Speaker 1: Pushkin from Pushkin Industries. This is Deep Background, the show
Speaker 1: where we explored the stories behind the stories in the news.
Speaker 1: I'm Noah Feldman. John Lewis, the civil rights icon and congressman,
Speaker 1: died last week at the age of eighty. He is known,
Speaker 1: among many other things, for being one of the leaders
Speaker 1: of the Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March in nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty five. On March seventh of that year, a day
Speaker 1: now known as Bloody Sunday, Lewis and other marchers were
Speaker 1: attacked by armed police on the Edmund Pettis Bridge, an
Speaker 1: event that helped spur Lyndon Johnson into signing the Voting
Speaker 1: Rights Act. Lewis then went on to have a long
Speaker 1: and storied career in Congress, representing the fifth District of Orgia,
Speaker 1: which included a great deal of Atlanta for seventeen congressional terms,
Speaker 1: and always continuing to fight for voting rights and embodying
Speaker 1: the tradition and spirit of the civil rights movement. Here
Speaker 1: he is just a few years ago, speaking on the
Speaker 1: floor of the House of Representatives about expanding voting rights protections.
Speaker 1: In my hearts the heart, I believe that we should
Speaker 1: make it simple and convenient for all of our citizens
Speaker 1: to be part of the democratic process. It should not
Speaker 1: matter well you're black, a white, Latino, Asian, American, Native American.
Speaker 1: We should be able to participate in a democratic process.
Speaker 1: To discuss John Lewis's legacy and voting rights as they
Speaker 1: exist today, we are joined by Debo Adegbila. Debo twice
Speaker 1: defended the Voting Rights Act before the Supreme Court during
Speaker 1: his long career with the nuble ACP Legal Defense Fund. Today,
Speaker 1: he's a commissioner on the US Commission on Civil Rights,
Speaker 1: a position to which he was appointed by President Barack Obama,
Speaker 1: and he's a partner at the law firm Wilmer Hale Deboth.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining me. I want to
Speaker 1: begin with a reminder for listeners of just how central
Speaker 1: the career of Congressman John Lewis was to the development
Speaker 1: of civil rights, and especially voting rights in the United States.
Speaker 1: He was chairman of the Student Non Violent Coordinating Committee.
Speaker 1: He was one of the original thirteen Freedom Writers. He
Speaker 1: was one of the organizers of the March on Washington.
Speaker 1: When you think of his legacy, what elements stand out
Speaker 1: most for you in terms of his inspiration When I
Speaker 1: think of John Lewis, I think first of his exhortation
Speaker 1: to his fellow Americans that you have to be prepared
Speaker 1: to put yourself in the way to achieve justice. Is
Speaker 1: literally somebody who, from the time he was a teenager
Speaker 1: until his old days, was prepared to advance the cause
Speaker 1: of the disenfranchised by literally putting himself on the front
Speaker 1: lines of the public conversation, demonstrations, and issues of the day.
Speaker 1: He was fearless, a fearless advocate for justice, and he
Speaker 1: was motivated by an inner sense of moral courage that
Speaker 1: made him unbowed even in the face of risks to
Speaker 1: his life and well being. And that example of an
Speaker 1: unyielding commitment to the notion that America can be better
Speaker 1: tomorrow than it is today if we work at it
Speaker 1: is something that all of us should aspire to. There's
Speaker 1: something particularly extraordinary about the way that John Lewis, literally,
Speaker 1: as you were saying, put his body in the way
Speaker 1: of harm. And although he wasn't a murder like Martin
Speaker 1: Luther King Jr. He was very very badly injured on
Speaker 1: more than one occasion. That example, I think, is something
Speaker 1: the power of which will never ever become old. It's
Speaker 1: an example of moral courage that we should always return
Speaker 1: to that I believe future generations will return to. We
Speaker 1: know in so many ways we train people to be
Speaker 1: on the front lines. There are soldiers who are trained
Speaker 1: to be on the front lines. There is law enforcement
Speaker 1: that is trained to be on the front lines. These
Speaker 1: people we provide with weapons, and sometimes under the sanction
Speaker 1: of the flag or under state organized authority, have the
Speaker 1: right to defend themselves with deadly force and take people's lives.
