Speaker 1: Bushkin, I'm may have Higgins and this is Solvable Interviews
Speaker 1: with the world's most innovative thinkers who are working to
Speaker 1: solve the world's biggest problems. And this is one episode
Speaker 1: I have been dying to have a listen to. We
Speaker 1: visited Switzerland for this fabulously insightful exchange between Anne Applebaum
Speaker 1: and Flavia Kleiner. Flavia is a twenty eight year old
Speaker 1: history student at the forefront of fighting right wing populism.
Speaker 1: Here's a situation in Switzerland. For more than twenty years,
Speaker 1: the country has been something of a laboratory for right
Speaker 1: wing populism. The right wing Swiss People's Party has successfully
Speaker 1: used referenda as a marketing tool for creating anti immigrant,
Speaker 1: anti EU policies. They have become the largest political force
Speaker 1: in Switzerland. Meanwhile, according to a twenty seventeen study, the
Speaker 1: number of racist incidents in Switzerland has never been higher.
Speaker 1: Flavia Kleiner has a solvable. She co founded Operation Liberal
Speaker 1: to promote a patriotic liberal political platform to directly fight
Speaker 1: back against populism. My solvable is to build a political
Speaker 1: home for people who want to defend our liberal order
Speaker 1: against writing populists in Switzerland as well as in other countries.
Speaker 1: People who are patriots as I am, and people who
Speaker 1: are cheek enough to deal with the nasty writing populists.
Speaker 1: Populist parties have tripled their vote in Europe over the
Speaker 1: past twenty years. More than a quarter of Europeans voted
Speaker 1: populists in their most recent elections, and they're even in
Speaker 1: government in eleven countries. They've been recently re elected in
Speaker 1: Australia and in the world's largest democracy, India. Why does
Speaker 1: this matter Well, Populists tend to frame politics as a
Speaker 1: battle between the virtuous ordinary masses and a corrupt elite.
Speaker 1: They insist that the will of the people must always triumph.
Speaker 1: Of course, that can be just the framing. In reality,
Speaker 1: Often populous target poor people, foreigners, women, religious groups, anybody
Speaker 1: they have a problem with. Populace then use this us
Speaker 1: against them, framing to their advantage and cause real divisions
Speaker 1: that make it harder to unify for global goals, from
Speaker 1: fighting poverty, famine and disease to banding together to face
Speaker 1: climate chaos. In American history, populous movements have regularly sprung
Speaker 1: up on both the left and the right, and they're
Speaker 1: thriving today. But back to Switzerland and our guest for
Speaker 1: this episode. It's thrilling to hear how Flavia took on
Speaker 1: the Swiss right wing machinery to take patriotism and Swiss
Speaker 1: pride those are usually used as a weapon against immigrants
Speaker 1: and argue us for a more progressive country. And she's
Speaker 1: winning too. Flavia's levity and optimism are not at all pollyannaish.
Speaker 1: She can back up her theories now in the number
Speaker 1: of victories under her belt. Flavia is making concrete changes.
Speaker 1: So listen out for her advice around social media and
Speaker 1: framing and language. Okay, so let's take a listen to
Speaker 1: Anne and Flavia and I'll see you on the other side. Flay,
Speaker 1: you a few years ago identified what you felt to
Speaker 1: be a very deep problem in your country. Can you
Speaker 1: describe what it is and how did you first recognize it?
Speaker 1: So actually goes back to well by Data Firth. Nearly
Speaker 1: it was a ninety two there was a vote on
Speaker 1: Switzerland joining or not joining European Commercial Area or economic
Speaker 1: European Economic Area. The EA and the Swiss refused that,
Speaker 1: and that was actually the starting point of incredible career
Speaker 1: of a party called the Swiss People's Party here, which
Speaker 1: is which happened to turn from a really conservative party
Speaker 1: into a rather writing populist party as well. And Christophe Blojo,
Speaker 1: he is the leader, the well known personality of this party.
Speaker 1: There's a saying that he has tailor made suits but
Speaker 1: which actually don't really fit on the shoulder, so he
Speaker 1: would pretend to be one of you know, the people,
Speaker 1: but actually he's a billionaire. He's super rich, one of
Speaker 1: the richest people in Switzerland. He runs this party and
Speaker 1: he finances this party mostly and so that was basically
Speaker 1: the start of this career of the party. So the
Speaker 1: problem you identified is the problem of Swiss populism. You
Speaker 1: identified a particular event and it was the referendum on
Speaker 1: mass migration. Can you explain what's the significance of randoms
Speaker 1: in Switzerland and why this one in particular affected you.
