanation is this ability to circle around sacred values. As you see, temples and gods play a big role in all ancient civilizations. This is an image of Muslims circling the Kaaba in Mecca. It's a sacred rock, and when people circle something together, they unite, they can trust each other, they become one. It's as though you're moving an electrical wire through a magnetic field that generates current. When people circle together, they generate a current. We love to circle around things. We circle around flags, and then we can trust each other. We can fight as a team, as a unit. But even as morality binds people together into a unit, into a team, the circling blinds them. It causes them to distort reality. We begin separating everything into good versus evil. Now that process feels great. It feels really satisfying. But it is a gross distortion of reality.
Kako smo to uradili? Kako smo uspeli da od lovaca-sakupljača pre 10.000 godina, izgradimo ove džinovske gradove kroz svega nekoliko hiljada godina? To je pravo čudo, a deo objašnjenja je ta sposobnost okupljanja oko svetih vrednosti. Kao što vidite, hramovi i bogovi imaju veliku ulogu u svim drevnim civilizacijama. Ovo je prizor muslimana okupljenih oko Kabe u Meki. To je sveta stena i kada ljudi okruže nešto zajedno, oni se ujedinjuju, što znači da veruju jedni drugima i postaju jedno. Kao da pomerate električnu žicu kroz magnetno polje koje generiše struju. Kada su ljudi okupljeni u krug, oni proizvode struju. Volimo da kružimo oko stvari. Kružimo oko zastava i tada možemo da verujemo jedni drugima. Možemo se boriti kao tim, kao jedinka. Ali čak i kada moralnost povezuje ljude u jedno, u tim, to kruženje ih zaslepljuje. Zbog njega ljudi počnu da izvrću realnost. Počnemo da razdvajamo sve kao dobro naspram zla. Taj proces se čini izvrsnim, zaista nam pričinjava zadovoljstvo. Ali to je užasno izvrtanje realnosti.
You can see the moral electromagnet operating in the U.S. Congress. This is a graph that shows the degree to which voting in Congress falls strictly along the left-right axis, so that if you know how liberal or conservative someone is, you know exactly how they voted on all the major issues. And what you can see is that, in the decades after the Civil War, Congress was extraordinarily polarized, as you would expect, about as high as can be. But then, after World War I, things dropped, and we get this historically low level of polarization. This was a golden age of bipartisanship, at least in terms of the parties' ability to work together and solve grand national problems. But in the 1980s and '90s, the electromagnet turns back on. Polarization rises. It used to be that conservatives and moderates and liberals could all work together in Congress. They could rearrange themselves, form bipartisan committees, but as the moral electromagnet got cranked up, the force field increased, Democrats and Republicans were pulled apart. It became much harder for them to socialize, much harder for them to cooperate. Retiring members nowadays say that it's become like gang warfare. Did anybody notice that in two of the three debates, Obama wore a blue tie and Romney wore a red tie? Do you know why they do this? It's so that the Bloods and the Crips will know which side to vote for. (Laughter)
Vidite moralni elektromagnet koji deluje u američkom Kongresu. Ovo je grafikon koji pokazuje stepen do kojeg glasanje u Kongresu pada oštro duž ose levo-desno, tako da ako znate u kojoj meri je neko liberalan ili konzervativan, znate tačno kako je ta osoba glasala o najvažnijim pitanjima. A ono što možete da vidite je da je u decenijama nakon Građanskog rata Kongres bio neverovatno polarizovan, kao što biste i očekivali, polarizovan u najvećoj mogućoj meri. A onda, posle Prvog svetskog rata, tenzije su se malo spustile i dobili smo ovaj istorijski nizak stepen polarizacije. Ovo je bilo zlatno doba dvopartijske vladavine, barem u smislu sposobnosti stranaka da sarađuju i zajedno rešavaju velike nacionalne probleme. No, u '80-im i '90-im elektromagnet se vraća na prethodno stanje. Polarizacija raste. Nekada su konzervativci, umerene struje i liberali bili u stanju da sarađuju u Kongresu. Znali su da prekonsoliduju svoje redove, da osnivaju dvopartijske komitete, ali kako je moralni elektromagnet ubrzao sa radom, polje sile se povećalo, te je došlo do razdvajanja demokrata i republikanaca. Za njih je postalo mnogo teže da se druže, mnogo teže da sarađuju. Članovi stranaka koji se sada povlače kažu da je postalo poput rata između bandi. Da li je iko primetio da je tokom dve, od ukupno tri debate, Obama nosio plavu, a Romni crvenu kravatu? Znate li zbog čega to rade? Da bi iz bandi Blads i Krips znali za koju stranu da glasaju. (Smeh)
