Gretchen Carlson, David Brooks: Political common ground in a polarized United States
그레첸 칼슨(Gretchen Carlson) & 데이비드 브룩스(David Brooks): 양극화된 미국에서의 정치적 타협점
Gretchen Carlson is a tireless advocate for workplace equality and women's empowerment. Full bio Vy Higginsen's Gospel Choir - Gospel ensemble
Vy Higginsen's Gospel Choir of Harlem is an influential source of education and self-development for young people. Full bioDavid Brooks - Op-ed columnist
Writer and thinker David Brooks has covered business, crime and politics over a long career in journalism. Full bioChris Anderson - TED Curator
After a long career in journalism and publishing, Chris Anderson became the curator of the TED Conference in 2002 and has developed it as a platform for identifying and disseminating ideas worth spreading. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
다음 특집에 오신 걸 환영합니다.
to this next edition of TED Dialogues.
메우려고 합니다.
some bridging here today.
has inspired millions of people
전 세계의 수많은 사람에게
that America is divided,
양극화되어 있다고 할 수 있습니다.
to be getting worse.
심해질 것으로 보입니다.
for people on different sides
대화를 이어가기조차 힘든 실정이죠.
혐오감마저 느끼기도 합니다.
to each other right now.
가족도 있습니다.
is to try to do something about that,
이 문제를 해결하기 위해
of conversation,
some understanding.
알아보자는 것입니다.
to help us do that.
hammer and tong against each other.
펼치시진 않을 겁니다.
a lot of their working life
거쳐온 경력을 보면
or right of the center.
그 곁을 지켜왔습니다.
in conservative worldviews, if you like.
가진 사람들이 있는 곳이고
굉장히 잘 알고 있습니다.
what is happening right now,
more connected conversations.
나눌 방법에 관한 것입니다.
그레첸 칼슨씨입니다.
working at Fox News,
"Fox and Friends"와
and then "The Real Story,"
in filing sexual harassment claims
용감한 태도를 취한 뒤에
to his departure from Fox News.
많은 진보 독자들의 분노를 샀고
left-leaning readers
some of the right-leaning readers
관점을 비판하면서
of some aspects of Trump.
most-read content of the day
세 손가락 안에 듭니다.
and social science
for what's going on.
도와주기 때문입니다.
to Gretchen and David.
큰 박수로 맞아주시기 바랍니다.
voted for Donald Trump.
미국인이 6,300만 명입니다.
of reasons, in my mind, why it happened.
있을 것으로 생각합니다.
시민운동이었다고 생각합니다.
of sorts, but it started long ago.
that I would think of --
떠오르는 단어는 "분노"입니다.
being done in Washington,
하지 않은 것에 대한 분노였죠.
듣지 않는 것에 대한 분노입니다.
of the population
무시한다고 느끼는 것 같아요.
never listens to them,
of America, not just the coasts,
중부 대부분이 그렇고
was listening to their concerns.
들어줄 거라고 생각했을 겁니다.
would be the main reason.
주된 이유라고 봅니다.
on Donald Trump becoming president.
큰 영향을 끼쳤다고 생각합니다.
전 그렇다고 봐요.
I wrote about 30 columns
저는 30편의 평론을 냈는데요.
be the Republican nominee.
절대 공화당 후보가 되지 못할 테니까요'
and gotten that so wrong,
보내기로 결심했고
just out in Trumpworld,
발견했습니다.
who was going to a funeral for her mom.
참석하는 여성을 만난 적이 있었습니다.
being Catholic is we don't have to speak,
굳이 말을 하지 않아도 된다는 겁니다.
아니거든요." 라고 말했습니다.
because we're not word people."
제 머릿속을 맴돌았죠.
are word people,
대다수가 말이 많은 사람일 겁니다.
has not been angled toward you,
여러분을 위하지 않을 겁니다.
are out of the labor force
일자리를 잃었습니다.
