Brian Hooks of Stand Together on Practicing Pluralism in Philanthropy

[Music] Welcome to the Art of Association. I'm Daniel Stid, a senior fellow with the American Enterprise Institute. And this is a podcast about the role of civil society and philanthropy in supporting a healthier democracy in America and what it will take to renew these things in our time. In this episode I'm delighted to be joined by Brian Hooks, who's the chairman and CEO of Stand Together. We're going to talk about one of the most interesting philanthropic enterprises out there because of how big it thinks and team up its work, how it thinks over the longer term and its capacity to work across differences, which are all really admirable traits. So Brian, welcome to the Art of Association. Really good to have you with us. Daniel, thanks so much for having me. I'm a huge fan of AEIs and I've been a big fan of your work over the years, so really looking forward to this conversation. Very kind. As I recall, we are both Michiganders, so we have that in common. Am I right in that? Yeah, that's right. We've got to stick together out here on the East Coast. That's right. That's right. So, well, let's jump in and just maybe some background for folks who are less familiar with the enterprise you lead. Say a bit more about Stand Together, what it is, what it does, and the values and principles that you endeavor to bring to the work. Sure. Well, Stand Together is a philanthropic community and you know, we're kind of an odd duck in the world of philanthropy. We're not a single benefactor organization. Rather, we're a community of hundreds of some of the country's most successful business leaders, most innovative philanthropists who have come together to solve some of the country's biggest problems. And it was really interesting. These are folks who have been wildly successful, you know, almost by definition in their own lives. They come from a lot of different backgrounds, a lot of different industries, different passions issues that they care about. But they're united by a shared vision. And you know, our vision at Stand Together is the idea that when you remove the barriers that are holding people back, not only do those people live better lives, but when you do that at scale, that's ultimately how you move society forward. That's how you get social progress. And the vision is based on a shared set of principles. And those principles start with a deep belief in people. The idea that every single person has a gift and the capacity to contribute in the lives of others and help to move society forward. And the role of society, if society is doing its job, if it's working well, is to empower people to discover their gift, to develop the skills around that gift, and then find opportunities to apply that gift in a way that enables them to succeed by helping others succeed. And the principles that sort of underpin that vision mean that what we're working towards is a society based on equal rights and mutual benefit where people succeed by helping each other succeed. And so, you know, we end up doing a whole lot of things. You know, we're supporting hundreds of university programs, tens of thousands of K through 12 classrooms. We're in 1,300 communities around the country supporting organizations that are addressing problems associated with generational poverty. We've got a significant public policy capability, you know, millions of Americans that are involved, people that wake up every day, passionate about removing the barriers that are holding people back in public policy. And when people look at our portfolio, you know, literally thousands of organizations when you when you add it all up that that we're interacting with, they can be forgiven for saying, hey, what, you know, this is a bunch of good stuff, but it looks, you know, like a lot of different things. To me, it's all one thing. Yeah. All different ways to advance that vision based on those shared set of principles. Yeah. Tell us a bit more. It's like to kind of get the through line of how the individual leader came to the institution and role. So tell us a little about your trajectory over the years and kind of the different things you were doing as a leader before you came to stand together and what what really pulled you and attracted you to this role. Well, you know, I've always been a bit of a contrarian. And and that serves you well sometimes and sometimes I get you in trouble. But I you know, I tell people I and so I've never really been satisfied with the way that that that we've tried to solve problems. And so I was really attracted to the opportunity to stand together because it's an organization that recognizes that no matter how well we're doing, we can always do better. And so it's just got this this challenge culture, this this drive to to take risks and innovate. But you know, like I tell people I'm the luckiest guy in the world. I I joined in a phenomenal organization out of college coming out of the University of Michigan called the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. An organization I've been associated with for 26 years. I'm still on the board there, which is which is awesome to see it continue to thrive. In two weeks into the job I met a guy named Charles Koch. Little little did I know 26 years ago when I was 22 years old that that Charles would have such a profound impact on my life. But about 14 years into Mercatus having had several roles. I ran the place for the last 10 years. I was there. Charles pulled me aside and