Good evening, everyone.
I'm Luke Schaefer,

Associate Dean, and
Herman and Amalia Cohn,

Professor of Social
Justice and Social

Policy at the Ford School and
the University of Michigan.

And on behalf of Dean bar

and the faculty and
the students before.

It's cool, it's a great
pleasure to welcome you to

tonight's policy talks at

the Ford School with my
colleagues show beta,

Partha sudden, Partha, rapey,

Jiangxi, chary, and
Justin Volcker's.

No doubt many of you may have

noticed that I'm
not Michael Barr,

although I hope to one day

perhaps play him in
a made for TV movie.

Michael any, and you may

have noticed that just an Walters

is not Betsy Stevenson,
decidedly better hat.

They are no longer going to

join us for tonight's
discussion because they'd

both been named to the president

elect transition advisory team.

So in the interest
of allowing for

an unencumbered discussion
about the next administration.

They have graciously bowed
out of tonight's event that

our faculty and our
affiliates are advising

the new presidential
administration,

I think is one of the great
things about the Ford School.

And in fact, our faculty have

served at high levels in
the Obama administration,

the Clinton administration,
George HW Bush,

Carter, and Nixon administration.

When I'm Marina Whitman,
our faculty Americas,

was the first woman named to

the Council of Economic Advisors.

So this is just one
of the assets of

a place that it's committed to

rigorous research
and policy analysis

and done for the common
good impacting the world.

John, just an inch a bead

and I are thrilled
to be here though.

Look forward to a wide
ranging discussion on

the policy priorities and

goals of the next administration.

Before we dive into
the conversation,

I want to thank our co-sponsors
for tonight's event,

the University of Michigan
Club of Washington DC,

and the U of them
alumni association.

The University of Michigan has

a significant presence
in Washington,

including our public
service intern program,

The Michigan and
Washington program,

the University of Michigan
Office of Federal Relations.

Alumni efforts, also fun
need-based scholarships for

promising DC area students

to attend the
University of Michigan.

So warm welcome to

our U of them alumni who
are watching here today,

especially in the DC area.

Let me briefly introduce
our panelists,

each of whom represent

a slightly different area
of policy expertise.

Professor should be the parses
of Robby is a Professor of

Public Policy and the director of

the science and technology
and public policy or program.

Her research focuses on

the comparative and
international politics

and policy related that
science and technology.

She's interested in how
to develop innovation.

Innovation policy.

And how to better achieve

public interest and
social justice goals.

One of my favorite things
about professor should beta

is that her work has influenced

that 2013 United States
Supreme Court case

challenging the patentability
of human genes.

Just in warfare
is, is a Professor

of Public Policy and Economics.

Justin's research interests
include labor economics,

macroeconomics, and
the political economy.

He is a contributing columnist at

the New York Times and
a senior fellow at

the Peterson Institute for
International Economics

and the Brookings Institution.

And he was recently named to
a list by someone as one of

the ten most
influential economists

leading into the
Biden administration.

Finally, John to chary

is an Associate Professor
of Public Policy and

Director of the Ford School's
wiser Diplomacy Center

and the International
Policy Center.

His research focuses on
international law and diplomacy.

He has been an Andrew
Carnegie fellow

on the Asia Society Fellow,

a Fulbright scholar, and

a policy official in

the Treasury Department's Office

of International Affairs.

Alright, welcome to
all of my colleagues.

Should be that I want
to start with you.

So obviously,

President elect Biden
has talked about

the importance of getting a
handle on the covert crisis.

And we might imagine

major shifts in the

other relates to dealing
with the pandemic.

Could you talk to us
a little bit about

some of the things that
you're thinking about,

some of the top priority
than this area and what

you'd like the in day

one and maybe what
you expect, Kathy?

Yeah. Sure. So first of all,

thanks for having me and I'm
excited to teach everyone,

including University
of Michigan alumni,

probably, hopefully some of
my former students out there.

So yeah, clearly of

buttons top priorities
Cove it is at the top.

And he just today in fact,

was having a meeting
with governors,

I believe, about about
the coded response.

And in his plans,

he's planning at first to
expand testing significantly,

which I think is
incredibly important.

He's also talking a lot about
a creating something call.

He's calling a US public
health core contact tracers.

And that part of it I

think is interesting
because one of the things

obviously we've all
lamented this year

about the scarcity
of covert tests.

And it seemed that
at 1 that we had

perhaps we were Supply

and Demand for meeting
that we're now again,

I think as the, as the demand

increases where we're in a
scarcity situation again.

So certainly it's welcome

this push for increased testing.

But one of the challenges
that I think we've also seen,

but we aren't talking
as much about and I

appreciate that that they

are doing so in the
new administration

is to talk very seriously about

contact tracing and actually

making sure that we have
enough contact tracers.

I think that's really,
really important

and key in the, in the response.

And it's also though,

important to think when
we're thinking about

contact tracing and
testing and isolation.

That three pieces that
we've been talking about in

terms of coded prevention,
to think about.

Cultural and social
specificities.

So there have been numerous
examples of how testing

isn't necessarily being given
in the right neighborhoods,

in the right places that
people are reticent to

participate and testing systems

because they're concerned
about being surveilled.

There's concerns
also that they might

get a covert result,

but then what do they do with
that information that there

aren't social supports
available, for example,

for proper isolation
for a lot of people,

you know, it's, it's
very costly to isolate.

You have to leave your job.

You might even lose your job.

So these kinds of
things I think need to

be a more significant
part of the response.

I'm glad that they're they
are taking some steps.

I think they I would like to see

even more attention to
questions around how

do we make sure that
people properly

isolate themselves and

how do we ensure that they have

the economic and social
supports to do that?

How do we make sure
that the public

health corps that
they develop has

the cultural competency to

really have people
participate in these systems.

So those are the kinds of
things we're thinking about.

The nice thing that
I've noticed in

the Coven Task Force is
that they're actually does

seem to be some expertise
on that taskforce

focused on questions around
structural inequality.

So there are clearly
people thinking about it.

The question is, how
integrated will that be in,

in the test, trace and

isolate response
that might emerge.

And, and I think that
remains to be seen,

but I, I hope that
when we move forward,

we'll actually
think about it more

holistically than we
have over the last year.

Great. Thank you.

I'm going to do around with

everyone and then come back
again with some follow-up.

So the folks, Justin,

We are in sort of
an economic time

that there's just no
comparison in history, right?

And I'm wondering if
you could just take us

through what's happened to

the economy as a
result of go bed,

where we're heading right now.

And what you think in terms
of studying economic policy

should be some of

the major priorities
starting in January.

Yeah. So look, one way

of thinking about this is
we do have to tune the,

the language we use a
little bit on its head.

So I think this,

there's two things
happening at the same time.

One, a cola suppression.
There is a recession.

If you took Macro
at the Ford School,

you know what a recession is.

Generalized downturn.

We've seen those before.

The suppression is literally what

was happening in
March, April, and May,

which is through some
combination of people are

unwilling to go to market

or they're a lock downs
that prevent them.

We'll just stay Han
we we don't work.

But at the same time, Aaron
poised on colas into work.

We don't consume.

But at the same time the
shops might not be opened.

So thinking about whether that's

a demand shock or a supply shock,

you know, the answer is yes.

It's one of those wonderful exams

where there's no wrong answers.

Now, you know, what
that's oppression

does is you shut
down the economy.

There's no economic activity.

Now in fact, we kept 90%
of economic activity gang,

which has its own
special miracle,

but losing 10% one-quarter
is unheard off.

This is downturn that
played out in days.

Whereas typically
a Great Depression

or 2 thousand ICT plays
out over months and years.

So that's suppression happened.

And then if you recall,
just before the election,

there's a lot of talk
about rapid GDP growth.

Well, the thing is if you tell

everyone they can't go to work,

and then you tell them
they can go back to work.

You're going to
bounce halfway back.

But if the down was big,

then going halfway back

up is a tremendous
right, a growth.

So those dynamics are dramatic.

But at some deep level on

Interesting because it's
all going to go away.

The question is when we get to

the end of that suppression,

what sites, the economy?

And we're certainly at

the end of that
first stage of this,

a different question whether

the second or third
wife of curve,

it is going to cause
us to lock down again.

And we're discovering
the unemployment

where we're still 10
million jumped down.

