민주주의의 위기: 포용 사회를 위한 차이 탐색

### 민주주의 강화: 포용적 참여와 개혁을 위한 요청
* 🌐 오늘날 양극화된 세상에서는 민주주의가 만장일치의 합의가 있을 때만 작동한다는 일반적인 오해가 있습니다. 그러나 민주주의는 실제로 **다양한 관점을 공존**하고 더 큰 선을 위해 관리할 수 있는 능력에 의해 번성합니다.
* 🌍 포용적 민주주의는 이념적 다양성뿐만 아니라 **활기찬 다민족, 다인종, 다종교 사회**를 지원하는 시스템, 규범, 문화를 구축하는 것을 필요로 합니다.
* 🌱 두 연사는 서로 다른 삶의 경험에도 불구하고 현재 민주주의가 위기에 직면해 있지만, **공동의 노력이 민주주의의 다원적 특성을 수호할 뿐만 아니라 강화**할 수 있다는 희망을 갖고 있다는 공통된 믿음을 가지고 있습니다.
* 📉 지난 20년 동안 민주주의가 **경제 성장, 포용성 증진, 상향 이동성 촉진 등 본래의 기능**을 제대로 수행하지 못하고 있다는 인식이 확산되고 있습니다.
* 🇨🇳 일부에서는 **중국의 효율적인 권위주의 모델**이 특히 현 체제의 성과에 불만을 가진 사람들에게 민주주의에 대한 강력한 대안을 제시한다고 주장합니다.
* 📰 공적 담론을 형성하는 핵심 주체로서 미디어는 **다양성을 포용하고 당파적 옹호를 지양**함으로써 신뢰를 회복하고 민주주의를 지키는 파수꾼으로서의 역할을 다해야 합니다.
* 👥 시민 개개인은 다양한 관점을 적극적으로 찾고, 존중하는 토론에 참여하고, 이해와 화합을 촉진하는 수단으로서 **경청의 기술**을 연마함으로써 민주주의를 강화하는 데 중요한 역할을 합니다.

민주주의의 위기는 경제적 성과에 대한 환멸에서 비롯된 것으로, 전 세계적으로 권위주의가 부상하면서 포용적인 대화와 적극적인 시민 참여가 필요해졌습니다.

it's my absolute pleasure to be here with Brett. As we all know, we are living in a highly polarized time where even the topic of democracy has become a highly divisive issue. I also believe that there's this pernicious sentiment both in the US and globally that democracy is only functional when we agree. In fact, what democracy requires us is to continually live with our differences and manage those differences for the collective good. We won't always have consensus, but we will always need to productively manage our differences. I also believe that in an inclusive democracy, we need systems and norms and a culture that supports vibrant multiethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious society, as well as ideological diversity among many things. This requires us to be adept at having difficult conversations and also to listen when we disagree. So Brett and I come to the stage with very different life experiences, but we also have a lot in common. We both have lived in different cultures, we're multilingual, and more salient

for this conversation, we both believe that we have a crisis of democracy. But we're also hopeful. We believe that we collectively, uh, not only can defend democracy but also straighten it to become more pluralistic. So, Brett, I'm excited to be in this conversation with you and would love to start with a more personal question. I know both of us draw inspiration from our life experiences, and I know you're passionate about democracy. But where does that come from? What in your background makes you passionate about democracy, and why are you worried? I think a lot has to do with my background. Um, in 1917, my great-grandparents were living in Moscow, and there was a brief experiment with democracy between March and October of that year. It ended badly. My great-grandfather was arrested, and he disappeared, and it sent my great-grandmother and her four children into exile. They ended up in Germany up until 1933 when the rise of Adolf Hitler sent them into exile again. They were a Jewish family. They went to Italy um.