he said, hey, I'm thinking about expanding my foundation. Would you come and and help me do that? And it just turned into an opportunity that has been you know way beyond anything I could have expected. That led me to the position of men now, which is leading this you know this what I think is an incredible community of organizations under the stand together banner. Excellent. I've joked a little bit with a couple of other colleagues that normally when I'm talking with someone in this field it's like I'm the one being the old professor who's kind of making book recommendations. One of things I love about talking with you is you give me some really good book recommendations and I'm wondering to kind of go back to your fresh out of the University of Michigan. Was there an idea or two that really spoke to you or energized you you know that has kind of stayed with you as a through line over this period? Well you know it's funny the hindsight is 2020 and so if you'd asked me that question when I was just coming out I wouldn't have had such a clear answer today I can give you a pretty clear answer. I think I was I was obsessed with this notion that of mediocrity frankly the idea that systems that condemn people to mediocrity systems that constrain people from being all that they can be from realizing their potential you know it's a sort of thing like once you see it you just can't look away and so it's this relentless focus on how we can make things better. Some of that comes from an idealism which I think is a healthy idealism but when you get your hands dirty and when you really try to understand what it means to improve systems you realize it's really hard to do and it takes a ton of incremental efforts ultimately that that can add up to transformational change takes a ton of trial and error and it requires a bunch of different perspectives and being willing to kind of challenge how you think about things okay I'd say it's just a quick story about somebody that I learned a lot from on this front it's got named Doug North you this is your fault you you mentioned that we could talk about book recommending sure yeah yeah so Doug was this extraordinary big thinker he won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1994 he was sort of a father of the field of institutional economics 78 what I met him I think he's it was in sort of the end of his career and my first job at the Mercata Center was to help Doug organize conferences of eminent scholars who could help him to improve the manuscript he was writing book writing for 10 years and and he wanted people from all different disciplines so Doug was this you know Paragon of economics and he said Brian your job is to find people so that I am the dumbest guy in the room and what a what a profound thing for Nobel laureate to say Doug was there because he wanted to learn even at that stage in his career from people who knew something who brought something different to the table because he knew that would make him better and it knew it would allow him to contribute more through his scholarship that made a huge impression on me so that's you know that's that's informed you can kind of draw a straight line from those kind of experiences to work on it stand together yeah it's often the wisest people or the most hungry to find some some people who can illuminate what they're up to no matter how well we're doing we can always do better yeah yeah tell us a bit about your partnership with Charles Koch what what's the the kind of interplay you have with him we're gonna talk a little bit about the updated edition of the book you co-authored together coming out but on a day-to-day basis how do you how do you find yourself working with him you know Charles is is just an absolutely extraordinary human being he is the founder of stand together and he's an incredible mentor and leader and what's really cool about what I just said is you know there are hundreds of people who who could say the same thing and speak from personal experience the impact that he's had on on our country and on our society and on a whole lot of other leaders is it's hard to overstate and so I've learned a ton from Charles he's he's been a a huge part of how and why we're able to do what we do you know he's built one of the most successful businesses in the country Koch and he's done it through the Apple application of what he calls the principles of human progress. And through a whole lot of trial and error, a whole lot of iteration, kind of employing that idea that no matter how well we're doing, we can always do better. And so it's standing together, we've learned a lot from that approach, and we've tried to apply a similar lessons to how we've built our organization. But people are surprised when I tell them, Charles is not at all involved in the day-to-day decision being of stand together. He's not on our board, he's an incredible visionary and a phenomenal philanthropist, an essential part of how we do what we do. But he's not somebody who's involved in day-to-day, and when I tell people that they're surprised, but then you step back, and you have to think of, of course, he's not. He's a busy guy. He happens to have a day job. He's still the chairman of one of the largest private companies in the world. But more importantly than that, he's a guy who takes these principles very, very seriously. And if you're the guy making all the decisions and you know, you got to be involved in everything, you're not building an organization to last. So Charles has a deep belief