The recoveries rapid because
basically put everyone on

Philae and you just tell
them to come back to work.

Getting rid of unemployment

when she's calling people
back to work so easy.

Most of whom the people left,

the people who've lost
their jobs altogether.

So the hard work begins now.

So the dramatic
recovery we've seen,

it's Oliva and now it's going
to be along the ground.

And the question is,
how long and how

slow and what role does
policy have to play in that?

Obviously, Biden
brought to the table

the idea that we needed
another major fiscal stimulus.

This is a case where we are in

unprecedented times r
to the 2008 recession,

a fiscal stimulus of 700
billion was seen as a lot.

We went through 2
trillion already

with kids and we're
talking about,

there are big debates between
the Republicans who want

1 trillion and the Democrats

who want three phone numbers.

Tucker that shifting the
goalpost. Yeah, totally.

And it's really hard tonight

because this suppression
is so dramatic,

it's hard to know what
the underlying damages.

If it's as bad as some Huck Finn,

3 trillion won't be enough.

If it's as good as some hope.

Most people get back
to work anytime soon.

And 3 trillion would
be a terrible answer.

It's like Mr. concise,

you live in interesting times.

John, let's turn
to foreign policy.

Gosh, this is so
much fun by the way,

I'm having a really good time.

John, take if that
foreign policy.

So I can't imagine
what it's like to

enter in a new administration.

And that's going to take a

completely different, I imagine,

had very different views of how

to interact in the
world internationally.

But to do so in a time when
you can't really travels.

So my understanding of
foreign policy is that,

you know, the State Department.

Folks in President, they go
over, there's huge divides.

They have dinner
together and suddenly

either people see connections

with each other.
They didn't before.

It just, it seems like there's

a lot of difference and
all in the international.

So talk us through what you

hope to see in that
circumstance than in

whether or not they're sort of

unique things related to

the current period that
make it more challenging.

Well, I think we've
we've lost your sound.

I'm going to give you
a couple of minutes

and I'm going to come back and

I'll get xi beta.

I then of course,
like everybody else,

follow in vaccine
development very closely.

And I was just struck by
the notion of the bi's are

vaccine that has to be kept

at negative 70 degrees Celsius,

which I believe is
something along the order

of negative 90 Fahrenheit,

which is something along

the order of like really,
really, really cold.

Maybe I'll do something on
the order of really early.

So how can we possibly

deliver that theme
in the huge numbers?

And, and maybe you could
just walk through like

even just like if it
were easy to distribute,

what kind of logistical task

that we're talking about here.

It's huge.

And let's be clear about it.

We don't have, we've

demonstrated this year
that were not necessarily

the best at distributing
technologies in a sort

of equitable or any way
says do mythic way.

So we don't have the
best track record.

The first good news is that there

is a vaccine that
looks promising.

And in fact there are
multiple vaccines

that look promising.

There are just news today that

the Oxford AstraZeneca
vaccine also looks

good because every number
three, that's number three.

I think there's also some hope

about a Johnson and Johnson one.

So there are multiple ones.

The only one that requires
the giant freezing,

really, really,
really cold freezer.

Pfizer. Madonna's requires
only a regular old,

I believe, refrigerator even

though there was
some variability.

But it is that it's a, it's a,

an enormous task
because we don't just

need we need to have a
sense of how to distribute.

We need all kinds of equipment

in order to distribute at the,

at the levels that
we're talking about.

We are talking about millions,

tens of millions of doses in
the next couple of months.

And what we know is that
at present the states,

different states in
the US have begun to.

Offer plans and say This

is how we're going to
distributed in the states.

And of course, in a
federalist system like ours,

that's how we're, the
responsibility gets devolved.

But even within that,

we are making a lot of

assumptions about
distribution, channels,

capacity, you know, personnel in,

and this is a place
where, you know,

there are many places and

maybe we can talk about it later.

You know, what have we learned?

What, once we're past Cove it?

What can we, what can we
learn from our experience?

But we are unlikely to
fat face staff shortages.

We're likely to face
equipment shortages.

And we might have
transportation challenges.

So, you know, we should
still be breathing,

certainly not holding our breaths

as we're waiting for the vaccine.

One of the concerns
that I haven't figured,

we haven't figured
out how to manage,

but I think it's something
that we need to be thinking

seriously about is the fact

that even if you think about the,

the super cold freezers that
Pfizer is talking about.

And one of the things that's
already begun to happen is,

for example, that
rural hospitals are

starting to buy up
prisoners at a rapid clip.

And that's problematic
for a few reasons, right?

We gotta run out of breath or are

we going to run out of freezers?

Are is it going drive up
the costs of freezers,

which is going to again to
store where the freezers go.

Who's managing this?

Can we build freezers
quickly enough?

Those are the kinds
of questions that

the administration is going to

is probably already
thinking about.

They're going to have to deal

with hitting the ground running.

And at the same time, you know,

and this is something
that's incredibly

important that we have to

make sure that we're
still doing the test,

trace and isolate
at the same time.

And so if, for example,

places are moving all of

their investments into
super cold freezers,

what are they not paying for?

Health-wise? That's
a serious question

because this can potentially be

a very destabilizing moment

at a moment when the
code that the number

of cases is going up.

And I think the final
thing that I'll say

and and I'm happy to
go into this further,

is that it actually,

there's also, you know,

it's important to remember
that, of course Cove,

it isn't just a local
or national problem,

it's an international problem.

And the Trump administration has

and really how to go it

alone approach in terms
of buying a lot of doses,

the operation warp speed
has been very successful.

It's an interesting case
of how we can invest and

produce medical technologies
quickly and effectively.

But in order for
us to get back to

some semblance of
normalcy as someone who's

spent used to spend a whole
lot of time on airplanes.

It certainly matters
to me and many.

I think of the people who
are watching today that when

we think about a global
vaccine distribution.

And that raises questions

that are near and
dear to my heart

around intellectual property.

And there have been a
number of Countries,

for example, who
have suggested that,

especially since the government
has already paid for,

the US government has already
paid for these vaccines,

vaccine development
that the industry

has not laid out money.

You know, there's
a question about

how much profit should
they be making?

Should they be charging
outside of the US?

Should they be making their
intellectual property,

not just their patents,

but other forms of intellectual
property available.

So that generics companies in

Brazil or India or South
Africa can start to

develop their own dosages
because that's going to be

key in order for
us to quickly as,

as blow, really respond to the,

respond to the pandemic.

So there are those, I think

foreign policy
dimensions of it too.

And, you know, given that this

is admit an admin is not
to step onto John's toes,

but this is an
administration that hasn't

necessarily play nicely
with other countries.

One could imagine that
an interesting way that

the Biden administration
could start with

global diplomacy would
actually be much more open,

open position when it
comes to vaccines,

distribution and development and

intellectual property that good,

perhaps get us back into the
many countries good graces.

So before I go to John,

let me just do one quick
follow up on in, in, in.

If I'm the guy who created

a vaccine that has to be stored

at negative 7B and

my competitor just created
one that just has to be cold.

I'm I think I'd probably,

you know, in a normal world,

I just I just close up shop.

Right. But it sounds

like it doesn't quite work
like that in this case.

And that they have

the benefit of the product's
already been bought.

They do have the benefit

of the product
already been thought.

That's true with all of
the major vaccine trials.

It's also true that we need

as many players as

possible to produce as
many doses as possible.

And then finally, it's important

that we don't know what
the data looks like.

We've, we've heard
about the data,

but we haven't actually
seen the data.

And so we don't know what
kinds of challenges might

emerge along the way
in which populations,

which, which kinds of

vaccines are likely
to be most effective.

So those are all
questions to be asked.

So these are not, these are not

just vaccines that require

different kinds of
storage and distribution.

There also different compounds.

And so they might have
different effects.

And so they're all
sort of angling

for obviously the
largest possible market.

But often what you see is that

different vaccines may have

different efficacy in
different populations.

And so that, that is

the question that we
don't know the answer to,

but could mean that

Pfizer's vaccine might be

useful in a particular
population.

But again, the
market doesn't look

the way we might think a
traditional market looks like

because they've already sold

all of their product before they

even began actually
creating any doses.

So if I'm understanding
you right,

we should let 1000 flowers
bloom the more the merrier.

And, but it's not time

to stop wearing your
math anytime soon.

And we need to take
contact tracing

a whole lot more seriously.