where my mother was born. My mother was born and spent the first 5 years as a hidden child in Nazi-occupied Europe. And then her next five years as a stateless person, a person without a past. And it was only because Harry Truman pushed through the Displaced Persons Act in the late 1940s that my mother was able to arrive here with $7 as a refugee. So, the idea of the open Society is not an abstraction for my family. And I think for so many of us who have immigrant roots, we feel that very strongly. That this idea of an open Society is actually a rare and a precious one. And it's one that we really have to invest in defending. Because if it goes, there's not a place for People Like Us, people from Minority backgrounds, people who have been traditionally persecuted. I also spent my early years in Mexico City when it was essentially an authoritarian Society. So, I get in my bones the difference between

what an open Society is, what a closed Society is, and how easy it is for the former to slip into becoming the latter. And I think that's what we're seeing all over the world, right? So, the Renown and tank International idea released a report recently, saying that democracy is continuing to deteriorate in every part of the world. What do you think is driving that problem? Like, how are you making sense of this moment? I came of age with the end of the Cold War. I turned 18 just before the Soviet Union collapsed, and I remember that incredible optimism that people felt in the 1990s, that democracy was the future, that we had reached the end of History. Turns out it was a terrible way of thinking about the world, not least because it made us complacent about what it means to sustain a democracy. Democracy isn't just a kind of a mechanical system that kind of works miraculously by itself without people investing energy, ideas, and a willing to reform and adapt to make it thrive.

the last, I think, 20 years, there's a sense that democracy isn't performing a series of functions that it was intended to perform. In terms of uh economic growth, in terms of uh inclusion, in terms of upward uh mobility, people look at other systems and they say, well, that's more efficient, that gets things done. And it is absolutely the case that if you look at many of the so-called Advanced uh democracies, they have not been providing, uh, as they had promised, uh, to provide economic growth. Stagnant, particularly in much of of Europe, a sense that people are dividing increasingly into uh classes and that elites have become self-dealing, that we perpetuate a system that is for the benefit. I'm speaking as an elite now, for the benefit of our kids, at the expense of other people's kids. And I think that has, that explains the moment of populist, uh, populism and a kind of authoritarianism that has crept into so much of our discourse here in the United States and and throughout the world.

people are starting to say well maybe that's that's a model. We we would do well to remember that democracy has previously fallen into these crises. But at our best, we have been able to reform. Whether it was the reforms of the 1930s, of the New Deal, going back to the Progressive Era, of people like uh Teddy Roosevelt emerging from from the Gilded Age. This is a pattern in in in history. But it doesn't mean that we're faded to overcome the challenges we have now. If we don't put our shoulders to the proverbial wheel, we are going to end up moving towards a Hungarian-style system or perhaps even worse. I want to double click on your point around uh disillusionment coming from democracy not delivering on it its economic promises, right. And and some people would argue that perhaps there's another compelling alternative that is offered by China, right. And so how would you respond to that uh what what would you say to people who say that actually democracy has not been working for me so I I I

think this is one of the great debates that's going to define the 21st century. Does the Chinese model, at least at its best of efficient authoritarianism, is that a superior model for providing more goods to more people, more satisfaction than our democratic system of compromises and bureaucracy and things taking a long time. And I've consistently made the argument that as problematic as democracy often is, it is a vastly preferable solution to the Chinese solution. And for a couple of reasons. The first is that authoritarian systems like China are very good at advertising their strengths and hiding their weaknesses. Democracy almost by its nature is constantly advertising its weakness but it's hiding its strengths even to itself, so that we're sort of constantly surprised when we somehow emerge stronger than some of our adversaries. If you look back to the 1970s, was a period of real disillusionment and doubt about the future of democracy, but it was in the 1970s that some guy named Steve Jobs was

kind of tinkering in, you know, in a garage somewhere or Bill Gates, all these people who have really defined the decades to come, were in obscurity. We just didn't, we just didn't know about this. So when China advertises its strengths, when it looks strong on the one hand, it appears to be fearsome. On the other hand, there are fewer mechanisms in China that are self-correcting mechanisms. If the leader in China, uh, X, says we're going to invest a trillion dollars in a Belt and Road initiative, no one disputes that, no one asks questions about it. Turns out it was a trillion dollar, uh, bad, bad investment for China in the end. The one advantage democracies have is that we, we bend and we adapt, but authoritarian systems are brittle, they're like glass. So when they begin to break, they can very quickly shatter, and I think that's one of the lessons that I draw from the 1980s, early 1980s. The Soviet Union looked strong, and it was on the ground with, by, by the end.