Speaker 1: The SPALPE came up with what we call a popular initiative,
Speaker 1: which is a direct democratic proposal to the Swiss people
Speaker 1: that we vote on and it means that you need
Speaker 1: to collect one hundred thousand signatures on a specific legal text,
Speaker 1: which then, if it is accepted, is being introduced into
Speaker 1: our constitution. So it's such just some law. You know,
Speaker 1: it's changing our constitution. So the writing populists as well
Speaker 1: as other parties misuse this tool today as a marketing
Speaker 1: tool for their issues. They come up with this just
Speaker 1: right before election so they can campaign on a specific issue.
Speaker 1: But the originally this right was given to minorities which
Speaker 1: would never be represented in Parliament, and through this initiative
Speaker 1: they could introduce law and come up with issues which
Speaker 1: matter to them. And so that particular event was in
Speaker 1: February twenty fourteen, but we voted on the so called
Speaker 1: mass immigration initiative. Already from the name, you can see
Speaker 1: that it comes up. It brings up a certain framing
Speaker 1: and the ESPAPE wanted to limit the number of people
Speaker 1: coming to Switzerland in the free movement of People agreement
Speaker 1: that we have with the European Union. Switzerland is not
Speaker 1: a member of the European Union, but we have bilateral
Speaker 1: treaties and the asphape is that there's just too many
Speaker 1: people coming to Switzerland every year. And they won, yeah,
Speaker 1: by a really close marching of fifty point three percent.
Speaker 1: It was only twenty thousand votes which made the difference.
Speaker 1: And so you said to yourself, how do we stop this,
Speaker 1: and then you went through a process of trying to think,
Speaker 1: how do we push back against this kind of language. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the thing was, we didn't actually recognize ourselves in the
Speaker 1: country that we grew up in because we saw Switzerland
Speaker 1: as a cosmopol international country, open and so on, and
Speaker 1: nobody really expected this to happen. It was like our
Speaker 1: Brexit moment. You know what, we said, Okay, that's not
Speaker 1: the country that we want to live in. We want
Speaker 1: to change this. We want to have a brighter future
Speaker 1: and a brighter vision for what twitterland it can be.
Speaker 1: But the populist argument had already infected all the other parties.
Speaker 1: In other words, everybody began saying and so it's on, Well, actually,
Speaker 1: maybe it's true, maybe there are too many people here,
Speaker 1: Maybe we need stronger borders, maybe we need greater sovereignty.
Speaker 1: So how do you how do you push back against
Speaker 1: that kind of you know, this change of social mood. Basically,
Speaker 1: what we saw is that we want to promote Switzerland
Speaker 1: regarding to the future. We said, Switzerland is the land
Speaker 1: of opportunity of the twenty first century. We're not a
Speaker 1: kind of open air museum where nothing should ever change
Speaker 1: and that's also the country we want to live in
Speaker 1: in two thousand and fifty. We're actually looking forward to
Speaker 1: the r two thousand and fifty. So you began reframing
Speaker 1: the conversation. But actually you said to me earlier you
Speaker 1: you thought first about creating a political party, and then
Speaker 1: you decided that wasn't the way to go, right. So
Speaker 1: for us, I mean, of course, we were super disappointed
Speaker 1: about all the other parties. We just overtook the narration
Speaker 1: of the SPA pay of there are too many people
Speaker 1: in our trains, there are too many people renting apartments here.
Speaker 1: First we thought, okay, we have to just make a
Speaker 1: new party, because we don't we cannot identify with any
Speaker 1: other we don't have a political home. But then we
Speaker 1: realized that in the Swiss political system it doesn't really
Speaker 1: make sense to create a new party. But instead we
Speaker 1: decided to create an overpartisan movement, which actually goes against
Speaker 1: this tendency of polarization. But we wanted to unite the
Speaker 1: progressive liberal minds in this country, and also we wanted
Speaker 1: to link us somehow back to the tradition of eighteen
Speaker 1: forty eight, which was the foundation of the liberal stat
Speaker 1: of Switzerland. And we introduced ourselves with our manifesto as
Speaker 1: the children of eighteen forty eight, so trying to link
Speaker 1: these liberal ideas back to the past. So they're party
Speaker 1: of Swiss history, and they don't seem like some kind
Speaker 1: of foreign import. No. Absolutely, and even more, it was
Speaker 1: a really patriotic but emancipated, patriotic understanding of where we
Speaker 1: come from. The founding fathers of our country were the
Speaker 1: Liberals in eighteen forty eight, and we totally identify with
Speaker 1: their mindset of what it means to be a modern Switzerland.