Speaker 1: In contrast, the civil rights marchers and John Lewis, they
Speaker 1: had only the strength of their convictions and the understanding
Speaker 1: that they were on the right side of history, and
Speaker 1: they presented themselves without weapons, but only with the force
Speaker 1: of their commitment to justice, and they did so in
Speaker 1: the face of brutal forces on the other side. Lewis
Speaker 1: was a deeply believing and committed Christian and had a
Speaker 1: calling to be a minister already when he was a boy,
Speaker 1: and trained then as a minister. Talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about how that kind of religious faith and religious center
Speaker 1: was so important to the moral message that he brought
Speaker 1: eventually to the country. I'm so glad that you've asked
Speaker 1: that Noah, because I do think that the religious grounding
Speaker 1: that John Lewis had was part of the transcendence with
Speaker 1: which he approached his life on earth. That is to say,
Speaker 1: he organized his life around the concept that there were
Speaker 1: things that were more important and perhaps a more meaningful
Speaker 1: willing to sacrifice your life if need be, because there
Speaker 1: was some moral imperative that was greater than the individual being.
Speaker 1: And I think that this is something that derives from
Speaker 1: many religious traditions, the sense of humanity perhaps rising above
Speaker 1: the cause of the individual. And I think it was
Speaker 1: part of this commitment that led him to understand that
Speaker 1: his work on earth was dedicated to being that of
Speaker 1: a servant, but he was in service of something that
Speaker 1: was bigger than his own individual needs and commitments. He
Speaker 1: was in service of the common humanity and dignity of
Speaker 1: all human beings, and I think that was what made
Speaker 1: him willing to put himself in harm's way. I think
Speaker 1: a lot about our American civic religion. You know, we
Speaker 1: have formal separation of church and state in our country,
Speaker 1: and we have a First Amendment with a free exercise
Speaker 1: clause and establishment clause, but we also have collective beliefs
Speaker 1: and values about who we are that are in some
Speaker 1: important ways connected to our collective conception of the divine.
Speaker 1: Even if one is not a Christian, as I indeed
Speaker 1: him not, I think it's possible to still appreciate and
Speaker 1: recognize the Christian component in our collective civic religion, which
Speaker 1: tries to be universal in a certain respect, but is
Speaker 1: also in certain ways inflected by Christian tradition. And I
Speaker 1: think here especially of sacrifice and of the willingness to sacrifice.
Speaker 1: And this connects up to the point that you made
Speaker 1: about John Lewis being prepared to give his body. That's
Speaker 1: a deeply Christian idea, one that is then transmuted, I
Speaker 1: think in our civil rights tradition into the idea of
Speaker 1: people for the Constitution and for the values of the
Speaker 1: Constitution and of equality and of equal justice being able
Speaker 1: to sacrifice their bodies. I wonder if you think that
Speaker 1: that resonance matters the specifically Christian side of what then
Speaker 1: becomes a more universal American civic religion. I believe it
Speaker 1: does matter. It matters to a lot of people, and
Speaker 1: I think people may connect to the message or the
Speaker 1: symbolism in different ways, depending upon the extent to which
Speaker 1: they follow the Christian tradition or theology. But for those
Speaker 1: who are thinking about the Christian traditions and the fact
Speaker 1: that Christ bled and the Lord sacrificed his son on
Speaker 1: a cross so that others may go forward and learn
Speaker 1: from the example of sacrifice. And when you think about
Speaker 1: John Lewis and the others who bled on a bridge,
Speaker 1: laid their bodies down, and John Lewis used to say
Speaker 1: when he gave speeches recalling his work and his march
Speaker 1: with the other brave, nonviolent marchers on the Edmond Pettis Bridge,
Speaker 1: he used to say, I shed a little blood for
Speaker 1: the cause and for voting rights. I shed a little
Speaker 1: blood on that bridge. And so there is certainly a
Speaker 1: parallel in giving of the flesh and the body on
Speaker 1: earth in support of something that is higher and that
Speaker 1: has greater moral force and transcendence. And so I think
Speaker 1: that those who attend to Christian teachings can see a
Speaker 1: deep residence. But I like your point also about the
Speaker 1: American civic religion as I think you called it, or
Speaker 1: civic engagement, which means that whether you view the work
Speaker 1: and the effort through a theological lens or through a
Speaker 1: different democracy lens about we the people and what it
Speaker 1: means to be engaged in the construction of a civic religion,
Speaker 1: that is about the common aspiration of a people who
Speaker 1: recognize that we can be better if we work at it.
Speaker 1: And I think that that was also part of John
Speaker 1: Lewis's Snicks Southern Christian Leadership Conferences as the NAACP le
Speaker 1: ACP Legal Defense Fund that was also part of it.
