Teaching Skepticism in Kyiv and Nablus

Posted on April 16, 2026 by Peter

This is a new piece by me in Public Seminar: “Teaching Skepticism in Kyiv and Nablus.”

It’s partly autobiographical (discussing my visits to Ukraine and the West Bank in 2025) and partly philosophical. I argue that skepticism supports compassion and commitment, when they might seem opposed.

It begins:

In 2025, I gave lectures and classes in Kyiv, Ukraine, and at two Palestinian universities in the occupied West Bank.

I have lived a tame life, and these were relatively intense experiences for me.

As I had anticipated, Kyiv was heavily bombed while I visited, and I taught in a bomb shelter. In the Balata refugee camp in the West Bank—a zone of intensely concentrated poverty—I watched children literally playing with fire in the darkness, carrying burning garbage to build a make-believe lethal trap for the Israeli soldiers who frequently raid the camp later at night. Many of the walls are plastered with the photographs and names of armed young men (five to ten years older than the kids on the street) who have been killed.

I was invited to visit these universities by people who thought that their students might benefit from connections with a senior American academic. My best moment was when I demystified American financial aid for 65 Palestinian undergraduates who showed up to have office hours with me.

I offered a lecture in each location on a philosophical theme: how to think about happiness.

postdoc in Civic Studies

Posted on April 15, 2026 by Peter

The Civic Studies Program at the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University, in partnership with the Center for Expanding Viewpoints in Higher Education (CEVIHE), seeks to host a Postdoctoral Fellow. Please see this announcement for details.

This postdoc’s research and teaching will focus on one of two broad areas:

The first area concerns how people speak and listen to those with whom they disagree on controversial issues, and how such dialogue can be improved. This line of inquiry may be of particular interest to scholars in psychology, communications, political science, and related fields.
The second area examines what makes certain types of intellectual work influential and well supported within the academy, while others remain marginal. It asks how such differences ought to be evaluated and addressed, under what conditions a body of thought can be considered improperly marginalized, and what responses may be warranted. These questions may be especially relevant to sociologists of knowledge, philosophers, political theorists, and scholars of Science and Technology Studies, among others.

The Postdoctoral Fellow will teach two courses in these areas. These courses may include seminars designed to introduce students to recent research and central debates about pluralism and intellectual diversity. The courses may be cross-listed in other relevant departments. The position offers an opportunity to develop an independent research program while gaining teaching experience in a supportive academic environment. The fellow will be encouraged to participate in Tisch College seminars, workshops, and collaborative research activities.

The appointment is for one year, with the possibility of renewal based on performance, funding, and mutual agreement.

Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis beginning April 13, 2026, and the position will remain open until filled. The hiring range for this position is $65,000-$75,000, commensurate with experience.

The Postdoctoral Fellowship in Civic Studies is supported by CEVIHE, which seeks to cultivate early-career scholars whose teaching and research broaden the range of ideas represented in their disciplines and strengthen Tufts’ culture of open inquiry. The Center is committed to renewing the university’s intellectual mission by fostering a culture of engagement across ideological, religious, and cultural differences.

The fellow will maintain their offices at CEVIHE, where they will be part of a cohort of postdoctoral fellows representing various departments and programs. The fellow will be supported by a dual-mentor structure, including a faculty mentor in the Tisch College and a CEVIHE faculty mentor, to support research, teaching, and professional development. Fellows are expected to work in person at least four days a week and contribute to the CEVIHE community through attendance at a weekly lunch series, informal mentorship of undergraduates, and participation in occasional Center events.

What We’re Looking For

Applicants should hold a Ph.D. in a relevant field by the start of the appointment, with demonstrated research and teaching interests in civic studies. We are particularly interested in candidates whose work engages questions related to dialogue across disagreement or the dynamics of intellectual inclusion and marginalization within the academy.
Successful applicants will exhibit a capacity for rigorous, interdisciplinary inquiry and a commitment to fostering open, constructive engagement with contested ideas in both research and the classroom.