Speaker 1: But then, how did you actually change people's minds? How
Speaker 1: did you begin arguing this? I mean, you're a group
Speaker 1: of students at the university. You know what were actually
Speaker 1: the tools that you used? Now I jumped forward to
Speaker 1: October twenty fifteen, That was like one and a half
Speaker 1: year after the whole thing happened, and we launched our organization,
Speaker 1: our movement. We had elections in Switzerland in two fifteen,
Speaker 1: and that was a moment where again the SFLP, the
Speaker 1: writing puppetists, became the strongest party in Switzerland with twenty
Speaker 1: nine percent, okay, twenty nine percent of our parliament. And
Speaker 1: so again the other party said, oh, come on, which
Speaker 1: is we can't you know, we have nothing to help
Speaker 1: us against the Superstruc party. And then only one month
Speaker 1: after the government said okay, guys, in three months time,
Speaker 1: we're going to vote on the so called expulsion of
Speaker 1: criminal foreigners initiative. That was an initiative which wanted to
Speaker 1: expel criminal foreigners even for minor infrictions of law, for
Speaker 1: example driving two times too fast within ten years, which
Speaker 1: actually happens to everyone, you know. The other party said,
Speaker 1: oh no, come on, this is again about criminals and
Speaker 1: then foreigners, and it's driven by the Svapai is popular initiative.
Speaker 1: We have no chance. Rather we hide and let it
Speaker 1: just pass instead of you know, losing again energy and
Speaker 1: time and any way, we just lost the elections. That
Speaker 1: was a moment where we somehow came up and said, okay,
Speaker 1: we don't want to live in a country where there's
Speaker 1: a kind of too tire legal system. You have to
Speaker 1: know that in Switzerland, twenty five percent of the population
Speaker 1: don't have a Swiss passport. They might live here for generations.
Speaker 1: They don't have a genuine link to the country that
Speaker 1: they come from, but they would have been maybe victims
Speaker 1: of that new law introduced into our constitution. So that
Speaker 1: was a moment where we somehow stood up and said, Okay,
Speaker 1: we don't We're definitely not gonna make the gift to
Speaker 1: the writing populace and defend criminal foreigners because then you
Speaker 1: would anyway lose. So we realized that if we want
Speaker 1: to convince the conservative majority in Switzerland, we need to
Speaker 1: speak about something that matters to them as well, because
Speaker 1: it's so super easy what the writing populace wanted to do.
Speaker 1: They wanted to ask the people and take, guys, this
Speaker 1: is your chance to expel criminal foreigners from that country.
Speaker 1: Why don't you just say yes? And who's going to
Speaker 1: disagree with? All right? And so we said instead, guys,
Speaker 1: this is actually going against the fundamental principles of our constitution,
Speaker 1: against rule of law, against principle of proportionality, which is
Speaker 1: super important to judges, because actually this law wanted to
Speaker 1: limit and restrict the ability ability of judges to actually
Speaker 1: look at the individual case and instead introduce a kind
Speaker 1: of automatism to our legal system. I think that was
Speaker 1: crucial because we decided that we somehow want to conquer
Speaker 1: the sovereignty of interpretation from the Writing Populists over their
Speaker 1: initiative through this, and that was actually the biggest compliment
Speaker 1: that the party leader of the Writing Populists made me
Speaker 1: was when he said after the election, after the whole campaign,
Speaker 1: he said, I didn't know what happened, but at sometimes,
Speaker 1: at some point we only spoke about rule of law,
Speaker 1: and that was actually framing big success right that we had.
Speaker 1: So you reframed the idea. But then what were the
Speaker 1: tactics that you used. The most important tactics, I think
Speaker 1: is really to find a popular language to what I
Speaker 1: just described, which seems really abstract of course argument, we
Speaker 1: managed to translate it into a narrative, something tangible to people.