The polarization is strongest among our political elites. Nobody doubts that this is happening in Washington. But for a while, there was some doubt as to whether it was happening among the people. Well, in the last 12 years it's become much more apparent that it is. So look at this data. This is from the American National Elections Survey. And what they do on that survey is they ask what's called a feeling thermometer rating. So, how warm or cold do you feel about, you know, Native Americans, or the military, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, all sorts of groups in American life. The blue line shows how warmly Democrats feel about Democrats, and they like them. You know, ratings in the 70s on a 100-point scale. Republicans like Republicans. That's not a surprise. But when you look at cross-party ratings, you find, well, that it's lower, but actually, when I first saw this data, I was surprised. That's actually not so bad. If you go back to the Carter and even Reagan administrations, they were rating the other party 43, 45. It's not terrible. It drifts downwards very slightly, but now look what happens under George W. Bush and Obama. It plummets. Something is going on here. The moral electromagnet is turning back on, and nowadays, just very recently, Democrats really dislike Republicans. Republicans really dislike the Democrats. We're changing. It's as though the moral electromagnet is affecting us too. It's like put out in the two oceans and it's pulling the whole country apart, pulling left and right into their own territories like the Bloods and the Crips.
Polarizacija je najsnažnija među našim političkim elitama. Niko ne sumnja da se upravo to dešava u Vašingtonu. Međutim, neko vreme je postojala sumnja da li se to dešava i među ljudima. U poslednjih 12 godina, postalo je mnogo očiglednije da se zaista dešava. Pogledajte ove podatke iz Nacionalne izborne ankete. U toj anketi su pokušali da saznaju ono što se naziva "osećanje vrednosti termometra". Odnosno, koliko hladno ili toplo, na primer, osećate prema Indijancima, vojsci, Republikanskoj stranci, Demokratskoj stranci, svim mogućim grupama u američkom životu. Plava linija pokazuje koliko toplo demokrate osećaju prema demokratama i da im se sviđaju. Znate, rezultati su tu oko 70 na skali od 100. Republikanci vole republikance. To nije nikakvo iznenađenje. Ali kada pogledate uzajamne stranačke rezultate, videćete da su niži, međutim, kada sam isprva video podatke, iznenadio sam se. Zapravo i nije tako loše. Ako se vratite na Karterovu, pa čak i Reganovu administraciju, ocenjivali su drugu stranu sa 43 ili 45. To nije užasno. Postepeno te vrednosti opadaju, ali pogledajte sada šta se dešava pod Džordžom Bušom i Obamom. Vrednosti vrtoglavo padaju. Ovde se nešto dešava. Moralni elektromagnet se ponovo pali i sada, zapravo sasvim nedavno, demokrate zaista ne vole republikance. Republikanci zaista ne vole demokrate. Menjamo se. Čini se kao da moralni elektromagnet takođe utiče i na nas. Kao da je stavljen u dva okeana i sada celu zemlju razdire na dva dela, vukući levicu i desnicu na njihove teritorije poput bandi Blads i Krips.
Now, there are many reasons why this is happening to us, and many of them we cannot reverse. We will never again have a political class that was forged by the experience of fighting together in World War II against a common enemy. We will never again have just three television networks, all of which are relatively centrist. And we will never again have a large group of conservative southern Democrats and liberal northern Republicans making it easy, making there be a lot of overlap for bipartisan cooperation. So for a lot of reasons, those decades after the Second World War were an historically anomalous time. We will never get back to those low levels of polarization, I believe.