in principles like the division of labor by comparative advantage, put the right people in the right roles, and challenge them to accomplish things. Charles is a big believer in empowering leaders. I think that's, if you asked him, he'd say, that's how he's been able to be so successful in his company. And that's certainly been my experience in the opportunities that he's given me. Yeah, what do you be afraid to say? And maybe we can put this in the show notes that there's this, and I don't know if I'm using the term right of this idea of principle-based management or there's a, I don't know if it's a philosophy or an ethos that my sense is, it's important to him and his private enterprises. And it's something that you also have sought to the spirit or way of working that you've also tried to bring to the civil society actually enterprises that you're leading. But how do you describe that or what are, for people who may not be familiar with what are some of the key elements of that? Well, you're absolutely right, Daniel. And the principle-based management is the management philosophy that Charles has developed in collaboration with different leaders in his company. And that he would tell you is what's responsible, the application of that philosophy is what's responsible for the success of the company. But those are the application of principles that he observed and learned about in terms of what makes societies successful or on the converse, the violation of the certain set of principles that ultimately leads to the demise of societies. And so, you know, when we take a step back and we think, well, what are the principles that enable prosperity, that enable societies to make progress? You know, these are principles that people have a lot of different terms for. Enlightenment ideas, you might call them the principles of classical liberalism. We think about them as the principles of human progress. And so, when you understand that, you know, principles like dignity, inherent dignity of every person, the notion that just by being born a human being, we all have inherent moral worth that requires the respect of others and requires the respect of laws. The societies that apply that principle tend to be better, right? And you can kind of go through the litany of those ideas. So the question then becomes, how does that apply to the work that you do, whether you're in business or in our case, the work that we do to try to solve problems in society? You have this set of principles that Charles has shared and advanced in his private enterprises. You are doing something similar in this broader stand together network. The two of you have this updated edition coming out of a book that you co-authored. And I read it maybe, if I'm not mistaken, four or five years ago, when not too long after it came out, you got the sense that it was a conversation you were having with each other. And one thing I'm picking up from this conversation is the extent you're converging from different vantage points on similar ideas and their implications. Before we turn to the new edition, what are the things that you're both finding most energizing at this moment, are kind of informing this ongoing partnership? I'll speak for myself. I think in a sense, it's the best of times and it's the worst of times. On the one hand, I firmly believe there has never been a better time to be alive. You look at the potential that we have in both in our country and in the world to live better lives and live in ways that help others to live better lives. It's unparalleled. And I don't think that's an opinion. I think that's just an act. So it's the best of times in that respect. We have a partner in the stand together community, a guy named Joe Liemont, founder of Trilogy Software and the entrepreneur behind the expansion of Alpha School. Joe's got a wonderful way of capturing this. He says there's never been a better time to be a five-year-old. You think about that? That's actually a very profound thing. But you think about the world that is possible in the future in the life of somebody who is just born. I mean, it's extraordinary. So I'm a very optimistic, very bullish on what we can accomplish in the future. It's the best of times in that respect. On the other hand, the question is, are we actually going to make the most of these opportunities? Are we going to lean into the application of these principles, the principles of human empowerment principles of human progress that will enable us to capture this upside? Look, if you look at the history of the world, the odds are against us doing that. Most societies that have flirted with freedom with these principles of empowerment, it hasn't lasted very long. Most societies have peaked and then either declined or in some cases worse. This was really the passion behind us deciding to put out this 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence Edition of Believe in People because the opportunity for us to help address some of the questions that are so ripe right now in our country with the goal of helping guide people towards decisions that will help us to capture the upside of what's the potential that we have as a society. That's why we decided to publish this book. And hopefully some of the lessons that we've learned through working with these thousands of social entrepreneurs that stand together as fortunate to support and the principles that have enabled them to solve really hard problems can inspire others who are confronting the challenges right now to lean into