Yes. Yes, exactly.

Well said mark down,

let me put you into
conversations so beta has

a plan to improve our
standing in the world.

Maybe tell us what
you think about

that and then also what some of

the particular unique
challenges are

about foreign policy
in the time of COBIT.

Still no, still no sound.

You get one more try before we

vote you off the
island. Actually.

Just an I have a
quick one for you.

And then we'll we'll
kick it back that down

in a minute much and ask me or

foreign policy questions I

haven't defined
button that actually.

Alright. So ask me any country
in the world on that one.

So just then I,

a friend of mine actually sent

me a quote of yours and there's

a fairly significant
amount of nuance than

it from one of

your appearances on one
of the news channels.

I believe you said Larry
could loads a clown

and hasn't gotten a single
thing right in the last month.

I wonder if you could
that you could pick apart

that nuance or a yeah.

This is one of the problem is

about the Zoom age
that we live in.

When you go into a tape, a JD

I arguments to wear
a tie and look

absolutely serious when
you're at home talking to

someone I IVR webcams,

sometimes you say what you mean.

Like there's the papers
to be written there.

Yeah. People letting
their defenses down.

Look, the reality is,

it was an unbelievably
unqualified economics team.

And I want to say
that without a hint

of ideological bias
one way or the other,

catalyze a made for TV.

Yeah, it looks like an economist,

little ugly than your
average economist.

But beyond that, he has
the confidence and,

and, and that the
people demand frankly.

But, you know, watching,

there's a deep question.

Not about Republicans, but about

my profession of economics,

which is way became,

as did many professions,

decreasingly relevant to

public policy over
the last four years.

The quality of people attracted

into government service
was a lot lower.

The quality people chosen,
and also the influence.

The Council of Economic Advisers

was no longer cabinet position.

For instance, the President went

shopping on his favorite
network fairies next economist,

rather than walking
through the universities.

And it's easy for us to
sit at home and say,

well, you know, I
didn't like this guy.

And a lot of us have that view.

But I think there should
be for all of us who

are in fields that have
become decreasingly relevant.

I remember the
president was elected

news nearly re-elected.

We need to look
within and see how

it is that we filed
and how we fail to

communicate to a broader
public in such a way that it

was politically
acceptable to recruit,

hire, retain, and take advice
from second to Paypal.

And by the way, the cost of this

in economics may be large,

but the cost in public
health is even larger.

You've got Scott atlas
in there who has

literally no group more expertise

around these issues than I do.

Suggesting what we should do
is guy for herd immunity,

which is basically
let the virus rip.

And how if a few people left
standing at the end and he

was one of the leaves and
the current virus Taskforce.

So you know how we restore
the integrity of advice from

From told people like John is.

Could you tell us
a little bit about

the role of economists than
a typical administration?

So when you think about how,

how do you envision a
President Biden using

Council of Economic Advisors

and and what role
they would play.

Yeah. Look, some ways,

past students I had or
that Washington and

the promise I made you in
class is that economics

is an important language
within public policy.

In, for a variety
of policy debates,

it might be the most important.

And that has historically

been true and I think
will be true again,

there is sort of the
technocratic center

of the Democratic Party.

There were challenges to
that through the primaries.

Bit biden is of that
technocratic Santa.

You know, look, the reality
is policy is boring.

It's meant to get through
these long processes.

You meant to have feedback from

all sorts of walks and
all sorts of places.

We run models. We try and
figure out cause and effect.

And, you know, it's slow.

It's, it's, it's
boring, dreary work.

And I count white for

the day that public
policies boring again.

Mike policy doll
would be I think,

you know what I'm hoping for.

And I think we're
about to see it.

And actually pulling
politics off the front page,

back to page three
pi five, pi seven.

I think we will certainly
be very good for

my mental health and possibly
many of the rest of us.

John, do we have if you know,

how do you actually are
muted? Have you got me now?

Yeah. Sorry, switch to my phone.

Sorry about that. All right.

Take it away. I've I've given

you a couple of
different questions.

You get to just pick whatever
you want to talk about.

Nobody in. The first I do.

The first question
you asked was about

how diplomacy is conducted
in this virtual era and

the difficulty of reaching out
to partners at a time when

you can't take trips
abroad and hangout in the,

in the conference rooms
and in diplomatic dinners.

I think that the new
Biden administration

has a real advantage in
this regard in that he

personally and the people he's
most likely to appoint to

senior positions have a lot
of foreign policy experience.

Obviously, Biden does
not want this to

be the third term of
the Obama presidency.

He wants to put his own mark on

this Administration
and a variety of ways.

But much of the message that he

needs to provide internationally.

In order to a store, you
restore us image and

credibility is a
message about normalcy,

continuity, a return to

a more conventional
foreign policy approach.

And for that reason alone,

he probably will want to appoint

a number of senior people who,

who were from the, from
the Obama administration.

The benefit of that in
this virtual era is

they don't need to start
new relationships.

They need to reconnect,

in many cases with people

whom they've worked
with for many years.

That the current administration,

the Trump administration
chose deliberately to

bring lots of new faces into

Washington to show it's
break with the past and

that it was going to pursue

a very different foreign policy.

Biden approach is likely going to

be to want to restore
a sense of continuity.

And that should help
a lot in this regard.

It'll also help him in that
any President who arrives in

office always has to make

the difficult decision
of where am I

going to take my first overseas?

Who am I going to please?

Who am I going to
displease by my choice

to travel in this
virtual environment.

They won't have to make
some of those choices.

And they'll have
mechanisms that had

become normalized
and routinized by

audiences around the
world to broadcast

foreign policy
messages to a very,

very wide audience rather than

an audience that's
geographically defined.

Now that does have a drawback.

Diplomats sometimes
tailor their messages,

are often tailor their messages
to a particular locality.

That's a little bit
less possible if you're

operating through some of
these virtual channels.

But still I think on balance,

this is an advantage for,

for the initial messaging.

Biden didn't get elected
for foreign policy reasons.

Biden got elected
primarily to deal with

the things that Justin and
she'll be talking about.

And he's going to have to spend,

and his administration
will have to spend

most of their early
political Apple,

whether it's in Washington
or in the States,

addressing issues like
code and the economy.

He's, I'm going to have

a lot of bandwidth to
deal with foreign policy.

And so some of that
initial messaging

might actually be
conducting more efficiently

through technological channels
than through a series of

overseas trips that
would take them away

from Washington and
the crisis at hand.

I, I like your point
about it's possible that

a President Biden could be
on like three Zoom meetings

with three different country that

about approximately
the same time.

And maybe he may he doesn't.

You can just not alienate anyone.

He can be everywhere.
That's good.

But tell me a little bit.

I it's my understanding that

you so I hear what you're saying

about sort of veteran folks
coming in for top posts and

already had been established

relationships and started
studying a message.

It's sort of my
understanding that

a lot of career
folks have exited,

especially from the
State Department.

And is there a
concern about they're

just sort of not being

enough bodies to do all the
work that we need to do.

There is a very real
concern about that.

There are different categories.
Of course, who left?

One is a category of
people who were in

very senior post and chose
to take early retirement.

I don't think that
a large number of

those folks will necessarily
get back in government.

Some will probably
seek to return.

And then there's the question

about whether the Senate will

confirm senior level
appointments promptly.

So there's very much a
concern at that level.

A second very important
category of people who left

were people who were in
their mid career phase

and climbing fast,

who had to make a decision

about whether to double
down on their career as

diplomats or whether to do

something else with the next
phase of their careers.

Many of those chose to do

something else for the
last several years.

And it's my hope,

but also my expectation.

A good number of them
have been frankly

displeased with the way American
foreign policy has been

conducted for the last few
years and will eagerly jump at

the chance to come back in

a Deputy Assistant
Secretary roll,

or an office director role,

a Political Counselor
in an embassy,

and hopefully replete

the the very lean

Foreign Service that
we have at the moment.

You mentioned this question
about cabinet selections and

approval from a thin it so

obviously as we look
back on the election,

it returned a Democrat
in the White House,

a Democrat majority in the
House of Representatives,

and a Republican Senate

that approves many
of the position.

So how much of that
is an issue in

terms of what President Biden,

who is put up for those roles,

do you expect there to be

difficulty getting
people approved

and will that shape
the course of policy?