Mnogo je razloga zbog kojih nam se to dešava, i mnoge od njih ne možemo vratiti. Više nikada nećemo imati političku klasu koja je nastala kroz iskustvo zajedničke borbe u Drugom svetskom ratu protiv zajedničkog neprijatelja. Nikada više nećemo imati samo tri televizijske mreže, koje su sve relativno centralističke. I nikada više nećemo imati veliku grupu konzervativnih demokrata sa juga i liberalnih republikanaca sa severa koji olakšavaju sve, praveći mnogo preklapanja kako bi omogućili dvostranačku saradnju. Iz mnogo razloga, ove decenije nakon Drugog svetskog rata predstavljaju istorijsku anomaliju. Verujem da se nikada nećemo vratiti na tako niske nivoe polarizacije.
But there's a lot that we can do. There are dozens and dozens of reforms we can do that will make things better, because a lot of our dysfunction can be traced directly to things that Congress did to itself in the 1990s that created a much more polarized and dysfunctional institution. These changes are detailed in many books. These are two that I strongly recommend, and they list a whole bunch of reforms. I'm just going to group them into three broad classes here.
No, mnogo je toga što možemo da uradimo. Postoji na desetine reformi koje možemo sprovesti da poboljšamo stvari, jer je veliki deo našeg poremećaja usled svega onoga što je Kongres učinio sam sebi tokom '90-ih, a što je stvorilo mnogo polarizovaniju i disfunkcionalniju instituciju. Ovim promenama se detaljno bave mnoge knjige. Posebno bih preporučio ove dve knjige i u njima se navodi cela gomila reformi. Ovde ću ih grupisati u tri široke klase.
So if you think about this as the problem of a dysfunctional, hyper-polarized institution, well, the first step is, do what you can so that fewer hyper-partisans get elected in the first place, and when you have closed party primaries, and only the most committed Republicans and Democrats are voting, you're nominating and selecting the most extreme hyper-partisans. So open primaries would make that problem much, much less severe.
Ako mislite o ovome kao o problemu disfunkcionalne, hiper-polarizovane institucije, pa, prvi korak je uradite sve što možete kako bi što manje hiper-sledbenika uopšte bilo izabrano, a kada se završe stranački predizbori i kada glasaju samo najposvećeniji republikanci i demokrate, nominovaćete i birati samo najekstremnije hiper-sledbenike. To znači da bi otvoreni predizbori učinili taj problem mnogo manje ozbiljnim.
But the problem isn't primarily that we're electing bad people to Congress. From my experience, and from what I've heard from Congressional insiders, most of the people going to Congress are good, hard-working, intelligent people who really want to solve problems, but once they get there, they find that they are forced to play a game that rewards hyper-partisanship and that punishes independent thinking. You step out of line, you get punished. So there are a lot of reforms we could do that will counteract this.
Međutim, problem nije samo u tome da biramo loše ljude za Kongres. Iz mog iskustva i na osnovu onoga što sam čuo od insajdera iz Kongresa, većina ljudi koji su u Kongresu su dobri, vredni i inteligentni ljudi koji zaista žele da reše probleme, ali onda kada se nađu tamo, shvate da su primorani da igraju igru koja nagrađuje hiper-strančarenje i kažnjava nezavisnu misao. Ako prekoračite liniju, bivate kažnjeni. Ima mnogo reformi koje možemo sprovesti kako bismo se suprotstavili tome.
For example, this "Citizens United" ruling is a disaster, because it means there's like a money gun aimed at your head, and if you step out of line, if you try to reach across the aisle, there's a ton of money waiting to be given to your opponent to make everybody think that you are a terrible person through negative advertising.
Na primer, odluka "Ujedinjeni građani" je katastrofa, jer znači da ti je pištolj zbog novca uperen u glavu i ako pokušaš da pređeš na drugu stranu gomila novca će pripasti tvom protivniku da bi svi kroz negativnu reklamu bili ubeđeni da si ti užasna osoba.