Summer Institute of Civic Studies in Dayton

Posted on April 14, 2026 by Peter

The Kettering Foundation will host a Summer Institute of Civic Studies at the Foundation’s Dayton, OH campus from Sunday, August 2 to Saturday, August 8, 2026. This will be an opportunity for scholars and practitioners to learn and connect with each other and with collaborators and partners in Dayton.

I will be present and part of the first two days. I am grateful to my colleagues at Kettering for their leadership of this institute. The rest of this post is pasted from their website.

Summer Institute of Civic Studies (SICS)

SICS are intensive interdisciplinary seminars that bring together faculty, advanced graduate students, and practitioners from diverse areas that may include but are not limited to higher education, nonprofits, philanthropies, community work, as well as civic and religious leaders. Participants will read a selection of articles and chapters that will be shared and available prior to the Institute. Participants should plan on 10– 15 hours of pre-SICS preparation time.

The SICS week involves seminar-style discussion groups as well as visits with our friends and neighbors in the Dayton community who are working at the intersection of civic life, community, and democracy. The 2026 Dayton SICS is in-person only.

SICS Goals

The goal of this SICS is an immersive experience in the literature and practices of civic studies, as well as the creation of connections and a learning community. Together, we can explore what it means to live well together, how to solve problems together, and collectively imagine how we can create safe, just, democratic, and inclusive communities now and in the future.

SICS Framing Questions

Central questions that participants will explore include the following:

How can people work together to improve the world?
What helps voluntary groups to function and succeed?
How can people address disagreements about values?
How can groups address disparities of power?
What practices and institutional structures promote civic engagement and civic
values?
How should we consider and combine facts, values, and strategies?

SICS History

The Summer Institute was taught from 2009 to 2019 by Peter Levine, associate dean of academic affairs at Tisch College and Kettering Foundation board member, and Karol So?tan, now retired from the University of Maryland. Since 2019, the Institute has been hosted in several locations, including Chernivtsi and Kyiv, Ukraine; Munich and Augsburg, Germany; Madrid, Spain; and James Madison University in Virginia. You can read more about previous SICS here.

The Institute was shaped by the Civic Studies Framing Statement created in 2007 by leaders and scholars working at the intersection of civic, community, and democratic studies, including Harry Boyte, Stephen Elkin, Peter Levine, Jane Mansbridge, Elinor Ostrom, Karol So?ttan, and Rogers Smith.

Who Should Apply?

The common thread for participants is a desire to deeply engage in the literature of civic studies, democracy, and community building; to learn and grow; to connect with others and be part of a community of civic studies practitioners and scholars; and to understand and strengthen civic politics, initiatives, capacity, society, and culture.

The Summer Institute of Civic Studies will take place in Dayton, Ohio, and is in-person only. Participation requires arrival in Dayton by 3:00 p.m. on Sunday, August 2, and departure after 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, August 8. Participants agree that if they accept the invitation to participate, they are committed to taking part in the entire week’s activities.

Participants should feel comfortable with 10–15 hours of pre-SICS reading and preparation time, as well as with seminar-style discussions for 3–6 hours a day (withplenty of breaks!).

Cost

Participation in the SICS is free. All food for the week will be provided. Participants willbe responsible for their own travel and lodging. There are limited travel and lodgingstipends available based on need and demand.

Barriers to Participation

We acknowledge that taking a week to attend a seminar and the requirement of in-person attendance presents barriers that will prevent some amazing candidates from being a part of this. That said, we will strive to lessen barriers to participation when possible. We welcome applications from parents and caregivers, as well as those with varying physical, familial, financial, or mental health needs. Accepted applicants will have an opportunity to share any specific needs or issues relevant to their participation. With the caveat that this is an in-person only Institute, we look forward to working with accepted participants to reduce barriers to participation when feasible.

International Applicants

We are happy to accept applications from international applicants but are not able to assist with or offer legal, practical, or financial support related to visas or international travel.

Application Instructions: please see this Kettering Foundation web page.