I do sadly expect there will be

difficulty getting
approvals from the Senate.

Biden probably based on

his own foreign
policy proclivities,

was not inclined to to,

to send radical candidates

to Capitol Hill for confirmation.

And so my guess is that,

that two, most Democrats

are even independence or
moderate Republicans.

The people who he'll
be putting up for

senior foreign policy roles will

not be very controversial though,

but some of them will
still get held up.

And there used to be
the expression of

politics stops at
the water's edge and

a bi-partisan centrist
on America being

wrong, diplomatically,
militarily broad.

Sadly, I think that
we're a lot further from

that then we have been at any

point in our recent history,

it would be quite crippling
to US efforts to,

again restore our global
nudge our credibility.

If the Senate were to hold up,

many of our senior appointees
shall be done just in,

let me just throw the
same question to you all.

As you think about the course
of getting cabinet approval

for science and technology
and public health officials

as well as the folks
driving economic policy.

Justin, what are we in for?

Well, I mean, certainly when it

comes to cabinet appointments,

that that is a real concern.

I think it's not traditionally.

When it comes to the
science, technology,

and health sectors that
haven't necessarily been

the spaces where there has
been a lot of controversy.

But it's possible that the lesson

that senate republicans have

learned from the Trump
era or Trump ism,

is that everything is subject
to challenge, critique.

And, and that includes sort

of technical, technical people.

One of the big, there
were a couple of

concerns over the last few years.

The first, that that

even cabinet appointed
technical advisors were,

were highly political actors.

And you can think about,

for example, Health and
Human Services Secretary,

Alex a's are as,

as being a pretty
good example are

pretty bad example depending
upon how you look at it.

But then the second problem two,

has been the sublevel cabinet
appointed, appointment.

So the folks underneath them

who are also highly
political and it

sort of dipping further
and further down and

controlling the bureaucracy
in, in significant ways.

And I have to say,

I echo what what Justin
was saying earlier,

that that I hope that

the last four years has taught us

that we need to
potentially be think,

thinking differently
about expertise

and bringing and voices
that feel that they've

been marginalized or neglected
by our institutions.

And, and what does that
mean for how we think about

policymaking and who the

who the experts are and
what the evidence is.

But I think that
some of the ball,

the politicization of science

has also been deeply problematic.

And I am, I'm hopeful
and certainly

there's been a lot

of discussion that, you
know, that, you know,

certainly Biden says
he's going to try

to bring back more reasons,

appointees, but, but it's unclear

what that means in
the context of what

Senate Republicans are
willing to accept.

And if they feel like
they're in a power position,

they might push against

people that they
perceive as being too,

too progressive or too
liberal for their tastes.

Justin, you wanna
weigh in on this.

One answer is that nobody knows.

There's actually not
a long history of

knocking out a bunch of
appointees at this point.

Obviously the more
controversial ones do.

We have to see what
happens with the Senate?

You've got Mitt Romney quite

clearly no longer a trumpets.

No one knows what hopes

the Democrats are not going
to negotiate with themselves.

On economic sada. I'm
not that worried.

So obviously the Treasury
Secretary needs to,

to get her body's
already announced.

He's going to, he's figured

out who his Treasury
Secretary is.

The leading candidates
in most people's book.

Janet Yellen, former chair
of the Fed, unimpeachable.

In terms of both integrity
and just collocations.

Lyle Brian it who's currently on

the federal Board of
Governors sine, same sign.

Roger Ferguson used to be

a vice chair of the
Fed. Exactly the same.

But each of those
three people will

get through, I think
in a heartbeat.

If the president
wants advice from

people who are
unconfirmed bullets,

easy, what you do
is your appointment

Counselor to the President.

They don't get to
run a big dependent.

You can still run
as much an economic

policy processes they want.

And then the other set of
appoints really matter for

economics or the
Federal Reserve Board.

And honestly, the first half
of the Trump administration,

he made a bunch of really
good appointments.

They all got through.

Something snapped at
some point and they

started the nominating
genuinely clowns.

But the good people still
kept getting through.

And I think that, that norm of

trying to continue both sides

being committed to
wanting to appoint

good people at the Fed
is likely to continue.

So on the economic side,

I think they'll get
economist there.

If you want to try and appoint

Bernie Sanders to
live a secretory,

that could cause fireworks.

But I'm moderately optimistic.

Okay. So in some respects
we could be in a fork in

the road to see if we're

able to re-establish
some traditions.

If I'm listening to
all three of you,

or are we continue to be
in a new world governance?

And that in some
respects we have been in

the last few years budget also,

there are sort of ways

that Navy could move
path any impacts.

Including sort of thinking

about exactly where
your personnel

goes and what it means
for a confirmation. Good.

So let's talk about where
there might be a agreement.

So we have a question
from the audience,

what policies the Biden
Harris administration

likely see successful move
them on early in their term.

And which policies might
they step out opposition,

then he wouldn't have a sense of

what administration
might bring forward

when and and what
might get through

and where we might see
for the first fights.

I think one of the big fights are

going to say fairly early on

is going to be about the
size of the fiscal stimulus.

It's the lesson we
learned from 2008

was you'd get both sides to
agree on the first stimulus.

The economy remained rotten
through 200920102011.

And they couldn't get a
second stimulus passed.

If they went back
to the same school.

Scorched earth politics
of wanting to make

this a one term
administration awake economy

is far too cynical,

but I do think

the lesson of 2 thousand I
was That can be a big one.

I'm much more optimistic that

the money it'll type
to get the rest of

the sort of covered
relief done will get

through one, a bunch
of it's spent.

The vaccine commitments were made

to a lot of it's
actually very cheap.

Shibuya talked a bit about

concerns about vaccines
being expensive and alike.

But we're talking
about 40 bucks a

does for something that's

economically and
personally transformative.

You know, it might be hard to
track down enough phrases.

They might be labor
shortages, things like that.

But the stakes here
are so much higher

that the underlying
costs hopefully

weren't getting the y.

And the other answer is that
what the feds don't do.

You've then got a
fail-safe, which is

you've got states
that can step up.

Now, the big problem is

the states don't have a lot
of budgetary room right now.

But if I were a state governor

and I had to decide
where to spend my money.

Making sure that the
virus was not going

to cause death and

destruction of my state
would be pretty high.

But again, we've seen
even that has become

clearly very, very politicized.

Before I go to
should be to Justin.

I one thing you said earlier
was just about this sort of

shifting goalpost done what

a stimulus might
look at lake, right?

And I still even now remain
shocked about the care Zach,

and how actually
successful it was

and enhancing the
economic well-being.

Poor Americans in particular,

we see some measures
actually where there was

almost no increase in hardship

and maybe even some improvement
at least for the summer.

And I just wonder like,

do you have an explanation

why we we had never done
anything like that.

And was it just sort of

the unprecedented moment that

got that kind of package through?

I think a big part
of the answer is

definitely much more politics
and political psychology,

news, economics, which was,

this was a holy shit moment.

There was no book on the tick,

there was no file up on

the bookshelf that you
pull down, you deal with.

The the other thing is
the k's Act had a lot for

business and a lot for families.
Something for everyone.

Yeah. And so I think I mean,

they shoveled a ton of
money out through PPP.

Whether that money should
have been giveaways or lines,

is something I think
we're going to spend

the next ten years arguing about.

But Republicans were very

worried about
businesses going under.

I don't want to caricature of

sides is being completely
on different bit.

And folks like you,

Luke were very worried about

families putting enough
food on the table.

And then there was some
really weird things, right?

Like, why did you
unemployment insurance

get kicked up by $600?

Cuz it was really
hard to reprogram

the computers to do anything
more sophisticated.

So they just did what
the hell, let's do it.

And so they exit reduced poverty

alone away for a limited period.

So I think two things remarkable.

One, the size of the initial
stimulus is remarkable.

So was the economic shock.

The second is the extensive
fatigue subsequent to that

of reform that the unemployment
insurance money ran out.

Republicans wanted 1 trillion,

Democrats want to 3 trillion,

so they compromised on nothing.

So the follow up was also
remarkably weak as well.

And so this is where if
you worry about politics,

you worry about the
politics of all this.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You asked

initially about where we

think there might
be movement and,

you know, every almost
every thing that

that almost every one of

the major priorities
right now I think

is highly, highly polarized.