But the third class of reforms is that we've got to change the nature of social relationships in Congress. The politicians I've met are generally very extroverted, friendly, very socially skillful people, and that's the nature of politics. You've got to make relationships, make deals, you've got to cajole, please, flatter, you've got to use your personal skills, and that's the way politics has always worked. But beginning in the 1990s, first the House of Representatives changed its legislative calendar so that all business is basically done in the middle of the week. Nowadays, Congressmen fly in on Tuesday morning, they do battle for two days, then they fly home Thursday afternoon. They don't move their families to the District. They don't meet each other's spouses or children. There's no more relationship there. And trying to run Congress without human relationships is like trying to run a car without motor oil. Should we be surprised when the whole thing freezes up and descends into paralysis and polarization? A simple change to the legislative calendar, such as having business stretch out for three weeks and then they get a week off to go home, that would change the fundamental relationships in Congress.
A treća klasa reformi je da moramo da promenimo prirodu društvenih odnosa u Kongresu. Političari koje sam upoznao su generalno dosta ekstrovertni, prijateljski nastrojeni i socijalno veoma vešti ljudi, ali to i jeste priroda politike. Morate graditi odnose, praviti dilove, laskati, udovoljavati, da budete slatkorečivi, morate koristiti svoje lične sposobnosti jer je politika oduvek tako funkcionisala. Međutim, počevši tokom '90-ih, prvo je Dom predstavnika promenio svoj zakonodavni kalendar, tako da se posao u suštini odrađuje sredinom radne nedelje. Sada kongresmeni lete u utorak ujutru, bore se ta dva dana, a potom u četvrtak popodne lete nazad kući. Njihove porodice se ne sele u Distrikt. Oni ne upoznaju supružnike ili decu jedni drugih. Tu više nema nikakvih odnosa. A pokušaj vođenja Kongresa bez ljudskih odnosa jednak je pokušaju da vozite automobil bez ulja za motor. Da li ćemo se uopšte iznenaditi kada se sve zaledi i počne da polako pada u paralizu i polarizaciju? Jednostavna promena zakonodavnog kalendara, produženje aktivnosti na period od tri nedelje, zatim slobodna nedelja da se kongresmeni vrate kućama promenila bi fundamentalne odnose u Kongresu.
So there's a lot we can do, but who's going to push them to do it? There are a number of groups that are working on this. No Labels and Common Cause, I think, have very good ideas for changes we need to do to make our democracy more responsive and our Congress more effective.
Mnogo toga bismo mogli učiniti, ali ko će i njih pogurati? Postoji više grupa koje rade na tome. "No Labels" i "Common Cause", čini mi se, imaju veoma dobre ideje kakve promene moramo uvesti da naša demokratija više reaguje i da Kongres bude efikasniji.
But I'd like to supplement their work with a little psychological trick, and the trick is this. Nothing pulls people together like a common threat or a common attack, especially an attack from a foreign enemy, unless of course that threat hits on our polarized psychology, in which case, as I said before, it can actually pull us apart. Sometimes a single threat can polarize us, as we saw. But what if the situation we face is not a single threat but is actually more like this, where there's just so much stuff coming in, it's just, "Start shooting, come on, everybody, we've got to just work together, just start shooting." Because actually, we do face this situation. This is where we are as a country.
Međutim, želeo bih da upotpunim njihov rad pomoću malog psihološkog trika, a trik je sledeći. Ništa ne privlači ljude jedne ka drugima tako snažno kao zajednička pretnja ili zajednički napad, naročito ako je u pitanju strani neprijatelj, ukoliko, naravno, ta pretnja ne gađa našu polarizovanu psihologiju, kada nas ta pretnja razdvaja. Ponekad samo jedna pretnja može da nas polarizuje, kao što smo videli. Ali šta ako situacija sa kojom smo suočeni ne predstavlja jednu pretnju već je više nalik na ovo - toliko toga dolazi zajedno, da se svodi na: "Počnite da pucate, sada moramo da radimo zajedno, samo počnite da pucate." Zato što se zapravo svi suočavamo sa ovom situacijom. Tu se nalazimo kao država. A ovde je drugi asteroid.