"I'm not the richest person in the world,
"저는 세상에서 가장 부자도 아니고
자부심을 갖습니다."
and I get some dignity out of that."
or whatever, if you're not rich or famous,
투명인간처럼 느껴지는 것입니다.
sense of feeling betrayed,
배신감을 느끼기도 했죠.
we almost have one success story,
공통의 성공담이 있습니다.
a white-collar job, and you're a success,
사람들은 성공한 것이고
voters and still do,
트럼프 지지자들과 이야기해보면
realistic about his failings,
확실히 알고 있었지만
that he would be the nominee,
될 거라고 예상했습니다.
he did extremely well
extremely well,
it sounded good.
듣기에는 좋아 보입니다.
to that simplicity again.
단순함에 혹하는 거죠.
That sounds fantastic."
환상적으로 들리네."
on my show originally,
초창기에 나온 때가 기억나는데요.
was even "The Apprentice,"
알려지기도 전이었는데
one show on TV.
"아뇨, 그렇지 않은데요."
"아뇨, 최고 맞아요, 그레첸."
and they'd be like,
이렇게 생각했을 거예요.
the number one show on TV."
한번 찾아봐야겠어."
the number one show on TV.
최고의 TV쇼가 되었잖아요.
this ability in him
to a lot of people on the left
그의 언행에도 불구하고
표를 던졌다는 사실에
about this for Time Motto,
Motto에 글을 하나 썼습니다.
that lot of people put on blinders,
눈 가리개를 썼다는 내용이었죠.
that policies they believed in
투명인간 취급을 당하지 않는 것이
and not being invisible anymore
or acts as a human.
더 중요하다고 생각했을지 모릅니다.
about the disabled reporter,
in that audiotape with Billy Bush
여성에 대해 언급한 내용도 있었지만
about women --
they hadn't seen that or heard that,
못한 것처럼 행동했죠.
policies were more important.
정책이 더욱 중요했기 때문이죠.
someone voted for Trump,
트럼프에게 투표했다고 해서
that he's said or stood for.
전혀 모르는 것은 아니군요.
that would say to me,
이렇게 말하는 걸 들었습니다.
before the election.
입 좀 닫고 있었으면 좋겠어.
he'd get elected."
there's a trap there,
함정에 빠진 건지도 모르겠네요.
or just be baffled by the support,
지지를 받는 것에 놀랐을 텐데요.
of the unattractive features.
him despite those,
보았기 때문이겠네요.
being thrown off in some way
열광한 게 아닐까 싶은데요.
버니 샌더스가 있었어요.
on the left as well -- Bernie Sanders.
that I think we can talk about today,
하나가 이것이라고 생각하는데요.
David -- right?
그렇지 않나요 데이비드 씨?
has been in Congress for a long time,
on the left as well,
of Bernie Sanders.
지지하기도 했습니다.
people who like Bernie Sanders,
버니 샌더스를 좋아하는 사람은
but the underpinning was anger.
둘 다 그 바탕은 분노였던 것이죠.
this narrative, then,
이런 말도 있는데요.
for Trump's victory and his rise
이유를 단적으로 설명하자면
in a very visceral way.
다뤘기 때문이라고들 하는데요.
that it's actually more than that,
다른 이유가 작용했다고 논평했잖아요.
that's being worked on here.
frankly, I didn't,
저는 이해하지 못한 것은
레이건 대통령 시절이었고
versus small government debate.
두고 토론이 있었습니다.
versus George McGovern,
대결이기도 했고요.
we had been having for a generation.
해오던 토론이었습니다.
government to enhance equality,
정부를 이용하고자 했고
to enhance freedom.
정부를 제한하고자 했었습니다.
트럼프가 이해한 것은
the two major parties did not,
아니라는 점이었습니다.
토론의 주제입니다.
the tailwinds of globalization
바람을 타는 사람들이 있습니다.
더욱 개방함으로써
who feel the headwinds of globalization
엘리트주의에 맞서는 사람들이 있죠.
just blasting in their faces,
closed borders, closed social mores,
무역, 국경, 그리고 사회적 관행을
on that fundamental issue,
to overlook a lot to get there.
많은 부분을 눈감아주었습니다.
Trump's joint session speech.
사람들과 이야기를 나눴는데요.
groups in the Republican Party.
세 개의 집단이 있습니다.
미국을 세계의 경찰이라고 생각하죠.
as global policeman.