But in reflecting
on your question,

I was thinking about
a couple of areas

that where there
might be some room.

One is, I think in
terms of the dreamers.

And immigration policy
specifically around Dhaka.

Obviously, immigration
policy generally is

very fraught and even more
so I think in the Trump era,

this is a place where
you'll see trumpet,

the sort of legacy, I think,

last for a long time.

But we historically talk

about the fact that
there's a lot of

agreement on, on Dhaka.

And I wonder if that might be
an interesting place where,

where there might actually

be a number of
people in the Senate

who would be, who want,

who would want to
push that forward,

even though it's not one

of the top priorities that
Biden has been talking about.

It could be a place
where there might

be some some agreement.

I think a second place could
also be around to continue

to move the ball forward

when it comes to
criminal justice reform.

One of the things that Biden has

talked about is how one of

the first things he wants
to do in office is to,

you know, Let's say repeal.

I don't know that that's
exactly how I would put it,

but should put it
is the crime bill,

the 1994 crime bill,
that of course,

made a lot of news in
this election cycle.

And that Biden has said
he made a mistake.

And, and many of

the other authors like
have also said that they,

that they aired and that

criminal justice reform
has actually place where

Trump said Trump actually
did pass something.

So in some ways,

it seems to be some
republican interests

as well in criminal
justice reform.

And certainly, if you look at

the polls and you look at

exit polls in
particular, there's,

there is interest in

across parties in questions
related to racial justice.

Now to abidance credit,

he talks about racial justice in

economic terms and
helped terms. And not.

Traditionally, we tend to

equate racial justice and
criminal justice reform.

Those shouldn't,
they're not synonymous.

But, but that's obviously
criminal justice.

Reform could be a place,
for example, where,

where you could see Democrats and

Republicans aligned
in some places.

Not all, I think there's
a lot of distance,

but there may be some, you know,

a lot of dimensions of that,

but perhaps in some parts
of criminal justice reform.

So look, let me just,

I just wanted to add one
thing channeling the fact

that we don't have a
political scientist among us.

So I'll play one on TV.

Look, I think the big unknown

is the future of Trump isn't

off the tongue at this
fork in the road,

which way does the
Republican Party guy

that fundamentally shapes
What's I'll open for agreement.

Is it going to be
the Biden Trump land

or is it going to be
bought and Romney land?

Those are very, very
different intersecting sets.

So I want to in a few
minutes to ask you all,

want to go back in time and
talk about the election.

And then I want to talk about

the transition in particular.

But is I listen to
you all and I'm,

you know, if I put on sort of

my glass half-full mentality.

Sounds like we could have

at least three
vaccines starting to

be distributed in, in the spring.

Much more robust contact
tracing program.

Some sort of economic
stimulus that even if it

were the sort of the
lower bound that we're

talking about is
maybe $1 trillion.

And potentially the rest of

the world being happier with us,

John, because we aren't

behaving the way
that we have been.

That sounds like a pretty oh,

and of course
community or to say,

and maybe we get a little
movement on immigration reform,

comments on immigration reform

and and changes
and incarceration.

That that sounds like
a pretty good Agenda.

My I'm putting the cart before

the horse and think,
Well, I mean,

I think I'll speak on
the Foreign Affairs

side and say that

the there's some easy
work to be done.

This is relates to your
question about what Biden

could could do easily and
what he couldn't do easily.

There wasn't very easy
work to be done to repair

relationships in
terms of the tone and

tenor of the way we
communicate with our allies,

for example, that's
day one benefit.

It's like Obama getting

the Nobel Prize before
he had been in office

very long because there was

so much hope and aspiration
for his administration.

The Biden administration
is going to have a lot of

goodwill greeting in at

the door in
international affairs.

That's going to make
it very easy to

turn the page in terms
of tone and rhetoric.

It's going to be much more
difficult to make progress on

the substantive issues that had

bedeviled the last
several administrations.

Getting back into the
Iran nuclear agreement.

The Biden administration
would like to do that.

It's not easy to do that.

The Iranians realized that
American leverage is much

less than it was
when the deal was

negotiated several years ago.

Because the Chinese, the Germans,

the French, the Russians
are all invest in Iran now.

And the threat of
multilateral sanctions

is diminished. North Korea.

No administration
has been able to

manage that problem
very effectively.

Trump's approach
to it was the most

unorthodox and to some
observers loopy approach to try

to meet with Kim Jong-un going

from 0 to 60 in 1.2 seconds.

But the follow on diplomacy

ran into the same problems that,

that previous
administrations have.

The North Koreans do not have

an incentive to D nuclear iss.

To the contrary, the very
powerful incentive to

maintain a nuclear deterrent

as their ultimate
regime insurance.

And we can go down the list.

Those are just two examples.

Getting out of Afghanistan,

both Trump and Biden
would like to see

us troops brought home
step-wise from Afghanistan.

But Biden will struggle for

the same reason that the
Obama administration did,

because the Afghan government is

not in a position to be able

to maintain effective
sovereignty over that territory.

And a Taliban victory would be

not just a matter of sunk
costs, but a matter of,

of potentially staggering human
rights violations against

the Afghans who have served

alongside us for 20
years and an end.

And these are just a few
examples of the vexing problems.

We could add Syria, Yemen,

dealing with China on trade,

trying to reverse the course of

events in the South China Sea.

All areas in which,

uh, biden administration will.

We'll have a more, I think,

helpful approach, a more
multilateral approach,

working more closely with allies.

All of that is the
right thing to do,

but still will struggle to make

fundamental progress
because these are

difficult issues for
the United States.

Can I just follow
up real click done?

Can you explain to me what
has happened this week?

I thought headlined and

then as I do, I didn't
read the article.

I just thought I would
ask you what was

the didn't the Trump
administration,

so to say they're
going to start pulling

back troops from Afghanistan.

And what was that, and why
did they do that? They did.

So 11 answer is that
Trump wants to fulfil

a campaign pledge and that he

promised that he was going to get

the United States
out of Afghanistan.

It's something that he seems to

be personally committed to.

He has been pretty consistent on

this point throughout
his administration.

He wants to pull the troops out.

That's why the United States

signed a deal with the Taliban,

not really including
the Afghan government.

And those negotiations,
by the way,

it was a deal that
effectively signaled to

the Taliban in my view that

the United States
wants to get out.

And therefore we
should bide our time,

wait until the US leaves and

then negotiate with the Taliban,

with the Afghan government
from a position of strength.

Now, the military, the US
military has wanted to

delay this process
because there's

a recognition among
the top brass,

despite their
disinterest in seeing

more American body
bags come home,

that the alternative
to depart fully from

Afghanistan would be
strategically reckless and again,

would subject the population

to possibly staggering
retribution.

And so you had the
very unusual series

of events in, I think September,

when a senior Pentagon official

said one thing about the
US intends to draw down,

and a senior general in
the US military said,

actually we're going to do
it in a more phased way.

It's very rare that you
have that type of discord

between what's coming out of

the civilian and the
military leadership.

But it was indicative of the
fact that many people who

are in the military

believe it would be irresponsible

to pull out too quickly.

The Afghan government is
shaking and it's boot about

that prospect and also
countries around the region.

And so my hope certainly
Is that that trump,

before leaving
office will only be

able to do a little bit of that.

And that there will
be a residual force

in place when Biden takes office.

So that if need be,

you can build it
back slightly or at

least maintain that presence,

which is essential for

the Afghan security forces
to hold off the Taliban.

It's not so much the number of

US troops on the
ground that matters.

It's the fact that
the United States

provides air support,

provides intelligence,

provides logistics, provides
medical facilities,

a whole bunch of supportive

infrastructure, and above all,

the prospect of possible major
use of force in defense of

the Afghan security forces

without all of those
props behind it,

the Afghan army may collapse.

Against the Taliban. So
it's a, it's a, it's a,

in my mind to very dangerous
six weeks for that country.

And I hope if they get out of it,

the debiting administration will

take a measured and
gradual approach.

I guess I just,
when I think about

a desire of a president to
fulfill a campaign pledge,

I think of it as in part a goal

of winning the next election.

But is this something that

President Trump just really

thinks is the right
thing for the country?

Or I'm just trying to figure
out what the reasoning

and and maybe we just
don't know. The answer is.

I don't know, but
there are at least

the the speculations are

that you may be
thinking about 20-24,

where you may be thinking about

his own personal sense
of legal history.