Speaker 1: And what we did is actually we spoke about Mother Helvetia.
Speaker 1: She's like gegorical figure which represents all these Swiss values
Speaker 1: you find you find there on our coins and so on,
Speaker 1: and this Swiss referred to her. She's the emancipated figure
Speaker 1: which represents the values of eighteen forty eight, so the
Speaker 1: liberal institutions, and we said she would be smashed by
Speaker 1: what we translated as a metaphor at this initiative, she
Speaker 1: will be smashed by a wrecking ball. This statue of
Speaker 1: modern healthbates that will be wrecked. And you did memes
Speaker 1: of that, yeah, exactly, and the video and so on afterwards.
Speaker 1: That's a special group or entity of volunteers we have.
Speaker 1: They're called online warriors. They basically are really active on
Speaker 1: social media and they're basically fighting back trolls and like
Speaker 1: fake news which are spread online. They actually go there
Speaker 1: and engage the trolls into a debate, and they do
Speaker 1: it under their personal private account as citizens online with
Speaker 1: their real names, right, they debate there and what we
Speaker 1: see actually and that's the fantastic effect of it, that
Speaker 1: we can actually change debates online and that we can
Speaker 1: effect also the level of you know, factfulness and so on.
Speaker 1: So that's a really that's a really important change that
Speaker 1: we can see. I really think you can be popular
Speaker 1: without being populistic, you know, and you can actually you
Speaker 1: need to find ways in this media society that we
Speaker 1: live in. You need to find ways to say things easier.
Speaker 1: To give you another example, if we can pain we
Speaker 1: don't need to go to the noyetichal Titung, which is
Speaker 1: like the liberal leading newspaper that any anyway people read
Speaker 1: too who are convinced already you know, but we need
Speaker 1: to go to the Tantic Minutant twenty minutes, which is
Speaker 1: a newspaper that people read every day a quarter of
Speaker 1: the Swiss population when they commute. If you get to
Speaker 1: this newspaper, which is really short, really easy, and so on,
Speaker 1: you need to be able to say your message in
Speaker 1: one picture and five words. That's all you get, one picture,
Speaker 1: five words. Can you give me an example the campaign
Speaker 1: that you won, because you've now won several campaigns, several
Speaker 1: referendum campaigns, right, so the one I was mentioning about
Speaker 1: the expulsion of criminal foreigners, that was really unexpected because
Speaker 1: we turned from sixty six percent in the first polls
Speaker 1: who were in favor of this initiative, we turn it
Speaker 1: into sixty percent refusing it. And that was a super
Speaker 1: important moment in Switzerland. I remember that they after the
Speaker 1: vote when I walked through Swiss streets and you could
Speaker 1: really feel how people felt relieved that that was for
Speaker 1: the first time that the seventy percent that don't vote
Speaker 1: the SALPA and that didn't vote the SPA four months
Speaker 1: before in the elections, that they realized that they're actually
Speaker 1: the big majority. Right that even though the writing puppeties
Speaker 1: managed to dominate the public discourse for years with their initiatives,
Speaker 1: with their propaganda, I must say, by setting the themes
Speaker 1: that all the other parties need to discuss about. Because
Speaker 1: they're just the richest party, and because they're the best
Speaker 1: organized party, we must and because they are the ones
Speaker 1: who know how to communicate in media society. All of
Speaker 1: a sudden, that was someone who could counter this, and
Speaker 1: we felt that we are the seventy percent. And that
Speaker 1: was such an important moment in Switzerland where we managed
Speaker 1: to break this sovereignty of interpretation over what Switzerland is
Speaker 1: and what Switzerland could be. Is there a longer term goal?
Speaker 1: Is that right now you're fighting referendum by referendum, but
Speaker 1: what happens next? So definitely that's only the first step.