of the decade again, because it is hiding its weaknesses, advertising its strengths. We're on the other side, we may surprise ourselves by how resilient and adaptable we might be. I love that, and I think you also spoke to the messaging problem that we have on the pro-democracy front. And obviously, the media plays a huge role in that. And you're a journalist, and we know that from all of the latest trust metrics that the media is one of the least trusted institutions next to governments globally. And so, in this moment when we're having a crisis in our information ecosystem, how do you think the media needs to evolve first and foremost to gain trust or regain trust, and then secondly to protect democracy and be a champion for democracy in the ways that you're talking about? Look, I think the best way the media can protect democracy is if it should stay in its Lane, which is to say you want your liver to perform the functions of a liver, not the functions of a heart. Everything has

has its place so that when too much of the media goes into the mold of uh effectively social advocacy, it is eroding uh trust, particularly among people who don't necessarily agree with that a given type of of social advocacy. You know, back in the 1960s, there we had a flawed system, but when Walter Cronkite would say, And that's the way it was this day, I don't know, March 15th, 1966, America went... um, and there was a sense of authority. I think one of the ways in which the media has hurt itself is that it has, we have allowed it, we, I'm part of it, we have allowed that sense of authority to uh to dissolve. Now, part of it has to do with new technologies, social media, the diversification of the media ecosystem, cable news. You can talk about lots of exogenous reasons why trust in the media has has uh eroded, but I kind of tend to think of of, you know, physician heal thyself, those of us who are in the mainstream media really need

to reflect in a deep way as to why so many segments of American society have stopped trusting us. And part of the answer, I think, is that we have given them reasons, uh, not to trust us. It's incredibly important that the media include a much greater amount of diversity within its ranks. And I don't just mean diversity of race and ethnicity; those things are obviously important. I also mean diversity of class, of geographic location. If you don't have reporters who kind of grew up in wherever, Branson, Missouri, or, or, or what here in New York we call flyover country, you're missing a big part of the story. You may have missed how it is that this guy with no hope of becoming president in 2016 became president in 2016. So we have to be listening to those voices, particularly the ones that we disdain, dislike, don't think are worthy of inclusion. The media cannot be an echo chamber. If that's what we end up becoming, we will deserve ourselves, we will deserve democracy, we'll deserve.

even our own business model because at the end of the day if people don't trust us, they're not going to turn to us. I really appreciate that. So, we talked about what you think needs to be done in media. There are a lot of people who wake up and who don't think about these issues, right? What do Ordinary People need to do in this moment to contribute to a healthier, more inclusive democracy? What are you seeing? Solutions, exciting Solutions in your community or from, you know, your work across the world. Like, what are some suggestions do you have for what we could do as individuals? Look, it begins with us, it begins with each of you, and I tend to be wary of, like, coming up with a grand scheme. Start your day by reading someone you know you're going to disagree with. The worst that can happen is it will sharpen your own argument, right? You will at least know what your ideological opponent, or maybe even your enemy, as you perceive that person to be, is thinking. It doesn't hurt you, your.

media diet should not be a Mourning massage where you have your personal genius affirmed because you're taking in the views of someone who thinks as you do but just says it a little bit better. And I try to do this. I people know that I'm a center right uh columnist. Look, I work at the New York Times. I just open up my own paper and I'm starting to read people I don't agree with. It's good for me. It's good for me. It sharpens my arguments when I read my friend Nick Kristoff in the morning or when I have a conversation with my buddy Gil Collins. It's forcing me to think. It's like jumping into cold water. Not always iMed completely pleasant but bracing and invigorating. And we have to find all kinds of mechanisms in our lives in which we make the art of disagreement come alive. Um, debate is something that I I really believe in also as a great exercise for for kids but at every level of of discussion figuring out how we once again find ways

to disagree agreeably, to find light rather than Fric just friction, and heat from those uh moments of disagreement, to understand what the other person is saying, or even trying to say, because a lot of times you will encounter an opposing point of view, and that person isn't necessarily expressing him or herself well. So, the art of disagreement is also the art of listening MH um, and I, this is ironic for me to say cuz here I'm doing all the talking, right, but that art of listening is every bit as vital to the to the health of democracy um, in fact, more so than than than all the talking. So, listen attentively, think before you speak, enjoy difference, and democracy will become stronger. Well, that's a powerful way to end this conversation. Thank you so much, Brett. Thank you.