A System-Analysis of Democracy’s Crisis

Posted on April 13, 2026 by Peter

Newly published: Peter Levine, “A System-Analysis of Democracy’s Crisis,” in Studies in Law, Politics, and Society (2026), https://doi.org/10.1108/S1059-433720260000091003

Abstract: Democracy is in crisis. Evidence supports at least 16 explanations, many of which are linked in complex ways. Some of these explanations are likely to appeal more to the political left, center, or right. Instead of choosing one factor as the “root cause” and counting on any party or ideological movement to solve democracy’s crisis alone, we must understand the situation as a system of interlocking factors that should be addressed by different movements and organizations. Fortunately, American citizens and groups are already committed to tackling many of the threats. This article’s system-map is meant to help organize and inspire such action.

The published article is behind a paywall, but the corrected page proofs can be downloaded here.

postdoc opportunity in Civic AI

Posted on April 9, 2026 by Peter

The Civic Studies program at the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life and the Department of Computer Science at Tufts University, in partnership with the Center for Expanding Viewpoints in Higher Education (CEVIHE), seek to host a Postdoctoral Fellow whose research and teaching will focus on using artificial intelligence (AI) to help colleges and universities, other organizations, informal groups, or communities navigate intellectual diversity and debate. The Fellow may develop AI applications, study the impact of existing AI tools, or conduct preliminary research that could lead to applications later, such as tools that combat echo chambers or teach individuals to hear alternative views. The appointment is for one year, with the possibility of renewal based on performance, funding, and mutual agreement.

More information is here. Please direct any questions to Prof. Fahad Dogar of Computer Science at fahad@cs.tufts.edu or to me at peter.levine@tufts.edu

a crime against humanity

Posted on April 7, 2026 by Peter

Today, the elected leader of the United States said, “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.”

Even before we learn what actually happens, it is clear that the threat was a crime against humanity that will permanently mark the history and the reputation of our republic.

These are the two elements of the crime of genocide in Article II of the Genocide Convention (ratified by the United States, with the signature of Ronald Reagan):

A mental element: the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”; and
A physical element, which includes specific acts that include “killing members of the group,” “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group,” or “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”

Just as murder is a crime against a community, which removes an individual from the group, so genocide is a crime against humanity that removes a people or a civilization from the earth. And just as a threat to commit murder is a felony even if the murder is never committed, so a threat to commit genocide is a grave crime against humankind.

This President threatened genocide in order to force Iran to allow oil tankers to continue carrying the substance that is most responsible for global warming, after he had begun the sequence of events that caused the Strait to close in the first place.

As Americans, we might consider Karl Jaspers’ analysis of war guilt, which he presented to an very uncomfortable German audience during the winter of 1944-5:

Criminal guilt is attributable to individuals who have broken specific laws. It merits individual punishment. Donald Trump is guilty in this sense. It is a much harder question whether military personnel bear criminal guilt for following orders, particularly if Trump’s threat turns out to be mainly bluster. It is also doubtful whether Trump will be found guilty in any tribunal. However, Jaspers’ argument implies that Trump should be condemned, not that he will be.
Political guilt belongs to all members of a polity (a democracy or otherwise), because “Everybody is responsible for the way he is governed.” All Americans now bear political guilt for Trump’s actions, even if we have been organizing against him. This does not mean that we should feel personally ashamed or face punishment as individuals. In fact, to cultivate feelings of personal guilt or shame can be self-indulgent. Political guilt does mean that we have a responsibility to act in defense of humanity. We should also expect and be ready to pay a price for the isolation and marginalization of the United States.
Moral guilt: This is what one ought to feel as a result of being connected to an evil, even if one wasn’t personally responsible for what happened. All else being equal, it is bad moral luck to be an American citizen right now, because that makes us morally inferior to citizens of many other countries. Moral guilt requires penance and renewal. We must change the context so that we can be better.
Metaphysical guilt: Jaspers says, “There exists a solidarity among men as human beings that makes each co-responsible for every wrong and every injustice in the world, especially for crimes committed in his presence or with his knowledge.” This kind of guilt extends beyond the borders of the United States. I think one aspect of it is complicity. Billions of people will use (and will have to use) oil that will be cheaper if Trump’s threat works. Another aspect is self-awareness. We now know–if we didn’t know it already–that an educated and affluent population of free human beings can choose a leader who chooses to threaten another civilization with extermination. This is a fact about people. It would be convenient if it were only a fact about Americans, but we have learned that it is not. Our thinking about politics and ethics must be chastened by this reality about ourselves.

why be introspective?