Speaker 1: They took the words of building a more perfect union. Seriously,
Speaker 1: there was something that was aspirational in the founding vision,
Speaker 1: not that we come as a perfect nation, but that
Speaker 1: if we the people work at it, we can become
Speaker 1: a better nation. And perhaps that is the heart of
Speaker 1: the civic religion, if you will, of American democracy. Let's
Speaker 1: turn a little bit to the question of voting, which
Speaker 1: has been one of the central focuses of your career
Speaker 1: as a civil rights advocate, and which was of course
Speaker 1: so close to the center of Lewis's career and life.
Speaker 1: When you think about the Voting Rights Act of nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty five, what do you think its core promise was
Speaker 1: meant to be? I regard Voting Rights Act of nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty five, as a national commitment to a minority inclusion
Speaker 1: principle in our democracy. That is to say that for
Speaker 1: the full sweep of American history, many people in our society,
Speaker 1: African Americans, Latin X people, people in parts of the
Speaker 1: country were excluded from the most basic principle of a democracy,
Speaker 1: which is to participate in self governance. And that exclusion
Speaker 1: happened on account of race and discrimination that was state
Speaker 1: sponsored and enforced by state authorities at the barrel of
Speaker 1: a gun, and or mob violence. And what happened on
Speaker 1: the Edmund Pettus Bridge, and was followed closely by President
Speaker 1: Lyndon Johnson's speech before a joint session of Congress. It
Speaker 1: was a moment in which the gap between our promises
Speaker 1: of equal protection of the laws and the practices on
Speaker 1: the ground of exclusion and segregation was being intentionally narrowed
Speaker 1: in a way that would change the nation. I view
Speaker 1: the effort at civil rights as an effort to narrow
Speaker 1: the gap between our high civic promises and constitutional promises
Speaker 1: and what are too often low practices. John Lewis and
Speaker 1: his brothers and sisters who joined him on that bridge,
Speaker 1: and those who gave their lives before and after that march.
Speaker 1: Many people may not remember that the march itself was
Speaker 1: occasion because of military veteran Jimmy Lee Jackson was killed
Speaker 1: in an earlier voting march by a state trooper or
Speaker 1: police official in Alabama, and his colleagues were so upset
Speaker 1: that Imi Lee Jackson had been killed defending his grandmother
Speaker 1: and mother at a peaceful voting march that Josea Williams said,
Speaker 1: we should take Jimmy Lee Jackson's coffin and we should
Speaker 1: march it all the way to Montgomery, the point being
Speaker 1: that we should put the body of sacrifice of our
Speaker 1: brothers and sisters and lay it bare and expose it
Speaker 1: before the nation so that the world can see what
Speaker 1: we are prepared to give, what we are in fact
Speaker 1: giving in service of equality, and that to me is
Speaker 1: the heart of the Voting Rights Act. It was a
Speaker 1: national commitment that said we are going to use the
Speaker 1: power of the federal government and of state authority not
Speaker 1: only to subjugate, and not to turn a blind eye
Speaker 1: while state government subjugate, but to elevate the voices of
Speaker 1: democratic participation in the polity and to stand for a
Speaker 1: minority inclusion principle that we cannot turn back from. That's
Speaker 1: how I regard the voting rights. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: The minority inclusion principle that you're talking about ended up
Speaker 1: being embodied in different parts of the Voting Rights Act
Speaker 1: of nineteen sixty five, but one of the most important
Speaker 1: components was a practical process called preclearance, according to which
Speaker 1: if you're in a part of the country with a history,
Speaker 1: a demonstrated history of race based voting exclusion, before you
Speaker 1: can change the way that you district and assign voters
Speaker 1: to different districts, which of course is crucial to how
Speaker 1: voting outcomes are produced, you had to go to the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice and get the Department of Justice to
Speaker 1: review your plan, and then very probably you'd have to
Speaker 1: go to a court and get the court as well
Speaker 1: to have a look at that plan before you could
Speaker 1: make a chance. That practice, which remained in place from
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty five and was then renewed by Congress a
Speaker 1: couple of times, came under attack in a very important
Speaker 1: voting rights case, landmark case called Shelby County against Holder
Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court decided in twenty thirteen, and you
Speaker 1: were one of the people who argued that case before