Okay. I think I open
the question with

a question about the possible
upside on a set of things.

And John, you really, I'm,

I'm just going to say you took it

in a much different direction,

but let me let me let me

try to flip it back to
an upside for like,

I don't know, Zubaida,

you're going to, I think
add something there.

Maybe it's on the upside or not.

I mean, John ignored
where I was going

to feel free to paid thing.

Yeah. I mean, what
John was saying is in

keeping what I was going to say

that maybe with a slightly
more silver lining.

I like, I like where
you're going with

this sort of positive thinking.

I mean, the original question or

the previous question
you asked us was about,

you know, what is biden

do with a republican
controlled senate?

And the, I think the upside,

or at least the reality is
that we're now in an era where

presidents are using
executive orders more and

more when they have
divided government.

And Biden has already talked
about the fact that on day

one is going to

be sending a bunch of
Trump executive orders.

And we can expect that he's
going to issue a number of

additional executive orders
on priorities that he cares.

And I expect those
to be, you know,

along the lines of the priorities

that he's already articulated.

Certainly I think around 19.

I also think climate change is

another clear example
of where he's going

to be issuing a number
of executive orders.

I'm sure you also try

to use rules and
regulations to his benefit.

And I think that where, you know,

Trump it took Trump
a number of years

to figure out how to

manage the rules and regulations
of the US government.

Biden long experience, I think

that and his team's long
experience suggests that

they'll know how to how

to move the rules and
regulations process quickly.

And that has long-term impacts.

Because when you
think, for example,

about innovation related to

climate change and some of
the executive orders and

rules that the Obama
administration put into place,

even though some of them
got challenged in court,

it actually forced to the
industry to change, to shift.

And once the, once
the car industry,

automobile industry, for example,

starts to make to reduce its
emissions and its vehicles.

You know the fact that then

the next administration
changes their mind,

it's very difficult for them.

Auto industry to keep
shifting back and forth.

And so you see a number of

those kinds of things
from Obama to Trump.

And my guess is that might,

and we'll also try to

leverage that as much
as possible along the,

along the priorities that
that he's talking about.

One of those things in
terms of the upside is

actually taking advantage of

existing regulations that Trump
didn't take advantage of.

So for example, when
you come to Coven 19,

for example, one of
the controversies,

if you remember in the spring
and early summer time,

was around the Defense
Production Act

that he really didn't

ever take advantage of
in a significant way.

My guess is that
that's another place

where Biden will put some
money with some attention.

So I think that,

that ability to take
advantage of what,

what levers already exist.

And the kind of
increase the power of

the presidency that we've

seen over the last
few presidencies.

And he's likely to use to make

some as to take advantage
of as much as he can.

And I think that that's probably

where you'll see
some of the upsides.

Yeah. So a mix of potential
cooperation with congress,

but also using a
executive powers.

And then it sounds like

people sort of moving
ahead on issues

despite no action from
Washington for a while.

And maybe it's a positive
thing in the long run.

Can never happy
with their action,

Luke, I wanted to say, Yeah,

Gary, areas, probably
unvarnished positivity.

Rejoining the Paris
Climate Accord is not

a panacea for climate
change, but it is an,

it is an important
signal entirely

within the president's
power that will,

that will be a concrete
manifestation of

a desire to lead through
multilateral engagement.

And that's a big
deal. Yet in what,

tell us what that looks like.

How, how do we re-enter?

And that's something that

is going to happen,
that might happen.

I think it's quite clear that
that Biden administration

will rejoin it perhaps on

the first or second day of
the new administration.

And it's a pretty simple process.

This is not a, this is
not a treaty obligation.

This is a basically a
multilateral equivalent

of an executive agreement.

And, and, you know,
it's voluntary pledges.

So again, it's not
necessarily going to turn

the Titanic in terms of

international management of
climate change challenge.

But I think it's a very
important signal and will be,

will be something that Biden
can certainly accomplished.

Another thing I think that
falls in the similar category,

very important symbolically as

an indication of the direction

the administration
will take is to change

the caps on the number
of refugees admitted.

Admitted. In a country which is

shame fully low in
the last few years,

especially in light
of the scale of,

of forced migration in
many parts of the world.

That's something that
a new administration

could do more or less on its own.

It can't change the asylum law,

but it can raise the cap
on refugee admissions.

I think that would be a very,

very well received move.

I think it will happen. I'm
very optimistic about it.

And alright, in one last
positive note before I

allow professors back into

their natural state of pessimism,

that I've been working on.

Something God, fully refundable

child tax credit
for quite a while.

That would be an
expanded benefit to

all low and moderate middle

income families with children.

Other countries call
it a child allowance.

But because we might like to make

policy boring as
just one thought,

as we call it a fully
refundable child tax credit.

And the idea is that raising
kids as expensive than

every family should
get something like

$250 a month to do it well.

And I love it because
it affects the family.

I care about the most
very poor families

and then middle income
families as well.

And, you know,

I've been working on
this for quite awhile.

Just a few weeks ago.

Our colleague Betsy Stevenson,

I mentioned the idea in

testimony between the house
ways and means committee,

I think. And since then.

Now, Mitt Romney has
identified it as

one very clear possible place

for collaboration with,
uh, biden administration.

So just goes to prove

that people isn't about the
more than they listen to me.

But I like to think that I,

I laid the groundwork
a little bit and

so that could be exciting.

Ok, we can get out of positivity.

I actually, I'm going to

I'm going to go out on
a limb and say that we

hear are a collection
generation xors.

I don't know if the three of

you identify as Generation X,

but I'm just going
to sort of guess

and I would just also go out on

a limb and say that
generates the next is

the best generation if

only anybody remembered
that we existed.

And this all relates to
an audience question,

which is that both the Democratic
and Republican parties

are dominated by leaders in
their seventies and eighties.

Do all have ideas
about either side,

how we can appeal to younger
voters in terms of policy,

perhaps by the feature putting

a Generation X are up
or the presidency.

What about the
generational divide?

I think facts such a
stunning right-side,

the Democrats ago Biden at
the top, Pelosi and Jolla.

Wow. And while the
republican leadership,

McConnell looks that way,

there's a much clear
a succession plan.

Their holy cruises battled.

He's not that young anymore eta.

So I think you can actually see

the next generation, the next,

the next republican leader

is certainly going
to be younger than

any of these guys. It's crazy.

I don't get where it comes from.

I guess you know, one
answer is, you know,

you get good at doing your
job and you keep doing it.

And so maybe you should
declare success.

There's obviously some
awareness that they need to

groom someone under
the age of IT.

Suddenly they're calling maybe

some spring chicken
mid seventies.

And it's also a scanning
saying all this,

remember the youth Obama,

when he brought a lot
of youth with it.

And so you look,

young voters are out there
and they turned out in force,

they really did care
and they do care.

But how it is that
they can succeed

within current
political institutions.

It turns out you can run for
president, may prove that.

But actually rising
within these parties,

which have very strong
seniority norms

seems to be a lot hotter.

Although I have to speak for

my fellow South Asian
Vice President Elect.

She is not in Generation
X. I just checked.

She's just one year
out from Generation X,

but but she is a younger
a younger candidate.

She obviously embodies a
wholesale historic change

both as a woman,

a woman of color, a black
woman in South Asian woman.

So, so, you know,

there's a little bit
of hope out there.

I would say an edit.

And right, I'm supposed to
be optimistic. And so on.

Seems entity admin view

was to know exactly what

our faculty Christmas
parties like.

Charlie. So everybody gets

the punch ball and
throws it on the ground.

Rotten. Yells at him

because that was too
optimistic and look,

just sits in the corner
saying, What about the pole,

what do or think of the children?

But I guess I would say.

And so it'll be interesting to

see how she's received
and what kind of power

she has is I think that they
certainly guided and Harris

the sort of hints that

they're envisioning a
more of a partnership.

Executives. So that I think

will be interesting to witness,

especially because
clearly she has design

and so on running
for president again.

But I also think
it's worth noting

that that in addition

to what Justin said,
which is that of course,

young voters turned
out in droves that

Biden was advised by many
in younger generation,

Generation X Millennials, and
generation Z and you know,

for example, and it's
interesting how they all,

many of whom were

supporting Bernie Sanders
or Elizabeth Warren,

sort of came into the
tent and came into

the tent and in fact
in advising Biden.