Posted on March 30, 2026 by Peter

According to Thomas Chatterton Williams, some leading tech oligarchs are explicitly against introspection. The “venture capitalist Marc Andreessen says that he engages in ‘zero’ introspection—or at least ‘as little as possible.’” Similarly, the billionaire investor Peter Thiel “contends that looking inward can impede action.”

Both men think that introspection is a recent phenomenon, or at least a growing one. Thiel blames “hippies, who derailed American technological progress when they ‘took over the country’ in the late 1960s.” Andreessen says, “If you go back, 400 years ago, it never would have occurred to anybody to be introspective.”

They are definitely wrong about history. Exactly 400 years ago (in 1626), John Milton began his third elegy: “Silent I sat, dejected, and alone, / Making in thought the public woes my own” (citing Cowper’s translation of Milton’s Latin).

About 2,000 years before that, Socrates had said, “The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being” (Apology 37e), and his premise was echoed by all the Greek philosophical schools. Two millennia of Christian introspection resulted from this Greek heritage plus the Biblical injunction “For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21). For example, St. Augustine wrote, “Do not go outside, come back into yourself. It is in the inner self that Truth dwells” (De vera religione, 39).

Meanwhile, verses like this were being attributed to the Buddha: “The mind is fast-moving and hard to subdue, / landing wherever it wishes; / it is good to train it— / a trained mind brings happiness” (Dhp 33–43). And, further east, “The Master [Confucius] said: ‘If you learn without thinking about what you have learned, you will be lost. If you think without learning, however, you will fall into danger'” (Analects 2.15).

Notwithstanding all this ancient advice, the tech bros may spend their entire lives taking pleasure from success and power without suffering the self-doubts and anxieties that result from introspection. Since I don’t happen to believe in a posthumous reckoning, I think their lives may conclude without any penalty for having been (as Williams says) “pathologically unreflective.” If a good life is one of pleasure, then their odds of attaining it are as high as anyone’s.

But is pleasure good? That is an ethical question, in the original sense of an ethos as a matter of character. Here is a very general account of what it means to be ethical:

It is better to be good or right than bad or wrong
This principle both applies inwardly and outwardly. That is, it is better to be good rather than bad to yourself and better to be good rather than bad to others.
It is not obvious what being good entails. Neither the outcome (a good state) nor the appropriate means to reach this outcome is self-evident. For example, it is not obvious whether (or when, or to what extent) pleasure is good, either for oneself or for others.
To know what is good requires wisdom or discernment, which is a matter of character.
To improve one’s character requires knowing what it is.
Therefore, introspection is crucial; the unexamined life is not worth living.

I presume that Andreeson, Thiel, Jeff Bezos, and other oligarchs (financial or political) would disagree with all of these points, and certainly with the final one.

So did Thrasymachus, as he is presented in Plato’s Republic. Thrasymachus has the arrogant, combative, proudly selfish air of a contemporary tech bro. Like them, he is successful, and he is developing a powerful technology (in his case, Sophistic rhetoric).

Socrates tries to prove to Thrasymachus that it is better to be just than unjust. Influenced by previous interpretations, I believe that Socrates essentially fails. Thrasymachus leaves, and Socrates’ disciples observe that he was unconvinced. Once he is gone, Socrates develops a detailed account of justice for them. This is a metaphor for the idea that ethical reasoning is persuasive for those who accept the first point listed above, but not for others. There are ethical reasons, but there are no reasons to be ethical.

Even before Thrasymachus exits the dialogue, Cephalus has departed. He is a character who has lived a conventionally respectable life–he has basically tried to do good but without asking what goodness is. I think his departure is a metaphor for the idea that it can be better to be good than to think too much about it, contrary to Socrates’ premise that the good life is an examined one.

It is possible to live beneficially without giving ethics too much thought, although success is then a matter of chance. It is also possible to live ethically–displaying some introspection and self-improvement.