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court while working for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund,
Speaker 1: tell us about what that experience was like, and then
Speaker 1: through that maybe tell us about how the case came
Speaker 1: out and what you feel about it. Absolutely, so, Shelby County,
Speaker 1: I believe is rightfully regarded as one of the most
Speaker 1: significant civil rights cases of this generation. Unfortunately, and I
Speaker 1: will begin at the end, it stands in some ways
Speaker 1: for the proposition not only that a particularly effective piece
Speaker 1: of the Voting Rights Act has been rendered inoperable, the
Speaker 1: preclearance provision of which you spoke, but also the case
Speaker 1: stands for the proposition that there was a signal that
Speaker 1: the country was again in retreat and stepping away from
Speaker 1: the minority inclusion principle that had been so central to
Speaker 1: our march toward justice and our march toward freedom. And
Speaker 1: so Shelby County presented those issues. Essentially, the question before
Speaker 1: the court, not the technical legal question, but the question
Speaker 1: that I think people should understand was before the Court
Speaker 1: is the fact that we have made progress in large
Speaker 1: measure because we have had protections in place, and because
Speaker 1: we turned away from a system of exclusion and discrimination
Speaker 1: to a system of minority inclusion. Is the fact of
Speaker 1: that progress evidence that we should abandon our effort to
Speaker 1: continue to perfect the union to make more progress? Right? Essentially,
Speaker 1: there were two roads that were diverging as the Court
Speaker 1: was presented with Shelby County. Should the improvement that we
Speaker 1: have seen from the time of nineteen sixty five until
Speaker 1: twenty thirteen. Should that leave us in the position that
Speaker 1: there's enough progress and when we can step away? Or
Speaker 1: must we continue to follow consistent with the judgment of Congress,
Speaker 1: including a unanimous United States Senate that voted ninety eight
Speaker 1: zero in support of the reauthorization of the preclarance provisions
Speaker 1: of the Voting Rights Act? Should we continue to do
Speaker 1: more to do better to perfect the Union? As I
Speaker 1: walked in the courtroom to argue the Shelby County case,
Speaker 1: it was the second time that I had defended these
Speaker 1: provisions of the Voting Rights Act before the United States
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. The Northwest Austin case presented a very similar question.
Speaker 1: It's my understanding that the first Supreme Court argument that
Speaker 1: John Lewis ever attended was the Northwest Austin case. He
Speaker 1: was there again on the day of the Shelby County argument,
Speaker 1: to witness the defense of the statute that he literally
Speaker 1: had given blood for, and that he knew people who
Speaker 1: had died for. He wanted to be present. He wanted
Speaker 1: to bear witness, to see our government at work, and
Speaker 1: to stand again on the front lines of the fight
Speaker 1: for equality, and to be in the courtroom. It was
Speaker 1: a weighty responsibility. I said of the earlier case that
Speaker 1: it was humbling, exhilarating, and terrifying all at once. All
Speaker 1: of those emotions are coursing through your body as you
Speaker 1: rise to the podium in some ways, to try and
Speaker 1: speak what many people regard as a self evident truth
Speaker 1: to power that discrimination continues in America, and that voting
Speaker 1: discrimination continues, and that the protections that Congress had committed
Speaker 1: to over a long period of time remained important and
Speaker 1: were doing vital work. That was the self evident truth.
Speaker 1: In some ways, you feel as if you and your
Speaker 1: presentation is trying to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Speaker 1: It is that self evident. And it was difficult to
Speaker 1: be there and to see the extent to which even
Speaker 1: during the oral argument, the Court was signaling that it
Speaker 1: was going to cast aside under our constitutional system, the
Speaker 1: judgment of the Congress, and I think we have seen
Speaker 1: on the backside what has happened in the wake of
Speaker 1: Shelby County. That is, those things that were self evident
Speaker 1: have proven to be true, and that many are taking
Speaker 1: the signal that the federal government is in retreat from
Speaker 1: minority voter protection and those who wish to win elections
Speaker 1: through nefarious means are trying to have their way. The
Speaker 1: day that the case came down, I remember very vividly
Speaker 1: sitting at my computer doing what I always do in
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court decides it's big cases, you know, they
Speaker 1: come down, I get them on the computer. I read
Speaker 1: them as fast as I humanly can. Then I sit
Speaker 1: down and I write something for my my column about it.