the application of these principles, the principles that were in our Declaration of Independence that have really enabled so much of our progress, rather than giving into the siren song of top down control and some of the just frankly awful ideas that are out there right now. But we think this is a very ripe question. It's alive as we say in the book, a competition for the future of our country. And if we're going to win that competition, it's going to depend on the choices that we all make. Yeah. Well, I can definitely commend the book, which strikes me as a recall reading at the first time through, in some ways, a document of the reflective practice of the kind of principles that you're pursuing. I remember a couple of points where Charles was reflecting on in retrospect, we realized we needed to change to do to realize the goals we had. We needed to take a different tack. And I think it's a pretty remarkable exercise in that regard. For this new edition, is there one or two things that you're endeavoring to lift up in your preface that you can give a preview here without any spoiler or words for people who might want to dig into the book themselves? Well, we'd love for people to dig into the book. Look, I think there's two things I would emphasize. One is we have to understand root cause of our problems if we're going to be effective at addressing them. And so I think it's really important that we understand what's happening right now. To my mind, what's happening and what's causing so much of the risk and the challenge in our country is that we are living through a time of unprecedented disruption. And I don't use that hyperbole carelessly. I really do believe that it's hard to find a time, certainly in our country's history, where we've seen the level of disruption that we're going through right now. The institutions that people have relied upon to order their lives are being disrupted at an alarming pace. You think about the institution of education, right? You used to be put your head down, go to a high school diploma, you'd have a good options. If you got a college degree, you were basically set. We know that that's no longer the case. You think about the institution of business. People used to be employed for one or two jobs over the lifetime. Now it's one or two jobs in a couple of years. And with things like artificial intelligence, which again, I'm very optimistic about the disruption to employment is serious. You can tell that kind of story about just about every one of those institutions, the media, public policy, religion, the family, communities. If any one of these institutions was going through this kind of disruption, it would be a crisis. It would be something we could manage, probably, but it would be a big deal. The fact that all of this is happening at once is creating tremendous uncertainty in people's lives. As human beings, we look to find certainty. And so when you're in that sort of situation, there's a lot of people, call them charlatans, call them snake oil salesmen, call them what you will, who will offer ideas that seem like they'll create certainty in your life. Give me the power. Give me the control. Let's blame those people for the problems in your lives. Give me the power and I can make it better, whatever it is. So history shows, when that happens, these are promises that they can't come through on and that will only make things worse. And so first off, I think we have to understand what is the real problem that we're facing into me. It is this massive disruption of our institutions. Now, the thing about our institutions is they did create certainty in our life, but they weren't ideal, right? I mean, there are lots of problems, lots of things that we'd want to do to improve them. And so the question is, how do we reimagine those institutions so that yes, they create certainty, yes, we can make it through this disruption, but they're better than they were before. And they offer people a better opportunity to live better lives. So that's the second thing is, we offer some of those solutions. What does it mean to reimagine those institutions? And very quickly, we talk about the idea that those institutions have to be based on this belief in people, that every single person matters. Every person has a role in creating a better future. The notion that the people who are experiencing our problems are not actually the problems to be solved, but they're often the source of the solution. So let's invest in those local solutions, those people that are closest to the problems. And then the idea that no single person, no single organization has all the answers and that we can get a whole lot more done when we unite across differences. Or as Frederick Douglass says, when we unite with anyone to do right. You have a really notable effort that you've been working with a number of partners on that I'd love to dig into. And this is the be the people initiative which you've joined with others to launch. You're just getting it going. Say a bit more about what this is and how it's going to be unfolding over the next year and maybe in the years ahead. Sure. Well, I'm very, very excited. I think for all the reasons I just said, I feel like we're in an unprecedented moment. And I think be the people is an unprecedented effort to address the moment. It's an effort that's standing together as proud to join along with dozens of other organizations. And it's the recognition that there is a whole lot of good happening around the country. And you've been in this