An ethical life can serve as an example, but it will not inspire everyone. Those who are not drawn to ethics cannot be proven wrong and may not pay any price for their refusal. To the extent that their behavior threatens others, they must (like everyone else) face the restraints and penalties of the law. But they may not cause great harm or break major rules, and they have a right to organize their inner lives as they wish. Although their lives are worse for being unreflective, they will never know it.

what is a brute fact?

Posted on March 27, 2026 by Peter

During the twenties, so a story goes, [the former Prime Minister of France, Georges] Clemenceau, shortly before his death, found himself engaged in a friendly talk with a representative of the Weimar Republic on the question of guilt for the outbreak of the First World. War. “What, in your opinion,” Clemenceau was asked, “will future historians think of this troublesome and controversial issue?” He replied, “This I don’t know. But I know for certain that they will not say Belgium invaded Germany.” (Hannah Arendt, “Truth and Politics,” 1967, p. 239 )

Arendt uses this anecdote as an example of “brutally elementary data.” On p. 237, she mentions the “unyielding, blatant, unpersuasive stubbornness” of certain “truths seen and witnessed with the eyes of the body, and not the eyes of the mind.”

I agree that Belgium did not invade Germany in August 1914. (The reverse is true.) However, this example is complicated.

First, it is not a literal fact that “Germany” invaded “Belgium.” The name of any country is a concept, a metaphor, or a simplification. Perhaps the “brutally elementary data” is that some people moved from locations in German territory to locations in Belgian territory, and these people were (among other things) soldiers in the German Army. But even that formulation introduces information that would not be evident to an observer who was unaware of European politics.

Second, you and I do not remember seeing German troops cross the border. We believe that Germany invaded because that is what we have learned in school or from media. Our knowledge is entirely contingent on trust in these institutions.

Third, the word “invaded” is normatively loaded. An invasion isn’t necessarily bad. The Allied landings in Normandy were an invasion in a just cause. But Clemenceau uses the the word to imply that Germany broke its obligations and started the war. He would disagree with someone who said, “In August 1914, Imperial German troops had to extend the front into Belgian territory to protect the Fatherland,” even though that would also describe the same event.

Finally, Clemenceau used this example because he presumed–and expected his audience to presume–that the act of invading Belgium was the crucial causal factor. What if someone replied that the invasion was only one event in a sequence that begin with the assassination in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, Austro-Hungary’s declaration of War on Serbia one month later, and Russia’s declaration of war against Austro-Hungary?

Clemenceau could have remarked, “They will not say that the Archduke Franz Ferdinand assassinated Gavrilo Princip.” (The reverse was the case). But he did not choose that example because his motive was to cast blame on Germany. There are infinite facts, and Clemenceau selected one to make a point.

Lenin argued that the cause of the First World War was imperialism. Europeans had run out of countries to conquer and exploit and had turned on each other. Some would say that Lenin’s thesis was an interpretation, whereas “Germany invaded Belgium” is a fact. But Clemenceau implied (or “implicated“) a whole interpretation by choosing a particular fact. And Lenin could cite many facts in support of his interpretation.

Insofar as we can know facts by direct observation or reliable methods, we don’t really need a variety of opinions to attain knowledge. If you think of a school, a university, or a newspaper as a purveyor of facts, then you may be uninterested in whether the people involved hold diverse views, and you may be suspicious when they seem to be editorializing. They should stick to the truth. Disagreement is a sign that an issue hasn’t yet been resolved–as it should be.

On the other hand, if you think that every important claim is an opinion, then you will see such institutions as forums for debate. (I think that is how Bari Weiss sees both CBS News and the University of Austin.) You may want these institutions to be pluralistic, but you won’t count on them to generate reliable information. And you may be quick to assert a right to disagree with any claim, no matter the nature of the evidence.