해야 한다고 주장하죠.
of a single social conservative issue.
언급조차 하지 않았습니다.
on the national debt, Tea Party,
정부 규모의 축소를 원하죠.
정부를 키우고 있습니다!
미국 주요 정당을 바꿔놓았습니다.
revolutionized a major American party
먼저 이해했기 때문이었죠.
where the debate was headed
그의 충동적 성향에 힘을 실었습니다.
on your insights
의견을 좀 더 듣고싶은데요.
한마디로 표현하는 수식어로
in very simple terms
xenophobic, anger-sparking person.
that is perhaps an unfair simplification.
이야기도 있을 것 같은데요.
물론 그렇지 않은 부분도 있겠죠.
that's probably true, too.
다시 나타난 듯한 느낌이죠.
there's the National Front in France,
프랑스의 국민전선이 있고
a Philippine version.
비슷한 사람들이 있죠.
is a global intellectual movement.
지식 운동으로 봐야 합니다.
in individual conversation and civility
뜻하는 것이 아니라고 생각합니다.
in the enlightenment side of the world do.
생각하는 것과는 다르죠.
is the "volk" -- in the people,
본능적인 지혜에 있다고 봅니다.
of the plain people.
is always being threatened by outsiders.
항상 외부인에게 위협받고 있습니다.
for how to get there.
to bring the people up
일련의 정책들도 있습니다.
are Islam, Mexicans, the media,
엘리트 집단 등이 될 수 있죠.
it's a very coherent worldview.
완전한 세계관도 있습니다.
and I think he's wrong on the substance,
본질적으로 틀렸다고 생각하지만
with a set of ideas
도널드 트럼프를 통해
of the White House
that the core question of our time now is:
질문은 이게 될 것 같은데요.
but also have a global mindset?
사고방식을 갖는 게 가능한가요?
implacably opposed to each other?
대립되는 것 아닌가요?
that it's a different category,
and the globalists
세계주의자들에게 격분하는 건
as, sort of, not cheering for America,
않는다고 보기 때문인데요.
이런 경우를 보신 적이 있습니까?
in your conversations with people,
a huge difference between --
있다고 생각해요.
분류하는 것을 좋아하진 않지만
people who live on the coasts.
지역의 사람들 간에 차이가 있습니다.
an understanding of Middle America,
중부 사람들을 이해하고
an understanding of what happened here,
이해가 되는 것일 수도 있고요.
like nobody's listening to them,
아무도 자기들에게는 관심이 없고
on California and New York.
신경 쓴다고 느낄 때도 있거든요.
why Trump was elected.
큰 이유라고 생각합니다.
they were being heard.
듣고 있다고 느꼈을 겁니다.
저도 잘 모르겠습니다.
많은 부분이 보수적이지 않다는 것이죠.
last night are not conservative things.
and given that speech,
일어나서 박수를 치지 않았을 겁니다.
stood up to applaud.
투자하겠다는 말까지 했어요.
a trillion dollars on infrastructure.
maternity leave.
언급하기도 했는데요.
it's not a conservative viewpoint.
이 또한 보수적 관점은 아니죠.
was during the campaign,
반응이 저는 궁금했어요.
think they'll react to that?
미리 말씀드릴 걸 그랬네요.
in Lower Manhattan,
오데온 식당 사이에 살았죠.
the Strand Bookstore
of the coastal elite, my man.
들고 다니시는 분이셨네요.
of the speech last night?
어떻게 생각하세요?
to a more moderate position,
입장으로 옮겨간 것 같았는데요.
제일 나았다고 봐요.
was his best speech,
실패할 거라고 생각합니다.
anything about anything
알려고도 하지 않거든요.
봤다고 할 수 있죠.
to see him at his best,
제게는 새로운 발견이었습니다.
contradiction that he's got to confront,
직면했음이 드러났기 때문이죠.
is offering security.
국가 안보를 위한 것이었습니다.
for you, for my people."
세계를 안전하게 만들 것입니다."
at a lot of his economic policies,
경제 정책을 살펴보면
private health care accounts,
개인적인 건강 사보험에 대한 것이고
Deregulation: that's risk.