for a long time. You've studied this, you've encountered this. You've supported a lot of it in your previous roles at the Hewlett Foundation. And so when you go to communities, as we do, I mentioned we're in 1,300 communities. And you talk to organizations and some of these groups are in some of the hardest communities in the country. They're addressing problems of violence or addiction or family separation, the collateral consequences of generational poverty. These are tough, tough situations. And when we talk to the leaders, they will consistently tell us the same thing. When we ask people to show up to help solve these problems, they do. This is who we are as a country. This is what it means to be Americans. We pursue happiness by helping others to succeed. This is in our bones as a country. And it still is. But when you look at the national conversation, the narrative, the story that's being told about our country, it's a story that doesn't reflect that. It's the idea that nobody's willing to show up and do big things anymore. That people feel like we're living in a zero-sum society. That if I'm going to get ahead, you've got to be left behind. And that's just not the experience that we have at the community level. It's not the experience that these groups have. But the problem is that these local efforts are not breaking through. And so the more that our country is characterized by this story of division, the harder it is for these groups to actually get things done. Because people start to believe the stories that are told about us. And the thing that really focused my attention on this, Pew has been doing a survey for the past 30 years. They ask the question, do you believe that, given all the problems we've got in our country, that Americans can solve our own problems? And it's usually somewhere in the 60% range, goes up and goes down. But it's never been below 50% until just a couple years ago. And so today, it's only 47% of Americans say that we can solve our own problems. And when you start to think about that, that explains a lot of what's going on. We don't believe in each other. If we don't believe that we can, by coming together, make things better, we're going to be open to some pretty ugly ideas. And indeed, that's what we see. So anyway, that's the reason that we've gotten involved. So be the people is a problem-solving platform. It's bringing, ultimately, millions of Americans together with these groups that are in communities solving problems. It's based on great social science that says, this isn't about persuading Americans to get involved. Because north of 70% of Americans across demographics, across geography, you name it. They say they aspire to make a difference in the lives of those in their communities. But only 30% of Americans say they feel like they're doing it. So it's a be-the-people is this notion that if we want to live up to the promise of our country, if we want a country of the people, by the people, for the people, then it's up to each of us to do our part. It's up to each of us to be the people. And so it helps people who already want to get engaged to do that. And that it enables them to tell their stories, to inspire others to do the same. And it's going to be, I think, an incredible effort. It's a 10-year effort, which I think is awfully important. We didn't get into the challenges we've got in our country overnight. We're not going to get out of them overnight. But ultimately, I think this has the potential to dramatically change the spirit of our country, and one that helps us to more fully live up to those principles in the declaration, which is why it's pretty cool that it's launching on the 250th. Yeah. So say a bit more just to give people a concrete feel for the addition to stand together. What are some other institutions that are participating, both at the level of philanthropy, but also at the-- what would this look like in a given place? Paduka, Kentucky, or Mason, Michigan? Yeah. Well, we don't have to think in the hypothetical, because Be the People is now out in the world. And so give you a couple of examples of what they're doing already. The way I think about it is they're holding up a mirror and a microphone to the American people, to reveal to each other who we truly are. We're not the narrative that's being told about us at the national level. We are the movement that's already happening at the community level, where people show up to help each other succeed. So in-- at the NBA All-Star game, in just, I guess, what two days from now, the Habitat for Humanity, which is a part of Be the People, and one of the members of what they call the National Leadership Council, will be there with the National Basketball Association, the NBA, also part of Be the People, and stand together, along with musicians, artists like Al O'Black, also somebody who's involved in Be the People, and hundreds of volunteers to help energize the efforts of Habitat for Humanity in rebuilding Los Angeles after the devastating wildfires of last year. And so Be the People is coming in to, basically, help make this possible, help solve real problems, but then importantly, lift this up to show others in Los Angeles, in California, and ultimately in the country that this is what we're doing these days. This is who we are as a people, and you can make a real difference. And so you can imagine that in thousands of communities across the country, these are organizations that Daniel, you're well aware of, people like Asha Kerr and the leader of Giving