Speaker 1: You know, that's important to know about Switzerland. When you
Speaker 1: win referend us, then you gain street credibility. You're the
Speaker 1: one who manages to convince the majority of the Swiss
Speaker 1: and so through this you gain a certain importance in
Speaker 1: the public discourse. But of course there we still didn't
Speaker 1: actually affect elections, because that's where laws are made in
Speaker 1: the parliament, that's where we see that we still need
Speaker 1: to improve our influence so that because by now we
Speaker 1: only always get in in the last possible moment, you know,
Speaker 1: to somehow prevent wits learn from accepting some initiative. But
Speaker 1: what we actually want is to go over from this
Speaker 1: reactive mode into a more active mode. It comes down
Speaker 1: to this one thing that I would say, how do
Speaker 1: we manage that people see the real need of institutions
Speaker 1: that guarantee their freedom. How do we make sure that
Speaker 1: hope is an emotion just as strong as fear, Because
Speaker 1: that's what I see is the biggest problem these days,
Speaker 1: that of course fear is a super powerful tool, but
Speaker 1: what we need and that's there was always a challenge
Speaker 1: to the roles. The future is unknown, So how can
Speaker 1: we promise a vision or like a future where people
Speaker 1: understand where they want to go to where they feel
Speaker 1: at home. Because that was always, you know, part of
Speaker 1: the emancipational process, that there was something tangible close by,
Speaker 1: something which seemed to be an improvement of the actual situation.
Speaker 1: And in a globalized world now where many values seem
Speaker 1: under pressure, I see that people aren't that sure whether
Speaker 1: the future will be brighter or will be more positive
Speaker 1: than it is today, and that's that's what I mean
Speaker 1: also by the mood or like the atmosphere that I
Speaker 1: want to touch her to change here in Switzerland, that
Speaker 1: people somehow are confident about the future bringing them a
Speaker 1: better life, that they're looking forward to the year twenty
Speaker 1: and fifty where they want to live with their families
Speaker 1: and good jobs in this country. How can this model
Speaker 1: help others? And you know, you've you've created a movement
Speaker 1: inside Switzerland. It's got it deals with a very specific
Speaker 1: form of Swiss politics, namely these referenda that you have periodically,
Speaker 1: and you've you've organized yourself around these referenda. But do
Speaker 1: you think there's a way that your way of thinking,
Speaker 1: in your way of operating could work in other places?
Speaker 1: I think. I mean, if I look back on how
Speaker 1: we started, and you know, we were total amateurs. We
Speaker 1: had no clue about what we were actually doing right,
Speaker 1: but there was this this passion, this will of we
Speaker 1: want to tackle the problem. And that's really a question
Speaker 1: of you know, what's your attitude? You know, And here
Speaker 1: I maybe I always say you need this kind of
Speaker 1: reality distortion field of I don't know if you're fans
Speaker 1: of Star Trek, but there's a la menagerie. I mean,
Speaker 1: imagine the SPA was the strongest party in our country.
Speaker 1: That's not as it is in other countries these days.
Speaker 1: Oftentimes they are still smaller, maybe even more writing populous parties. Okay,
Speaker 1: but in Switzerland take the dominant force for the twenty
Speaker 1: five years that I grew up in. You know, I
Speaker 1: have no I don't know any other system. I don't
Speaker 1: even find it brave, but we just had to imagine
Speaker 1: a different system. You need to believe in what you
Speaker 1: do and where you want to go. And this doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that you have to believe in your own propaganda.
Speaker 1: That's the worst you can do. But you need to
Speaker 1: be really convinced by where you want to go. And
Speaker 1: that brings me back to this vision that you need
Speaker 1: for your country, where you want to go to, and
Speaker 1: I think that's really what we're lacking of in many
Speaker 1: countries that politically just don't really provide a vision where
Speaker 1: people feel that they can feel at home there. So
Speaker 1: there's a there's a kind of template. You know, this
Speaker 1: is what you do? Could you could you name five
Speaker 1: things that people wanting to create a similar kind of
Speaker 1: movement should do. What I find interesting is to think
Speaker 1: about likely and unlikely allies. You know, who is out there,
Speaker 1: who do you know, who do you don't know? And
Speaker 1: with whom could you collaborate in this mission? You know,
Speaker 1: that's a maybe an interesting statigue including allies, for example,
Speaker 1: conservative allies. Yeah, exactly, because you know, you might be
Speaker 1: surprising to some people. But get out there, talk to people,
Speaker 1: get a common understanding about what really matters you, and
Speaker 1: that when I mean what really matters to you. I
Speaker 1: also want to stress the difference between civil society organizations
Speaker 1: and their possibility to actually stress what unites us, you know,
Speaker 1: not as much as part parties. Parties have to stress
Speaker 1: what divides us right for their political means, So society
Speaker 1: organization we can actually stress what unites us, what kind
Speaker 1: of values we want to strengthen in our society, and
Speaker 1: how we want to build a closer society in a
Speaker 1: way less polarized about the more like the tactical side
Speaker 1: of it. I would really, of course recommend to work
Speaker 1: with very modern tools but also more traditional tools. Really
Speaker 1: to go out there to together with people, to discuss
Speaker 1: with people, to get like a real human contact, you know,
Speaker 1: because that's what I at least is my experience. You
Speaker 1: can have the most evil troll who you know, who
Speaker 1: texts you on social media, but once you meet him,
Speaker 1: usually you find the common ground and you can humanly
Speaker 1: discuss about things. So meet people in real life. That's
Speaker 1: another piece of advice. Yeah, what about what kinds of
Speaker 1: tools do you use? What kinds of messaging? So of course,
Speaker 1: I mean you always go with the newest strengths. So
Speaker 1: if you if it is Instagram, it's Instagram. If it's Twitter,
Speaker 1: it's Twitter, and you can The most important is that
Speaker 1: you somehow managed to translate your complex message maybe or
Speaker 1: argument into an understandable message so people can actually take it.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying this because I think people are stupid.