규제 완화도 마찬가지입니다.
between the security of the mindset
위험 요소를 가진 정책들 사이에는
which are very risk-oriented.
having spent this year,
제가 말씀드리고 싶은 것은
in New Mexico --
시골 지역에 사는 사람들은
살고 있다는 것입니다.
"No thank you."
그들은 말할 겁니다.
will fail for that reason.
건강보험 개혁이 실패할 거라고 봅니다.
you just made of him,
비평하셨지만
의견을 듣는 것 같기도 합니다.
is coming from the same place.
있는 거 같지 않아요.
amount of chaos and confusion, but --
부르는 것 같지만...
to a wide range of voices.
듣는다고 생각하지 않습니다.
he said last night
모두 이방카가 만들었을 거예요.
to her before that speech.
설명을 들었을 거라고 생각합니다.
last night, as opposed to Twitter Trump.
프롬프터를 보는 트럼프였습니다.
to see if anything's changed."
봐야겠다고 말했던 거예요.
소유자라는 걸 감안했을 때
were expecting last night?
수준을 기대했을까요?
and gives a looking political speech,
정치적 연설을 했더니
"우와! 트럼프도 할 수 있네."
on which direction he goes.
달라질 겁니다.
특히 트럼프에게
to build bridges here,
연결고리를 찾으려고 하고 있고,
that may have contempt for Trump,
no, this is a real thing.
하는 것이 중요합니다.
showing respect for him,
존중해주려고 너무 노력했더니
of his character
비난 받아 마땅하고,
and are going to doom him.
생각하기 때문입니다.
유명하시잖아요.
as right of center,
중도우파로 보고 있는데요.
본능적인 반감을 가지신 것 같아요.
with this visceral reaction against him
a conversation?
트럼프를 지지하는 사람들은
on evidence so far,
실제로 행동으로 보인 것들도 있었고,
to change the system radically.
강한 의지도 있는 것 같습니다.
자신들이 소외됐다는 것을 싫어합니다.
and how it's left them out.
전적으로 동의합니다만
a huge government program last night
대규모 정부 시책에 대해서
굉장히 아이러니하다고 생각했습니다.
"stimulus," I find it completely ironic.
on something --
전혀 보수적인 시각이 아닙니다.
공화당원이라고 생각하지 않습니다.
he's a Republican.
한 말씀 드리자면
who identifies as conservative:
있다고 생각하는 사람들입니다.
in the limitations of politics.
"사람의 마음이 견딜 수 있는 것들 중
that human hearts endure,
can cause and cure."
있는 것이 얼마나 되겠는가."
is the moral nature of the society.
character comes first,
좋은 대통령이 될 수 없다고 생각합니다.
the character threshold
말을 따르는 보수주의자입니다.
of conservative who --
스타였던 분이죠.
from the heights --
was very future-oriented.
굉장히 미래 지향적이었습니다.
가난한 소년이었지만
rise to success,
poor boys and girls like him
정부가 성공의 기회를 주기를 원했습니다.
사회적 유동성을 제공함으로써 말이죠.
to create social mobility.
루즈벨트에게 있어서
and for Teddy Roosevelt,
was the idea of the future.
and slavery in our past,
노예제도도 있었지만,
Bannon stands for is backwards-looking.
정의는 과거지향적입니다.
과거를 위한 것입니다.
the American identity.
솔직히 말해서, 러시아의 본질입니다.
the Russian identity.
근본적으로 배반하고 있다고 생각합니다.
and foundational betrayal
여러분의 대답을 듣고 싶은데요.
like to hear from you,
from some of you, we'll --
진보 성향의 제 친구들에게
to convince progressive friends
what motivates Trump supporters,
알아야 한다고 설득해봤지만
그리고 증오로 받아들이고는
trying to understand
as lies, selfishness and hatred.
the Tea Party of the left,
어떻게 다가서시겠어요?
there are commonalities in anger,
분명히 있다고 생각해요.
both being passionate about something.
서로 이야기를 나눌 수 있다고 봐요.
the c-word has also become
"절충"이라는 단어조차도
타협 같은 건 없습니다.
and the far right,
하기 싫어하거든요.
to even think about it.
of voters, myself included,
속하지 않은 투표권자도 있죠.
that wants to see change
변화를 보고 싶어하고,
원한다는 말입니다.