So an example of that is

the sunrise movement,
for example,

which, you know, is very

progressive when it comes to
issues of climate change.

But then people on
the sunrise movement

became major climate
advisors to Biden.

So, so it will be

interesting to see whether
and how that sticks,

what that means for the next,

the next generations
of leadership and

also what that means
more generally,

I think, or the direction of

the democratic, democratic party.

But there's clearly some sort
of legs now that I think

are more clear into those
younger generations,

but not as clearly and
elected officials.

I like the EU alerted me to.

By President elect the Harris,

just one year away from
being denied reconnect.

It turns out we're not crazy,

so maybe we can just adopter.

I was just gonna say I think

she's going to have a really,

a much more consequential

role than some vice
presidents do,

because she needs to be

the one who connects
with younger,

more progressive voters whose,

whose concerns are somewhat

distinguishable from those of

older democratic voters and,

and, and in the
administration also

will probably need to appoint

a few people who can communicate.

They're clearly getting a lot of

requests from the
progressives who,

young progressives who
supported them and saying,

We turned out we helped
you win this election.

We want representation,
we want to voice,

maybe we want a voice
in the White House.

And so the personnel selection
there is going to be key.

If, if the administration
is seen as,

as limiting or shutting
down those voices,

they're going to hear about
it in the midterm elections

and I'm sure they're smart
enough to know that.

And so above and
beyond their sort of

desire to reach out and
cultivate the next generation.

They also have a near
term self interest

in making sure that they,

that they continue to
draw on that energy

because that's
where the energy is

in the democratic party,

it from young
progressives, it's from,

it's from minority voters

and who are turning
out in record numbers.

And so Harris's, Harris's

certainly has the potential to be

really influential as a BP.

Should. You started this
sort of starting to talk

about how we interpret
the election.

And so I wanted to just
turn it back to you.

And then I'm gonna go to Justin,

who's already said he is very

happy to pretend to be
a political scientist.

So, but how do we think
about this electron?

So I just think about the fact

that that Biden
Harris got more votes

for president than any other
candidate in, in history.

And now Donald Trump got

the second most votes

for president for any
candidate in history.

And of course, there's
population adjustment and such.

But it certainly wasn't.

It was, it was not terribly
closed in the popular vote,

in the end, really in
the electoral college.

But it was not a matter that
there weren't people who,

a lot of people the most

ever in history that
sort of showed up.

So how do we think

about some of the question
that's already been

raised about what happened

with constituents who really

feel passionately
about president trump.

Yeah, so and I should say I
play in political science,

political scientist at 830

every morning,
Tuesday and Thursday.

So, so today's my day, I guess.

Gradients in the evening evening,

evening section of my politics
and public policy class.

Yeah, I mean, I think it was

certainly a surprise obviously
for for many people.

How much support
there was for Trump.

I mean, certainly there was

obviously a repudiation
of him as well.

And that's really what
this election was about.

And and I think it's,

it's important to
understand that it was a

very diverse and
significant ten to of

people who voted against Trump.

But I think I do want

to emphasize something that
I said briefly before,

which is, you know,

I know there's a lot of
critique of the endless.

Gazing at Trump voters to

understand what
constitutes a Trump voter.

But I think that there is a,

something going on
that's been going on.

I think in black and brown
community use it for,

for decades that now we're
seeing in more on the right,

which is a real feeling of
disenfranchisement from

government alienation in our
government institutions.

And we see that all
over the place.

And I think that as I
personally and this is

something that I think about as

a professor of public policy.

How do I train my students
to operate in that world?

And what are the kinds of
challenges that emerge?

How do we, you know,

so many of these
people I think on

both sides of on the margins
have been on the margins.

They, I think many of
the people on the,

on the right saw in Trump
an opportunity to be heard.

He sounded like he
heard that, right?

Whether or not they actually

did is a separate question to me,

but he sounded like
he heard that is

why they voted for him.

And so I think that the
that we can talk about

misinformation and
conspiracy theories

and how they were wrong.

You know, sort of the racism,

which I certainly am
deeply concerned about.

But I think we'd have
to think about what,

how do we have to think
differently about government?

What kinds of perspectives
and knowledge is not,

is not a part of the
system that needs to be.

Are we relying too much on
too narrow and establishment?

In terms of expertise and

what kinds of new mechanisms can

we include to ensure that

communities and publics
are part more centrally?

I'm part of decision-making.

Can we make it more flexible?

So those are the kinds of
things that for me this

was a signal that even when,

for many of us it was

a shocking turn of events
that you continue to

get so many votes even after
everything that he's done.

That seems so traumatizing.

It's because people felt heard.

And, and I think

that that should cause
us to really rethink

our centrality of our expertise

has just been Can
I turn it to you?

Yeah, I got lost. What
the question was mine.

The question is about how you
interpret the election and,

and a thing that you
see if you look at,

look at both where and and

the overall levels and what
they mean going forward.

Show, sorry. Look, one
answer is that Biden won

the popular vote easily and

clearly has the confidence
of the country as a whole.

And its only an accident

of the Electoral College that
they save and looks close.

And even when you look there,

it doesn't look that clause.

I think one of the more
interesting things is you

can go a step deeper
way to Trump come from.

And what are the deeper
institutions that

lead to not Trump is him.

That's what Zubaida spoke
about. That actually.

How is it that someone so outside

the mainstream could have
captured the presidency?

And a big part of that is, are

literally our first-past-the-post
electoral system.

And so one of the interesting
things that came up was

Alaska just pass to move
to rank, choice voting.

Joining mine. That in fact,

I think is the original sin,

which is in 2016 you had
crews versus k is h versus

Trump and Trump cruise
vote as both hated Trump.

And there are a majority
of the Republican Party.

So a majority of the Republican
Party did not want Trump.

But we had a first-past-the-post
system which

effectively lead Cruzan case

each to crowd each other out,

allowing a minor player
to take the nomination.

And so I do think it's

a great time to be
thinking deeper

about our electoral institutions.

Rank, choice, voting always
made a ton of sense to me.

It eliminates, you can
never have deep theorems.

You can never eliminate
all the strategy,

strategic voting stuff.

But there'll be less of it
under ranked choice voting.

Let me sit, throw a
few others at that.

Lots of people are
pretty unhappy about

the electoral college and trying

to explain to my daughter,

Hey, you can win an election by

5 million votes and only
barely sneak across the line.

You know, the good thing
about kids is have

a pretty innate
sense of fairness.

And it's pretty undemocratic.

And I explained her that
had something to do

with some people 200 years ago.

And she was wondering what
the hell that should,

why that should dictate

her life and the
value of her vote.

So as it currently stands in
most presidential elections,

most Americans don't matter.

That's absurd. Let me

give you my favorite.
I come from Australia.

We have compulsory voting.

Americans have Never flinch
about having a draft.

It's okay to tell
people I have to

go MSAs and shoot other people,

but God help me if
you make me go to

the ballot box once
every four years.

That isn't a front afraid,

that's absurd. It's a civic duty.

In Australia. We
have elections on

the weekend to get out of

work even better than

a barbecue there so you can get

a good sausage
while you're there.

It's, it's fantastic. You know,

things are pretty simple.

And we I think every,

every 16 class at

age 15 would agree that
they were a good idea.

And the question is, how do
we move from that to actually

reforming institutions to make

them somewhat more democratic.

So let's move there.

How do we move to institutions
that are more democratic?

And I mean, I've,

I've always sorted the,

the one surefire way

to get rid of the
Electoral College at

the Democrat actually won by

the electoral college and
lost the popular vote.

But I don't see that happening
anytime soon though.

The Constitution,

it's pretty tough on
this question, Right?

But perhaps we're going to see

more states do ranked
choice voting.

I mean, that's what the
United States run a lot of.

So getting rid of the
electoral college is hard.

But the electoral systems within

states or up to the states.

And explaining ranked
choice to a population.

It's not used to thinking about

electoral specifics is hard work,

but alaska shout it can be done.

So there is

a moderately serious
grassroots movement there.

And, you know. Maybe we should
be optimistic about it.

You know, I think
institutionally There are

a few key things that
one could point to.

Media segmentation
is very tough to

challenge because it's
very difficult to,

to constrain free speech

and that in the way
that that might imply

gerrymandering and

having independent
redistricting commissions

is difficult but not impossible.