Presumably, we should navigate between these extremes, valuing both information and opinion and recognizing the two as intrinsically linked. Arendt wants us to remain connected to the actual world, and she is worried that ideology disconnects us from facts. But she also wants us to remain connected to other people, who inevitably have different interpretations. As she writes in The Human Condition (p. 57):

… the reality of the public realm relies on the simultaneous presence of innumerable perspectives and aspects in which the common world presents itself and for which no common measurement or denominator can ever be devised. For though the common world is the common meeting ground of all, those who are present have different locations in it, and the location of one can no more coincide with the location of another than the location of two objects. Being seen and being heard by others derive their significance from the fact that everybody sees and hears from a different position. This is the meaning of public life, compared to which even the richest and most satisfying family life can offer only the prolongation or multiplication of one’s own position with its attend ing aspects and perspectives. ….Only where things can be seen by many in a variety of aspects without chang ing their identity, so that those who are gathered around them know they see sameness in utter diversity, can worldly reality truly and reliably appear.

Civics in Higher Education: A National Summit

Posted on March 24, 2026 by Peter

The Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University and the Alliance for Civics in the Academy (ACA), with support from GBH, are proud to host a one-day national summit on the state of civics in higher education on Friday, April 10, 2026 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Tufts University’s Medford/Somerville campus.

The summit will convene practitioners, faculty, administrators, and students from across the United States to explore, discuss and compare models of civic practice in higher education.

Please register here.

The agenda is now largely set:

Continental Breakfast & Poster Presentation 8:45 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. | Breed Memorial Hall

Welcome

9:15 a.m. | Breed Memorial Hall

Caroline Genco , Provost & Senior Vice President, Tufts University
Dayna Cunningham, Pierre and Pamela Omidyar Dean, Tisch College at Tufts
University Jonathan Holloway, President & CEO, Luce Foundation
Peter Levine , Associate Dean for Academic Affairs & Lincoln Filene Professor, Tisch College at Tufts University

Panel 1: Community at the Core: Transformational Civic Partnerships

10:00 – 11:00 a.m. | Breed Memorial Hall

Some institutions are deeply engaged with their neighboring communities. These partnerships provide opportunities for civic learning while generating knowledge and other public goods.

Fonna Forman , Professor of Political Science & Founding Director of the Center on Global Justice at the University of California, San Diego
Leslie Garvin , Executive Director, North Carolina Campus Engagement
Amber Wichowsky , Associate Professor of Public Affairs & Leadership Wisconsin Endowed Chair for the Division of Extension, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Moderator: Peter Levine, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs & Lincoln Filene Professor, Tisch College at Tufts University

BREAK | 11:00 – 11:15 a.m.
Panel 2: Civics in the Classroom: Curricula at U.S. 250Some institutions have developed curricular programs for civic education, ranging from courses to majors and even schools.11:15 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.| Breed Memorial Hall

Michael Clune , Professor, Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society, The Ohio State University
Tetyana Hoggan-Kloubert , Chair of Adult and Continuing Education, University of Augsburg,Germany
Bryan Garsten , Professor of Political Science and Humanities; Faculty Director, Center for Civic Thought at Yale University
Moderator: Josiah Ober, Constantine Mitsotakis Chair in the School of Humanities and Sciences, Stanford UniversityLUNCH | 12:15 – 1:15 p.m.

Remarks on Pluralism | 1:15 – 1:30 p.m.Eboo Patel, Founder and President, Interfaith America

Panel 3: Democracy Centers: Research for the Public GoodSome institutions are home to centers that study and aim to improve democracy. Among other functions, they involve students in their research, and they may study civic education.1:30 – 2:30 p.m. | Breed Memorial Hall

Jessica Kimpell Johnson , Director of Research, Karsh Institute of Democracy; Manager of the JohnL. Nau III Lab on the History & Principles of Democracy, University of Virginia
Amy Binder , SNF-Agora Professor of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University
Mindy Romero , Founder and Director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy (CID), University of Southern California’s Sol Price School of Public Policy in Sacramento
Jennifer Brick Murtazashvili , Founding Director of the Center for Governance and Markets;Professor, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public and International Affairs
Moderator: Leela Strong, Newhouse Director of the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), Tisch College at Tufts University

BREAK | 2:30 – 2:45 p.m.
Panel 4: Where Do We Go from Here? Critique, Comments & Responses 2:45 – 3:45 p.m.