Speaker 1: And my opening line that day was the Civil Rights
Speaker 1: era ended. Today. I wonder, looking back at this in retrospect,
Speaker 1: if I overstated the case in your view. What I meant,
Speaker 1: of course, was that symbolically, the Voting Rights Act was
Speaker 1: at the very core of the civil rights movement, and
Speaker 1: because it had been renewed by Congress, Congress had maintained
Speaker 1: the momentum in some sense of the civil rights movement,
Speaker 1: even in the face of conservative opposition to it sometimes
Speaker 1: and that the Supreme Court, by this extreme activist decision,
Speaker 1: was blocking the progress of the civil rights movement. When
Speaker 1: you look back at it from a distance of now
Speaker 1: just a little more than seven years, and you think
Speaker 1: about the consequences of that decision, do you feel as
Speaker 1: though the civil rights movement was in some important ways
Speaker 1: stymied or blocked, or do you think that there have
Speaker 1: been creative ways for activists and others to try to
Speaker 1: continue to press for voting rights notwithstanding the great limit
Speaker 1: that the Court placed on this extraordinary tool, the Voting
Speaker 1: Rights Act. It's an important question, Noah, and I think
Speaker 1: for the answer, I am reminded of the work of
Speaker 1: Alexander Kasar. Alex Kasar wrote an important book about the
Speaker 1: history of the right to vote, and one of the
Speaker 1: central tenants of Professor Kaisar's book is that there is
Speaker 1: a dominant and somewhat ubiquitous understanding or theory out there
Speaker 1: that America and American democracy has been on a path
Speaker 1: of unidirectional progress. That is to say, that things always
Speaker 1: get better, we're always improving, and things are always moving forward.
Speaker 1: What case are, among other things, added to the conversation
Speaker 1: is that when you look at the story of voting
Speaker 1: in America, what you see is not a pattern of
Speaker 1: unidirectional progress, of a march that is ever forward. But
Speaker 1: what you see is a history of ebbs and flows,
Speaker 1: concerted efforts to push and expand the reach of the franchise,
Speaker 1: and then reactions against those pushes for greater democratic inclusion,
Speaker 1: and rearguard efforts that push back and try and limit
Speaker 1: the franchise. And so, because I had the understanding of
Speaker 1: the nature of the struggle for voting rights, perhaps for
Speaker 1: civil rights more broadly, that it's action and reaction, that
Speaker 1: it's not just a unidirectional march forward, I understood that
Speaker 1: Shelby County was a very disappointing and important mark on
Speaker 1: the course of civil rights and voting history, but would
Speaker 1: not be the final word, would not be the end
Speaker 1: of the nation's quest for civil rights, but was perhaps
Speaker 1: the end of a chapter that signaled that there were
Speaker 1: gathering clouds ahead, and that there were difficult days ahead,
Speaker 1: but that those of us who remain, like John Lewis,
Speaker 1: undaunted in the face of long odds, would continue to
Speaker 1: put our shoulder against the Boulder and push for greater
Speaker 1: inclusion and to try and move the country forward again.
Speaker 1: So I bring that understanding to the fight for civil rights,
Speaker 1: that sometimes it's faced with setbacks, and that what's important
Speaker 1: is to be unyielding in the face of those setbacks
Speaker 1: and to push and demand more. You yourself have had
Speaker 1: an extraordinary career fighting those setbacks and trying to be
Speaker 1: an advocate for and being an advocate for civil rights.
Speaker 1: I know you went to Connecticut College, where my brother
Speaker 1: teaches in the philosophy department, a college that is an
Speaker 1: amazing place. Then you went to ny U Law School,
Speaker 1: where I myself started my academic career, and then you
Speaker 1: worked for many years CPLDF and then had various responsibilities
Speaker 1: and positions in the Obama administration, and then working at
Speaker 1: the Senate as well, and now you're a Commissioner of
Speaker 1: the US Commission on Civil Rights. When you think about
Speaker 1: what you can do going forward, and you're still very
Speaker 1: young man, when you think about the next phase of
Speaker 1: your own life and connect that to the cause of
Speaker 1: civil rights, what strikes you as the biggest challenges and
Speaker 1: where would you like to be able to make contributions
Speaker 1: in the next phase of your own professional life. Thank
Speaker 1: you for that question. And I think about the fights
Speaker 1: for educational opportunity and the inequities that we see both
Speaker 1: in K through twelve education and in higher education, and
Speaker 1: how important education is as being a tool in some
Speaker 1: sort of civic transcendence. It is a pathway to opportunity.