Speaker 1: We have to do the work. We need to approach
Speaker 1: them and to explain it, you know. So that's to
Speaker 1: explain it in a in a fast and easy way,
Speaker 1: in the ways that people find most accessible. So yeah,
Speaker 1: and whatever it is, commuter tabloids, right, or Internet memes
Speaker 1: and maybe even a fun way. Right you mentioned the memes,
Speaker 1: the short videos something which is fun that people love
Speaker 1: to look. I mean people love to look cat videos
Speaker 1: so and they are only twenty seconds long, so we
Speaker 1: you know that's so you made cat videos. We already
Speaker 1: worked with cat videos. Yes, is there somebody who inspired you?
Speaker 1: The most firing figures were always resistant fighters, for example,
Speaker 1: who fought the fishist regimes in the twentieth century. That's
Speaker 1: why I do what I do. I don't want us
Speaker 1: to go that far, because we've seen what human beings
Speaker 1: can do to our society. To meet starts at a
Speaker 1: different point where we really need to figure out what
Speaker 1: are the basic elements of a society. And to me,
Speaker 1: this really is personal contact. This is neighborhood, this is family.
Speaker 1: Maybe this is just some close relationship to other individuals
Speaker 1: which are not only like minded. Maybe I think this
Speaker 1: is something that that has changed a lot, at least
Speaker 1: how I perceive it, and we should really make sure
Speaker 1: that we reach out to people who have a different
Speaker 1: mindset or different vision of the future. It's so great
Speaker 1: to hear about that cool young historian's work. I just
Speaker 1: don't know how she manages to be cool and young
Speaker 1: and a historian at the same time. But I'm grateful.
Speaker 1: Standing up and fighting back against the far right means
Speaker 1: no more politeness. You've got to be very much on
Speaker 1: the offensive, and you must lead the narrative. I love
Speaker 1: that Flavia insists on Europeans being proud of and protecting
Speaker 1: institutions that exist because of what we've learned from the past.
Speaker 1: Many citizens don't relate to these institutions and don't often
Speaker 1: understand what they stand for. But that brings her to
Speaker 1: her other point that politics needs to speak directly to
Speaker 1: people's hearts and minds. If we believe that freedom and
Speaker 1: equal rights are necessary for society to prosper as a whole,
Speaker 1: then we've got to say so and back it up
Speaker 1: with action. Oh, Flavia, That quiet swis girl got me
Speaker 1: fired right up. Solvable as a collaboration between Pushkin Industries
Speaker 1: and the Rockefeller Foundation, with production by Talk and Blade.
Speaker 1: Pushkin's executive producer is Mia LaBelle. Engineering by Jason Gambrel
Speaker 1: and the great folks at GSI Studios. Original music composed
Speaker 1: by Pascal Wise. Special thanks to Maggie Taylor, Heather Fame,
Speaker 1: Julia Barton, Carlie Migliori, Jacob Weisberg, and Malcolm Gladwell. You
Speaker 1: can learn more about solving Today's biggest problems at Rockefeller
Speaker 1: Foundation dot org slash Solvable. I'm Mave Higgins now go
Speaker 1: solve it.