Unlock White House Watch Newsletter for free

Your guide to what 2024 US elections mean is Washington and the world

A few days ago, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, I heard a herd of global luminaries parsing inauguration of the Donald Trump. Solemn, at a grilled trout dinner, they share their fears regarding economic economy, political and geopolitical. Then a world leader turned to the old Greek.

“We have an epistemological crisis,” he said, refers to the Greek words PERIOD (“Knowledge”) and log (“Study”). More specific, different social tribes that now interpret knowledge in different ways he fears “democracy is lowered”.

Thus. Don’t think that Trump is afraid of Davos this week with his deliberate hyperbole “the true Allison, says Graham Allison, says Graham Allison.

What is the best one is those found in two recent surveys. One, held in wef, shows that For the second year of a meeting row (mostly) Elite Delegates consider “disinformation” the largest term threat to the world and warfare and war times. The issue is not also shown in the concern list before 2024.

The second electionFrom the Edelman Public Relations Group, it is shown that 61 percent of people (in 28 countries) feel grim in governments, businesses – and 40 percent supporting change.

In addition, two-thirds think business leaders, government and media intentionally lied to them, an acute increase from recent years. The fact that Trump was weakening elites and experts – including scientists in National Institute of Health – It has been published. As a pro-Trump CEO told me after the US president gave a bombastic bomb to wef: “People are angry.”

So how to respond to elites and experts? Judge from Davos Chatter, two answers mainly. Some business leaders (such as techs) simply ignore “fictions” in Trump ‘to cut deals. Some (like angry progressives) drove him and his supporters enjoyed, foolishly or bad – and wished that Trump would be lost and the regulators and big tech “are right”

However, I suggest that there is a route: leaders should ponder what their own can to help heal this epistemological division. How? There are many possible measures. The first is to participate in “deepest hearing“, To speak the concept of the journalist Emily Kasriel. That means listening to what Trump’s supporters say some prepared filters as possible. We need empathy to understand why Grievance the public exploded.

We also need it to understand another point: Many Trump’s supporters believe that they have a war to save the western civilization – and the same emotional civilization. That cannot be dismissed or mocked.

Second, if the leaders want to restore public respect for the skill they need to accept the “wrong scientific principle that researchers need to emphasize their level of research results, if it is forgotten Politicians make dogmatic statements about medical issues (vaccines) – and sometimes science of time.

It is understandable, perhaps, among the terror. But it contributes to the public cynicism about “experts”, as a businessman Peter Thiel recently found to ft. So leaders of all political straps should accept the wrong bar in the future if they want to restore credibility.

Third, leaders must (as I often written before) Identify Vertical Trust – with Authority Numbers and Institutions – Currently Currently. However, people grow increasingly dependent on groups of friends or local communities as sources of advice (in other words, with lateral trust relationships). It may hate leaders, but they have to work with it – it doesn’t like it.

Fourth, if you believe in a strong principle of critical reasoning, you need to put your money back. That means paying for quality journalism, which supports the intellectual question of viewing and university and improvement in policy. For inspiration, see 314Action.orgA political action committee made by American scientists trying to put more scientists in the public office. It rallies with thousands of volunteers. But more can be done.

Fifth, leaders should discuss initiatives to counter online misinformation. That doesn’t mean using hierarchical power to crumble free speech. But it means installing the guards against violent activism and supporting community facts survey platforms. These repair tools are currently mainly with the first with online lies, because the meta and others have decided to cut in moderate in the room.

These steps are not a magic wand. But they are better than appealing, despair and regret. The difficult fact is that not the big tech or the government can or heals the epistemological crisis. Responsibility is sitting with all of us.

[email protected]