So here's another asteroid. We've all seen versions of this graph, right, which shows the changes in wealth since 1979, and as you can see, almost all the gains in wealth have gone to the top 20 percent, and especially the top one percent. Rising inequality like this is associated with so many problems for a democracy. Especially, it destroys our ability to trust each other, to feel that we're all in the same boat, because it's obvious we're not. Some of us are sitting there safe and sound in gigantic private yachts. Other people are clinging to a piece of driftwood. We're not all in the same boat, and that means nobody's willing to sacrifice for the common good. The left has been screaming about this asteroid for 30 years now, and the right says, "Huh, what? Hmm? No problem. No problem."
Svi smo već videli različite verzije ovog grafikona koji pokazuje promene u stepenu bogatstva od 1979., i kao što možete da vidite, gotovo svi porasti bogatstva su se popeli u ovih 20% na vrhu, a posebno u 1% na samom vrhu. Rastuća nejednakost poput ove se povezuje sa jako mnogo problema za jednu demokratiju. Posebno, ona uništava našu sposobnost da verujemo jedni drugima, da osećamo da smo svi u istoj poziciji, jer je očigledno da nismo. Neki od nas su na suvom i sigurnom u ogromnim privatnim jahtama, dok ostali plutaju držeći se za komad drveta. Nismo svi u istoj poziciji, a to znači da niko nije voljan da se žrtvuje za opšte dobro. Levica već 30 godina vrišti zbog ovog asteroida, dok desnica ponavlja: "Uh, šta? Hmm? Nema problema."
Now, why is that happening to us? Why is the inequality rising? Well, one of the largest causes, after globalization, is actually this fourth asteroid, rising non-marital births. This graph shows the steady rise of out-of-wedlock births since the 1960s. Most Hispanic and black children are now born to unmarried mothers. Whites are headed that way too. Within a decade or two, most American children will be born into homes with no father. This means that there's much less money coming into the house. But it's not just money. It's also stability versus chaos. As I know from working with street children in Brazil, Mom's boyfriend is often a really, really dangerous person for kids.
I eto, šta nam se sada dešava? Zašto nejednakost sve više raste? Jedan od najvećih razloga, nakon globalizacije, je zapravo ovaj četvrti asteroid, sve veći broj vanbračne dece. Ovaj grafikon pokazuje stabilan rast broja vanbračno rođene dece od '60-ih. Većinu hispano i crnačke dece rađaju nevenčane majke. Ali i belci idu u istom pravcu. Kroz deceniju ili dve, većina američke dece će biti rođena u domovima bez oca. To znači da mnogo manje novca pristiže u kuću. Ali nije u pitanju samo novac, već i stabilnost naspram haosa. Iz mog iskustva u radu sa decom sa ulica u Brazilu, mamin dečko je često veoma, veoma opasna osoba po decu.
Now the right has been screaming about this asteroid since the 1960s, and the left has been saying, "It's not a problem. It's not a problem." The left has been very reluctant to say that marriage is actually good for women and for children. Now let me be clear. I'm not blaming the women here. I'm actually more critical of the men who won't take responsibility for their own children and of an economic system that makes it difficult for many men to earn enough money to support those children. But even if you blame nobody, it still is a national problem, and one side has been more concerned about it than the other. The New York Times finally noticed this asteroid with a front-page story last July showing how the decline of marriage contributes to inequality.
Desnica vrišti o ovom asteroidu još od '60-ih, dok levica govori: "Pa to nije problem. Nemamo problem." Levica je veoma neodlučna da kaže kako je brak zapravo dobar za žene i za decu. Da budem jasan. Ne krivim žene. Zapravo, više sam kritičan prema muškarcima koji ne žele da preuzmu odgovornost za sopstvenu decu i prema ekonomskom sistemu koji mnogim muškarcima onemogućava da zarade novac kako bi izdržavali svoju decu. Međutim, čak i ako ne krivite nikoga, to je i dalje nacionalni problem, za koji je jedna strana više zabrinuta u odnosu na drugu. Njujork Tajms je konačno primetio ovaj asteroid kojem je posvetio priču na naslovnoj stranici prošlog jula pokazujući kako opadanje broja brakova doprinosi porastu nejednakosti.