Tuesday. Incredible organization that Asha and her team have built. They're in 1,000 communities across the country already. They work with, I think, the number was 40 million Americans just this past season. Giving Tuesday's a core partner and Be the People. They've got the presence in communities, and they're going to be inviting many, many more people to participate in Giving Tuesday. Steve Preston, the CEO of Goodwill, another organization that's involved in Be the People. Goodwill's got 3,000 stores all across the country. So the point is, this is a movement that's already happening, but it's not breaking through. And so the idea here is that by bringing all these efforts together, again, seemingly different things, but ultimately they all tear up to the same idea that this is who we are as Americans. We show up for each other, and when we do, we can make a real difference to solve problems. There is still a profound gap between the lived experience of so many Americans on the one hand, and the doom and gloom and conflict-driven narratives that are just kind of a wash in our national, what I call the Thunderdome of our national politics. So I think I really intrigued with this idea of trying to highlight the difference between this lived experience. And I think the aspirations that people have, but if you're constantly being told, our country is going to hell, as we're often being told, that the flaked hope. And so I love this idea of trying to inflate hope and help people see that there's a lot of things to be hopeful about. Well, that's the thing. It's, again, it's not polyannish. I mean, we're going back to what we talked about a few minutes ago. I mean, we're living through some very, very serious challenges, and the future is not written. I mean, this could go really, really poorly as a country, unless everybody steps up to play their part. When you think back to the major transitions in our country, where we've made these great leaps forward, these huge moments of progress, starting coming through crises that could have, and by all accounts probably should have, destroyed our country, this is how it's happened. People across differences coming together to more fully live into our principles, and by doing so, they help solve problems in their own lives, so they live better lives, but they do it by helping others to live better lives. This isn't pie in the sky, this isn't the real way it works. One of the groups that you've helped to build, more in common, taught us this years ago, you've got almost 80% of the country who are the exhausted majority, right? Their voices are not represented, you've got a small minority clustered at the polar extremes that have an outsized voice. It's either people, I think, as an effort to give voice to that exhausted majority. Yeah, that's a great way of framing that. Let's switch gears. I want to pick up on something you've been involved with for several years now, and that is the defense of philanthropic pluralism and freedom as values that are essential really to a flourishing democracy in America. And I remember I guess it was three years ago that you joined forces with a handful of other leaders of other philanthropies and membership associations in the field to give really a resounding defense of this idea of philanthropic pluralism, which by which you meant that having a bunch of different philanthropic entities supporting the freedom support, the causes that they care about is a good thing for pluralism and liberal democracy generally. And the co-signatories included not only yourself and people like Heather Tempton-Dill, the head of the Templeton Foundation, then at least Westoff, head of the Flanthry Roundtable, but on the progressive side of things, institutions like Darren Walker, the Ford Foundation and Sam Gill, the Zorris Duke Foundation, a classic liberal foundation. So it was really kind of a group of strange but collaborating bet fellows to kind of share this vantage point. And we'll talk a little about the reaction, but before we get to that, what prompted you to kind of join forces with a coalition that wouldn't have been predictable to people from the outside? It's funny to hear you walk through that, right? We certainly are a strange group, I suppose, but I will take that as a compliment. It's a great example of what happens when you open yourself up to ideas that you may not agree with, right? Or in people who have different perspectives in you. This group of people didn't start off to write an op-ed or a letter or anything like that. We set off to learn from each other. And this was a group of folks, the core group of folks from the list that you mentioned, for about six months, we just talked to each other. And we said, there's a lot of things that are happening that were concerned about both in the world of philanthropy and the world more broadly. And we recognize that none of us have all the answers. We may not wind up agreeing. We're not even seeking consensus. We just wanted to understand from different perspectives. And along the lines, somebody suggested, I think we've kind of come onto something here that would be worth offering to the field. And if you look at that letter, I mean, we weren't, it was not another very profound. In fact, when we wrote it, I thought, this is kind of boring. This is just kind of basic stuff, like a few best intentions, right? Were you attacked people, maybe put yourself in their shoes? If they're abiding by the law and their ideas aren't aggressively trying to hurt somebody, maybe