Andrew Delbanco , President, The Teagle Foundation; Alexander Hamilton Professor of American Studies, Columbia University
Jenna Silber Storey , Ravenel Curry Chair in Civic Thought; Senior Fellow in Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies, American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
Additional panelist(s) to be added
Moderator: Stefanie Sanford , Chair of the Board of Trustees, Institute for Citizens & Scholars

Closing Remarks 3:45 – 4:00 p.m.

Peter Levine, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs & Lincoln Filene Professor, Tisch College at Tufts University

Reception

Please join us for informal conversation and refreshments at this reception hosted by the Civic Studies Program at Tufts University.

4:30 – 6:30 p.m. | Tamper Café (340 Boston Ave, Medford)

are elites responsible for democracies’ crises?

Posted on March 23, 2026 by Peter

At last week’s conference on Democratic Resilience at Boston College’s Clough Center, the star speakers were Steven Levitsky (a co-author of the bestselling How Democracies Die and a forthcoming book on democratic resilience around the world); Daron Acemoglu (the 2024 Nobel laureate in economics, whose forthcoming book is entitled “What Happened to Liberal Democracy?: Remaking a Politics of Shared Prosperity); and New York Times columnist Ross Douthat.

Each gave a long and rich talk that was basically a history of democracy in the past quarter century. Their narratives were quite different, as were their prognoses and recommendations, but they had one point in common. All three argued that elites across the world’s democracies have performed extraordinarily badly.

Levitsky decried elites’ weak efforts at combatting populist authoritarianism and their willingness to comply with authoritarians, as well as the uninspiring agendas of the center-left parties in almost all democracies. Acemoglu listed “sins of omission” (failing to address serious economic problems) and “sins of commission” (imposing unpopular policies). Douthat highlighted three spectacular failures: the so-called “War on Terror,” the response to China’s economic rise, and COVID policies, which he described as too stringent to be accepted and yet too weak to defeat the pandemic. In the discussions, people also referred to the corrupt and interconnected elite that appears in the Epstein Files.

I think all three speakers cited accurate facts and chose trenchant examples. Yes, it’s ironic that senior professors from Harvard and MIT and a New York Times columnist would decry “elites” before an invited audience at Boston College, but this does not mean that they were wrong.

For me, one puzzle is why elites should perform badly at the same time across the world, particularly if their predecessors generally performed better. Such a pattern seems to require a deeper explanation.

One hint came from Acemoglu, who mentioned that leaders after World War II could “pick the low-hanging fruit” by introducing public services that had not been provided before. Maybe it is simply harder to innovate in a popular way after your country has already launched things like public schools and welfare programs.

I am also a little puzzled why entrepreneurial pro-democratic politicians have not developed popular and effective policy agendas anywhere–if such agendas could exist.

In any given country, one can blame the specific elites. For example, people to the left of Barack Obama claim that the Democratic Party has been captured by neoliberals. But it is harder to explain why no party offers a successful alternative to populist authoritarianism.

The other limitations of these accounts is that I don’t know what to do as a result. Elites probably are at fault, but what does that leave us to do? My own contribution to the conference was certainly more modest and less original, but it has the advantage that it gives you and me an assignment: we should join and strengthen voluntary associations.

Now is hardly the first time in modern US history when elites have faced widespread criticism. In 1971, The New York Times published the leaked Pentagon Papers, some 7,000 pages of secret documents about the Vietnam War. Among them was a memo from an Assistant Secretary of Defense (John McNaughton) to the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara. McNaughton wrote:

I think the [current draft strategy document for the Vietnam War] underplays a little bit the unpopularity of the war in the US, especially with the young people, the underprivileged, the intelligentsia and (I suspect) the women. A feeling is widely and strongly held that “the Establishment” is out of its mind. The feeling is that we are trying to impose some US image on distant peoples we cannot understand (anymore than we can the younger generation here at home), and that we are carrying the thing to absurd lengths. Related to this feeling is the increased polarization that is taking place in the United States with seeds of the worst split in our people in more than a century. (May 6, 1967)

This passage seems so timely in 2026 that I wonder whether US democracy has ever been free of irresponsible elites, and how we have managed–more or less–to rebound.