Speaker 1: I think, of course, about the issues of criminal justice
Speaker 1: and the relationship between minority communities and law enforcement across
Speaker 1: the nation. I think about the path that the nation
Speaker 1: has walked of increasingly militaristic policing tactics, but the opportunity
Speaker 1: and the possibility that is there to revisit the relationship
Speaker 1: between law enforcement and minority communities and all communities. I
Speaker 1: remain committed to the idea that there is a way
Speaker 1: to align our democratic institutions where we are not fearing
Speaker 1: the differences that exist in our society, but are regarding
Speaker 1: them as a strength that we can commit to and
Speaker 1: lift up voices in service of the common idea that
Speaker 1: we share that we are stronger together than we are
Speaker 1: when we curry divisiveness in the people. And so I
Speaker 1: hope to try and use the remaining days that I
Speaker 1: have not feeling as much of a young man as
Speaker 1: I once was, but hopefully there are some more miles
Speaker 1: on the odometer to continue to work at these things
Speaker 1: in large and small ways. And the last thing that
Speaker 1: I would say on this point, because it's such an
Speaker 1: important question you've asked, is that John Lewis understood that
Speaker 1: he was able to be a catalyst for change. He
Speaker 1: was able to put himself on the front lines, but
Speaker 1: he was also able to recognize that there were generations
Speaker 1: of people that were coming behind him, and that their
Speaker 1: voices and contributions and ideas were no less valuable than
Speaker 1: what his contributions had been in his day. And so
Speaker 1: one of the ways that I have tried to carry
Speaker 1: forward the lessons of the civil rights movement is that
Speaker 1: piece of transcendence that when people are coming together for
Speaker 1: collective aims, you should not feel that any leader or
Speaker 1: any one person as all the right ideas or has
Speaker 1: the single path to improve things. You have to make
Speaker 1: space for those who come from different places and at
Speaker 1: different times to try and advance the ideal of perfecting
Speaker 1: the union. I want to thank you for reflecting on
Speaker 1: the legacy of John Lewis so thoughtfully, and also for
Speaker 1: picking up his torch and carrying it in your own career,
Speaker 1: and for helping guide us in that direction going forward.
Speaker 1: I'm really really grateful, not just for the conversation but
Speaker 1: the work that you've been doing. Thank you all the best,
Speaker 1: Take care. Talking to Dabo about the legacy of John
Speaker 1: Lewis is a powerful reminder that we all deserve to
Speaker 1: feel some pride in being citizens of a country that
Speaker 1: could produce an extraordinary person like John Lewis, but also
Speaker 1: that we bear responsibility as citizens to try to continue
Speaker 1: the fight that John Lewis had to pursue in order
Speaker 1: to try to achieve equal rights for all Americans. Our
Speaker 1: legacy is a complicated and mixed one. The history of
Speaker 1: racism is not merely in the past, but continues into
Speaker 1: the present. The struggle for civil rights is not over.
Speaker 1: People like Dabo are continuing to fight it, but that's
Speaker 1: not enough anymore than it was enough for John Lewis
Speaker 1: to do so. Dabo reminds us that we all have
Speaker 1: to continue in that challenge, and that ultimately, if we
Speaker 1: want to oversee and supervise all of the forces of
Speaker 1: our government, including the police, we need to do it
Speaker 1: via democracy. That means we need to speak, We need
Speaker 1: to think, we need to vote. Until the next time
Speaker 1: I speak to you, be careful, be safe, and be well.
Speaker 1: Deep Background is brought to you by Pushkin Industries. Our
Speaker 1: producer is Lydia Jane Cott, with mastering by Jason Gambrell
Speaker 1: and Martin Gonzalez. Our showrunner is Sophia mckibbon. Our theme
Speaker 1: music is composed by Luis GERA special thanks to the
Speaker 1: Pushkin Brass, Malcolm Gladwell, Jacob Weisberg, and Mia Lobel. I'm
Speaker 1: Noah Feldman. I also write a regular column for Bloomberg Opinion,
Speaker 1: which you can find at bloomberg dot com slash Feldman.
Speaker 1: To discover Bloomberg's original slate of podcasts, go to Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com slash Podcasts. And one last thing. I just
Speaker 1: wrote a book called The Arab Winter, a Tragedy. I
Speaker 1: would be delighted if you checked it out. If you
Speaker 1: liked what you heard today, please write a review or
Speaker 1: tell a friend. You can always let me know what
Speaker 1: you think on Twitter. My handle is Noah R. Feldman.
Speaker 1: This is Deep Background.