we can learn something from them. Those sorts of things, but man, I'll tell you what. What you think is self-evident and kind of been all, you can be surprised at how it lands. Yes. Well, I had the experience. I was really appreciated and was impressed by the statement and wrote something at the time, saying, oh, this is a, I wouldn't use the word boring. I think I use the word venerable, that it struck me as a timely restatement of a set of principles that really undergird not just the role of philanthropy, but of liberal democracy. I remember you started with a definition of this tri-part notion of a market economy and a liberal set of political institutions and a pluralistic civil society. And I thought it was a helpful restatement. But it quickly drew a lot of intense criticism from people on the progress of left, people on the farther right who kind of came at it very sharply. And it just brought home for me these ideas of pluralism and philanthropic freedom, which, you know, I think I realized at that juncture, whoa, there's been a dissipation of a lot of things that have traditionally undergirded civil society in this country. And as you look back on that experience, I know you had a great piece which we'll also put in the show notes more recently in the Stanford Social Innovation Review on philanthropic freedom. What's your sense of the current state of play for those values? Do you see more people maybe now being aware of it than were aware their importance than was the case three or four years ago? Are you more optimistic or less optimistic about the staying power of that kind of venerable position that you and your colleagues gave voice to? Yeah, you know, it's, again, it's another situation where I think there's a lot of good that's come from that and some real upside that we're experiencing right now. And also some very scary things and some real risk. But maybe just take a step back to the argument for pluralism. The reason I thought this was pretty straightforward is exactly as you say, it's a restatement of very longstanding principles of liberalism. This notion that pluralism is ultimately just a set of principles that enable diverse people to live well together. You know, anyone who talked to some about this already, but this notion of dignity that every individual has moral worth and that deserves respect. And you know, the point I made at the time is, look, there's all sorts of problems with this. It's not easy to live in a pluralistic and liberal society. But you know, you always have to answer the question compared to what? And you know, the alternative to living through by pluralism is violence, basically, right? In terms of how we would settle disputes rather than respecting those who are different from us, you know, and for most of human history, the way people did it was they just, they went off and killed those that disagreed with us. So you know, when you look at it in context, pluralism looks pretty good. I think what caused the controversy was that we kind of called a question we didn't realize we were calling, which is we're now living through a time where there are increasing factions of people who disagree with those tenets of liberalism. And I think that the article forced people, in a sense, or at least caused people to have to confront that disagreement in a way that made people pretty uncomfortable. But you know, the whole push for identity politics, for instance, which is not just a phenomenon of the progressive left, although that's where the energy was. It's currently also very live on the extreme right that we is a direct front. It's a direct rejection of this notion of dignity. We should, what identity politics says is rather than see people as an individual with inherent moral worth, we're going to treat you as a member of a group. And we're going to basically argue that those who have power get to decide which groups have moral standing. And when you follow the logical conclusion of an argument like that, which is a rejection of liberalism, a rejection of pluralism, when you follow that argument to its logical extent, you don't have to go very far to get to some really, really bad places. So you know, where are we now? I think on the one hand, a lot of people when confronted with that question, people who were flirting with identity politics and related things, they said, "Whoa, no, no, no, we're on team liberalism." So I think that's where the majority of the energy is now. But you're also seeing voices on both the extremes who are saying, "You know what? That is right." We do believe that people in power should be able to decide who has moral value. And I think that is, it's useful to see it because it allows us to confront it. But I tell you what, as a society, we better win that argument. Yes, yes, the notion that, I think that's a great way of putting it, that this was team liberalism speaking up for the implications of liberalism. I was just struck at the time by the kind of mirror image of the criticisms coming at the, again, the kind of the venerable restatement of these principles from the left and right. And so people who fundamentally disagreed on what the good society looks like were in profound agreement in their criticism of this. And I think to me, the key thing was on both the left and right, you had conflict entrepreneurs who had secured their kind of power and status by demonizing their opponents and by saying there could be no compromising with the enemy. And I thought the essay was very clear. It wasn't