We are becoming a nation of just two classes. When Americans go to college and marry each other, they have very low divorce rates. They earn a lot of money, they invest that money in their kids, some of them become tiger mothers, the kids rise to their full potential, and the kids go on to become the top two lines in this graph. And then there's everybody else: the children who don't benefit from a stable marriage, who don't have as much invested in them, who don't grow up in a stable environment, and who go on to become the bottom three lines in that graph.
Postajemo nacija sa samo dve klase. Oni Amerikanci koji odu na koledž i stupe u brak, imaju veoma niske stope razvoda. Oni uglavnom zarađuju mnogo, ulažu taj novac u svoju decu, neke od tih majki postaju prave majke-tigrice, deca ostvaruju svoj pun potencijal i potom se svrstavaju u dve najviše linije na ovom grafikonu. A onda dolaze svi ostali: deca koja ne uživaju dobrobiti stabilnog braka, u koju se ne ulaže istom merom, koja ne odrastaju u stabilnom okruženju i koja potom postaju tri donje linije u tom grafikonu. Ponovo vidimo da ova dva grafikona zapravo pokazuju istu stvar.
So once again, we see that these two graphs are actually saying the same thing. As before, we've got a problem, we've got to start working on this, we've got to do something, and what's wrong with you people that you don't see my threat?
Kao i pre, imamo problem, moramo da počnemo da radimo na njemu, moramo da preduzmemo nešto, i ne znam zašto ne vidite ovu pretnju? Kada bi svi bili u stanju da skinu svoje sledbeničke naočare,
But if everybody could just take off their partisan blinders, we'd see that these two problems actually are best addressed together. Because if you really care about income inequality, you might want to talk to some evangelical Christian groups that are working on ways to promote marriage. But then you're going to run smack into the problem that women don't generally want to marry someone who doesn't have a job. So if you really care about strengthening families, you might want to talk to some liberal groups who are working on promoting educational equality, who are working on raising the minimum wage, who are working on finding ways to stop so many men from being sucked into the criminal justice system and taken out of the marriage market for their whole lives.
videli bi da je zapravo najbolje ako se pozabavimo ovim dvama problema zajedno. Ako zaista brinete zbog nejednakosti u primanjima, možda biste mogli da razgovarate sa nekim evangelističkim hrišćanskim grupama koje na različite načine promovišu brak. Međutim, tada ćete udariti direktno u problem da žene uglavnom ne žele da se udaju za nekoga ko nema posao. Ako zaista želite da ojačate porodice, mogli biste porazgovarati sa nekom od liberalnih grupa koje promovišu jednakost u obrazovanju, koje rade na podizanju minimalnih plata i na nalaženju načina da zaustave da toliko mnogo muškaraca bude uvučeno u sistem krivičnog pravosuđa i sasvim odvučeno od prilika za brak.
So to conclude, there are at least four asteroids headed our way. How many of you can see all four? Please raise your hand right now if you're willing to admit that all four of these are national problems. Please raise your hands. Okay, almost all of you.
Da zaključim, barem četiri asteroida nam idu u susret. Koliko nas je u stanju da vidi sva četiri? Molim vas, podignite desnu ruku ako ste voljni da priznate da su sva četiri asteroida nacionalni problemi. Molim vas da podignete ruke. U redu, gotovo svi.
Well, congratulations, you guys are the inaugural members of the Asteroids Club, which is a club for all Americans who are willing to admit that the other side actually might have a point. In the Asteroids Club, we don't start by looking for common ground. Common ground is often very hard to find. No, we start by looking for common threats because common threats make common ground.
Pa dobro, čestitam, vi ste svečani članovi Kluba asteroida, kluba za sve Amerikance koji su voljni da priznaju da je druga strana zapravo možda u pravu. U Klubu asteroida, ne počinjemo tražeći zajedničke osnove. Njih je često jako teško pronaći. Ne, počinjemo tražeći zajedničke pretnje jer zajedničke pretnje čine te zajedničke osnove.