Democracy Requires Disagreement. Here’s How To Do It Better | Bret Stephens and Yordanos Eyoel | TED

The TED Talks channel features the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more. You're welcome to link to or embed these videos, forward them to others and share these ideas with people you know.

TED's videos may be used for non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons License, Attribution–Non Commercial–No Derivatives (or the CC BY – NC – ND 4.0 International) and in accordance with our TED Talks Usage Policy: https://www.ted.com/about/our-organization/our-policies-terms/ted-talks-usage-policy. For more information on using TED for commercial purposes (e.g. employee learning, in a film or online course), please submit a Media Request at https://media-requests.ted.com

분열된 세상에서 민주주의의 중요성

민주주의는 양극화와 합의의 부재로 인해 공동의 선을 위해 차이를 관리해야 하는 상황에 직면해 있습니다.

포용적인 민주주의는 다양성을 지지하고 어려운 대화에 참여하고 반대 의견을 경청할 수 있는 능력을 갖춰야 합니다.

민주주의에 대한 열정은 망명과 박해의 가족사를 포함한 개인적인 경험에서 비롯되며, 열린 사회를 수호하고 소수자와 박해받는 집단을 위한 장소를 제공하는 것의 중요성을 강조합니다.

민주주의가 경제 성장과 사회적 이동성을 제공하는 능력에 환멸을 느끼면서 전 세계적으로 민주주의가 쇠퇴하고 포퓰리즘과 권위주의가 부상하고 있습니다.

민주주의 국가들이 약속을 이행하지 못하면서 체제에 대한 신뢰를 잃은 일부 사람들은 중국이 제시한 권위주의 모델을 잠재적 대안으로 삼고 있습니다.

역사는 민주주의가 위기에 직면한 적이 있음을 보여 주지만, 현재의 도전을 극복하려면 권위주의로 빠지지 않기 위한 상당한 개혁과 노력이 필요합니다.

중국 모델과 민주주의 사이의 논쟁

효율적인 권위주의의 중국 모델은 재화와 만족을 제공한다는 점에서 민주주의와 비교되고 있습니다.

중국과 같은 권위주의 체제는 자신의 강점을 광고하는 데 능하지만 자정 메커니즘이 부족한 반면, 민주주의는 구부러지고 적응할 수 있는 장점이 있습니다.

민주주의를 수호하고 신뢰를 얻기 위한 미디어의 역할은 정도를 벗어나지 않고 제 기능을 수행하는 것입니다.

미디어가 사회적 옹호자로 변모하면서 특히 미디어의 견해에 동의하지 않는 사람들 사이에서 신뢰를 잃게 되었습니다.

인종, 민족, 계층, 지리적 대표성 등 미디어의 다양성 부족은 신뢰와 공신력 하락의 원인이 되었습니다.

신뢰를 회복하기 위해서는 미디어가 더 다양한 목소리와 관점을 담아야 하며, 개인은 동의하지 않는 정보라도 다양한 정보원을 접하기 위해 노력해야 합니다.

의견 불일치를 포용하는 것의 중요성

뉴욕타임스의 한 칼럼니스트는 자신의 견해에 도전하는 미디어 소비의 가치를 강조합니다.

그는 다양한 의견을 접하는 것이 정신을 날카롭게 하고 건강한 민주주의를 위해 필수적이라고 믿습니다.

의견 차이를 포용하고 반대 의견을 적극적으로 경청하는 것은 민주주의의 힘을 키우는 데 매우 중요합니다.