like you were saying, "You're right." we can always compromise and meet in the middle, but just we need to respect people who are peaceably disagreeing with each other and almost by not just saying that, but modeling it. That was really transgressive because if you guys could kind of, if Brian Hooks and Darren Walker could come out of their foxholes and say, well, on this much, we really can't agree and these are principles that we share. It kind of puts the lie to those kind of really mannequin us or them, friends or enemies distinctly. Well, that's right. And I think there were so many strong and arguments against the peace. And one of them is illustrated by what you just said. You know, one of the really just wonderful benefits for me personally that came out of that experience is I gained a bunch of really new friends and I count Darren Walker now as a dear friend. But I'll tell you what, neither Darren nor I have compromised, feel like we've compromised ourselves in order to be friends. It isn't that the beauty of our country is that we can have these close personal affections and relationships while maintaining our own individual perspectives, our own individual paths. And people say, we're stronger, we're stronger despite our differences. I disagree with that. I think we're stronger because of our differences. And when you have those sort of norms of liberalism and the sort of social contract that is inspired by the declaration that we write about and believe in people, it enables friendships and associations like I've been very fortunate to have while strengthening your own ideas. We may have already segwayed into this final question which I'm endeavoring to ask every guest in part to kind of pick up on this theme of pluralism and reciprocity in respect across difference. But who's someone working on issues that you really care about with whom you don't always see eye to eye but whose viewpoints you're regularly engaging with either because you're learning something or you find that you become a sharper advocate for your own perspective by engaging with them. Well, as we just talked about, this is sort of the way I endeavor to live my life. So I could tell you stories about the wonderful people on my leadership team and all the ways that we disagree, it makes us better. I'll give you an answer which is maybe a little bit clever but I think you'll appreciate because the guy that immediately pops to my head when you ask me that question is your old boss, Larry Kramer. That's a mutual friend, yes. I'd love to. Say more. Larry is a wonderful man. As you know, the former president of the Hewlett Foundation before that, the Dean of the Stanford Law School and just for fun, when Larry was Dean of the Stanford Law School, he decided to get his PhD in history. So hard to argue with the brilliance of a guy like Larry. But arguing with Larry was one of my favorite things to do when he was at Hewlett and we had the chance to spend some time together because it was never personal. It was always in the interest of learning and making each other better. And I don't think either of us thought we were going to have an epiphany and completely change our minds. So certainly, I learned a lot that I wouldn't have but for talking to him. But you just sharpen your own arguments and sometimes you do, often you do improve. And I would talk, our book is called Believe in People, Bottom-Up Solutions for a Top-Down World. And it was that point, bottom-up versus top-down where Larry and I would often have just wonderful discussions. And my perspective is that public policy tends to be downstream from culture and that culture ultimately is determined by what happens in personal interactions and actually getting things done in your communities. And my sense is Larry had a little less patience for that sort of thing and had a little bit more confidence in the ability of top-down policy to be the hammer that pounded the nail. But in any case, I would relish the opportunity and a guy with a generous spirit like that who would always bring his best foot forward and then always walk away with a smile in his face. I mean, you can't ask for anything better than that. Yeah, yes. So he is a total mention that regard. And I'll put it in the show notes, Larry, when I was at the Hewlett Foundation and he was my boss and really became a mentor to me there. Launched this initiative, which he shared not only within the foundation, but just more broadly in the field of, and I think he referred to it kind of listening to people with whom we disagree. And he's definitely four square on team liberalism. But his point was that a vibrant liberalism has to kind of constantly be seeking out different perspectives and engaging with them and sharpening its own arguments. And I just thought that was such a terrific perspective to bring to the institution and really improved and informed my own team's work there. So that's a fun answer to that question. In ours too. He walked the walk and he had a profound impact, I think, in a very positive way on many of us. Brian, thank you. This has been such a great conversation. I'm much obliged to you. And for the listeners out there, if you found this episode valuable, please consider sharing it with a colleague or a friend who cares about these issues. You can follow the show wherever you listen to your podcast and if you rate or review it, that helps others discover it. Thanks everyone for listening. And until next time, keep practicing the Art of Association out there. Thank you.