Now, am I being naive? Is it naive to think that people could ever lay down their swords, and left and right could actually work together? I don't think so, because it happens, not all that often, but there are a variety of examples that point the way. This is something we can do. Because Americans on both sides care about the decline in civility, and they've formed dozens of organizations, at the national level, such as this one, down to many local organizations, such as To The Village Square in Tallahassee, Florida, which tries to bring state leaders together to help facilitate that sort of working together human relationship that's necessary to solve Florida's problems. Americans on both sides care about global poverty and AIDS, and on so many humanitarian issues, liberals and evangelicals are actually natural allies, and at times they really have worked together to solve these problems. And most surprisingly to me, they sometimes can even see eye to eye on criminal justice. For example, the incarceration rate, the prison population in this country has quadrupled since 1980. Now this is a social disaster, and liberals are very concerned about this. The Southern Poverty Law Center is often fighting the prison-industrial complex, fighting to prevent a system that's just sucking in more and more poor young men. But are conservatives happy about this? Well, Grover Norquist isn't, because this system costs an unbelievable amount of money. And so, because the prison-industrial complex is bankrupting our states and corroding our souls, groups of fiscal conservatives and Christian conservatives have come together to form a group called Right on Crime. And at times they have worked with the Southern Poverty Law Center to oppose the building of new prisons and to work for reforms that will make the justice system more efficient and more humane.
E sad, da li sam ja naivan? Da li je naivno misliti da bi ljudi ikada mogli da spuste oružje, te da bi levica i desnica zaista mogle sarađivati? Mislim da nije, jer se dešava, možda ne tako često, ali ima mnogo različitih primera koji pokazuju da je moguće. To je ono što mi možemo učiniti. Jer Amerikanci na obe strane brinu o nestajanju civilizovanosti i oformili su na desetine organizacija, na nacionalnom nivou, poput ove, do mnogih lokalnih organizacija, kao "To the Village Square" iz Talahasija na Floridi, koja pokušava da spoji državne vođe kako bi pomogla u ostvarivanju ljudskog odnosa saradnje koji je neophodan za rešavanje problema Floride. Amerikanci sa obe strane brinu o globalnom siromaštvu i AIDS-u i o mnogim humanitarnim pitanjima. Liberali i evanđelisti su zapravo prirodni saveznici, a povremeno su zaista i radili zajedno kako bi rešili ove probleme. A ono što mene najviše iznenađuje je da se oni ponekad mogu usaglasiti i oko krivičnog pravosuđa. Na primer, stepen pritvaranja u zatvore, broj ljudi u zatvorima u ovoj zemlji se učetverostručio od '80-ih. To je prava socijalna katastrofa i liberali su jako zabrinuti zbog toga. Južnjački pravni centar za siromašne se često bori protiv zatvorsko-industrijskih kompleksa, bore se da spreče sistem koji usisava sve više siromašnih mladih muškaraca. Ali, zar su konzervativci srećni zbog toga? Pa, Grover Norkvist nije, jer takav sistem košta neverovatne sume novca. I upravo zbog toga što zatvorsko-industrijski kompleks vodi naše države ka bankrotu i uništava naše duše, grupe fiskalnih i hrišćanskih konzervativaca su se spojile i oformile grupu pod nazivom "Pravo na zločin". Povremeno su sarađivali sa Južnjački pravnim centrom za siromašne kako bi se suprostavili izgradnji novih zatvora i delovali ka reformama koje bi učinile pravosudni sistem efikasnijim i humanijim.
So this is possible. We can do it. Let us therefore go to battle stations, not to fight each other, but to begin deflecting these incoming asteroids. And let our first mission be to press Congress to reform itself, before it's too late for our nation.
Znači da je moguće. Mi to možemo. Krenimo stoga u borbene položaje, ne jedni protiv drugih, već da počnemo preusmeravamo ove asteroide koji nam se približavaju. I neka naša prva misija bude da pritisnemo Kongres da se reformiše pre nego što bude kasno za našu naciju.
Thank you. (Applause)
Hvala vam. (Aplauz)