I mean, some states
have made headway in

that direction and look
at the election results.

Trump lost by 5
million votes or more.

But, but Republicans in,

in other races did quite well.

They did better than people
expected in the House.

A controlled state legislature's,

they want a number of
gubernatorial races and so on.

And so this was not

a repudiation of the
party and bend and,

and we still are going to

look in the next
election and the one

after that at cases where
the elections for those,

for those down ticket races

are decided at the primary stage.

They're not really
decide in general.

And, and that's, that's,

I think a very important area for

institutional reform,
campaign finance.

It, I know it's not likely that

Citizens United would be
overturned by the Supreme Court.

But there has to be headway on,

on campaign finance
reform so that there's

a more democratic economic
access to to politics.

And those, those,
those in my view,

would be to two very
important areas

for, for systemic reform.

I think I would just, I would
just add, first of all,

I totally agree with John's
point about gerrymandering.

And I, I think that
there's a lot of movement,

including in Michigan in

that direction, which
I think is great.

But I think it's also
important to remember that

this was actually the
largest turnout election.

Historic turn out in part because

of absentee voting and
male and balloting.

And hopefully that will
only continue that

way the day of the week

that we have the electron
doesn't matter as much.

And hopefully we'll have
a leader who isn't.

Now convincing people
not to use that method.

And that will continue

to increase the number
of voters out there.

Although I'm quite enamored with

Justin barbecue at
the polls idea.

I think it was pizza at
the poles this year.

Lab formula run-on. Hey, Jeff,

and I've been wondering
about the poles.

So, you know, I think there's

been a question about
what are the poles,

Missy, and did they
actually do alright,

in the end or what do you
see for the future of

that whole industry
that y'all are

to follow day in and day

out in the run-up to an election?

Yes. So one of the funny
things is we wrote

the first draft of history if

the election on election night.

But it turns out we count most of

the votes in the week after.

And on election night it looked

like a remarkably close rice.

The pulse instead it
wouldn't be close.

So then we immediately started

writing Y with a pulse
I dramatically wrong.

And then you start counting
New York and California.

And of course, Biden
wins by 5million.

Not as much as the poll said.

This clearly appalling era,

but it was not a
drastic Pauling Eric,

but certainly not
historically unprecedented.

Look, one of the things
I've talked a lot about,

but I think my camera
and just died.

We can hear you. And you're
doing a radio segment now.

Well, the good news, I think
I have a backup camera look.

I always keep a backup.

John, didn't you have a backup?

I was just about to
say that you've made

me feel better for
all major failures

when he came back with
a much lower wage rate.

One of the things I actually
suggested in some of

my past research
is that we look at

alternative ways of
protecting elections.

One of them is
prediction markets.

This is where you bet
on the likely outcome.

The argument that I made as

an economist is that
would yield a more,

a more statistically accurate
result. Turns out it did.

I think, got 47 out
of 50 states, right?

And the prediction
markets got 49 out of 50.

Depends exactly how you count.

Another site.

It wasn't an
unmitigated disaster.

But I will say

public polling as we understand

it and as we teach
it is in trouble.

The idea of causation or you

find a random sample
of the population.

The problem is that in reality,

for many of these
Paul's, as few as

3% of people are
answering the phones.

I know how to teach a statistics

and how you can talk
about reweighting.

But if that 3% is in any way

crazy or weird compared
to the other 97.

There's no statistical wizardry

that can get you out of that.

And that I think that's a
big part of the problem.

And the future for

polling is going to be what
we call convenience samples.

Rather than
representative samples,

we literally cannot find

a representative cross-section
of Americans anymore.

And the question is, how
do you look at mice,

what you an idea
much more valuable?

How to use statistics to take

the data we have which
is not the daddy

along and try to get
some sort of insight.

So we didn't have a
catastrophic failure this year.

We had a big failure.

Same as 2016.

But I think big failures
might well be the gnome.

Alright everyone, we have
about five minutes left.

I wanted to ask you
about the transition.

So it seems like we are having

a transition from one to
the next administration,

like we've never
had or, you know,

just not a sharing
of information.

And I wonder if you could talk

about how that impacts planning

for a new set of

strategies and all the
things that we want to

do to confront Coben.

Yeah. I mean, I think
the first thing which

is obvious but
needs to be said is

that at the same time as this
transition from now until

January 20th or 21st
is also the greatest,

We're at the greatest
risk for getting covered.

And the vast, vast
majority of us are

not going to have a vaccine
by January 20 verse.

So that is part

of what makes this
incredibly difficult time.

And it means that, you know,

that it's going to continue

to be a problem in the early
spring where we continue.

Most of us will not
have a vaccine.

It will be raging
around the country.

And the Biden presidency,

we'll have to catch up.

And on a really mundane basis,

what this means is that
right now anyway, you know,

it means that lower
level staffers

in Health and Human Services
and the Centers for

Disease Control and other
places can't communicate

with with their counterparts
in the transition team.

And so, you know,

what are the vaccine
distribution plans, for example,

that's information
that they have at HHS,

that they have in the
Department of Defense,

that they have an
operation warp speed,

but that by the Biden
transition team

doesn't have access to.

And so. Trying to plan out

what the vaccine distribution
plan should look like.

What is the role that

the federal government needs to

play relative to the states?

Which is a key
question obviously.

That is, that kind of planning

can only happen
slightly in the dark.

One of the bitter
sweet dimensions

of this is that people,

whistleblowers like Rick Bright,

who was part of the
operation work speed

and and resigned a
few weeks ago and now

advising the Biden
transition team and

that's happened in
a lot of places.

So that's the way that,

that they're getting some
of the key information.

But in terms of a hand off,

I think the metaphor that I heard

recently that I think is

useful is that it's

a relay race that if
someone has stop,

has to stop in the
middle and weight that,

you know, to get the baton.

And that obviously
causes problem when

you have a pandemic
that is not stopped,

that's actually
accelerating, and that's it.

So all of the issues that

I described with it with regards

to the vaccine is
also going to be

true when it comes
to the test trace,

an isolation program
that we need to rely on

for at least the next six
to eight months down.

If I can rely on you
to speak for a minute,

I'd love to hear your thoughts
on the transition and

foreign policy. I'll
say two things.

One is, there's a
lot of information,

especially intelligence
that needs to be passed.

The current administration and
the new administration and

the signals we're hearing
out of Washington

are not very positive
on the score.

I hope the people who are
currently in office will have

the responsibility
and concern for

our country's security and
pass that on faithfully.

And secondly, there are still

a number of things that
this administration can

do to make situation more

difficult for the Biden
administration when they enter,

whether it's in the
Persian Gulf War,

in a variety of other,
other theaters.

And again, I think
this is a, it's a,

it's a crucial for people to,

to put the national interest

first and not a
partisan interest.

Things, things going smoothly
would go a long way toward

helping the new administration

advanced variant American
values and interests abroad.

So beta, done, Dustin,

thanks so much for spending
an hour and a half with me.

I've really loved that

and I've learned so
much and I just really,

I'm just really grateful
to be or colleague.

And I'm really grateful
to everyone who tuned

then thanks for spending
your time with us.

I know there's a
lot on screen and

so it's great that you let in.

And if you know any folks

who are thinking about
master's degrees, of course,

the fourth goal is

got in our recruitment
fees or MPP class.

And so I hope you'll consider,

if you like, what you
saw, send them our way.

So thank you so much.

And I'm going to turn it over to

a video that's going to
play a Nicole Taylor,

who's the president of the U
of M Club of Washington DC.

Hi everyone. My name is
Michael Taylor and I'm

the President of the
University of Michigan

Alumni Club in Washington DC.

I hope you enjoy our post-election
recap event tonight.

I would like to take a minute to

thank the Ford School for

their partnership on
this event in D bar,

their speakers for
the great insight

they have provided tonight.

I'd also like to take a minute to

thank our volunteers
who have worked on

this event and all of our
other recent virtual events.

If you'd like more information
on our upcoming events,

I encourage you to
check out our website,

UNODC dashboard, or any of

our social media channels
to get more information.

If you'd like to help plan
events like this line

or you want to get
involved in our

club in any other ways,

please feel free to email me
at president at UNODC.org.

Thank you all for attending
this events may and we

hope to see you at
another UNODC event.