이 TED 대담을 하고 있으니까요.
we're trying to bridge.
right now, perhaps especially on the left,
특히 진보주의자들이 보기에는
to the great tyranny
이 거대한 폭정에 대한
is to fight it tooth and nail,
싸우는 것일지도 모르기 때문입니다.
If it means literal fighting, then no.
말 그대로의 싸움이라면 아닙니다.
marching to raise consciousness,
구하기 위한 행진 정도면
we do it through parties and politics.
그건 정당과 정치를 통해 실현됩니다.
are big, diverse, messy coalitions,
다양하고, 어지러운 연합체입니다.
morally unsatisfying
만족스러운 것은 아닙니다.
a bunch of compromises.
결정체이기 때문이죠.
a competition between partial truths.
진실을 놓고 벌이는 경쟁입니다.
of the truth in America.
진실 중 일부라고 할 수 있죠.
to the right question,
트럼프인 것은 잘못되었지만
of opiates around the country,
the spread of loneliness,
whose lives are inverted.
있는 것도 현실입니다.
절정에 이르렀고
doesn't take fighting,
싸울 것이 아니라
싸우는 걸 보셨잖아요.
even at the speech,
여성참정권론자를 기리기 위해
who came and wore white
to actually get rid of the amendment
참정권을 허락한 수정헌법을 없애자는
that's the right way to fight.
방법인지는 잘 모르겠어요.
because I was looking in the audience,
여성 민주당원들 중에서
who didn't wear white.
찾고 있었거든요.
that are not necessarily doing that.
싸우는 방법은 많이 있습니다.
questions, to me, is:
but, if you like, are more in the center,
좀더 중도적 입장의 사람들은
amenable to persuasion --
by seeing a passionate uprising
"아니, 아니, 그렇게는 안되지" 라고
and push them away?
밀어내버리는 걸까요?
"Well, you're kind of a bigot,
"당신 완전 광신도네요.
성차별을 지지하는 거라고요.
you're supporting sexism.
from some authoritarian past"?
원시적이고, 파시즘적인 물결이네요."
too persuasive to you.
are persuaded is by:
몇 가지 요소가 필요해요.
for the point of view, and saying,
방향으로 갈 것 같지는 않아." 라고
to get you where you need to go."
기본적인 존중감을 보여야합니다.
you've heard over and over again,
두 가지 문구가 있을 거예요.
I heard it almost on an hourly basis,
한 번씩 들은 것 같습니다.
"political correctness."
"정치적 정당성" 입니다.
letting us say what we think."
주지 않는다고 반항하는 것이죠.
that liberals have fallen into
자신들이 믿는 가치를 찬양하면서
they really believe in,
of "political correctness."
표현하면서 말이죠.
They have pushed people away.
그들을 멀리 했다는 말씀이네요.
a lot of the argument, though,
"독재주의" 같은 주장들을
"authoritarianism" --
eight million anti-Trump columns,
칼럼을 수도 없이 썼어요.
for the coastal media,
slightly wrong, we go to 11,
지나치게 비판을 하는데,
credibility at some point.
신뢰를 잃게 되는 것이죠.
and a little too early.
더 먼저 소리친다는 거네요.
when we really do have to cry wolf.
소리칠 때가 있는데도 말이죠.
important things to me
handles Trump.
트럼프를 다루는 방법입니다.
when things are not true,
그들은 그걸 밝힐까요?
in this entire discussion,
이게 가장 중요하다고 봅니다.
followers of somebody
if he tells the truth or not,
상관하지 않고 따르는 것 자체가
media going to respond to it?
반응할 것인가를 봐야한다는 것이죠.
of conservative media deal with that
앞으로 이를 어떻게 다룰까요?
찰스 크라우트해머, 조지 윌이었죠.
or Charles Krauthammer or George Will.
언론사들이 있습니다.
of institutions further right,
알렉스 존스, 로라 잉그람
Alex Jones, Laura Ingraham,
his base, not even so much Fox.
트럼프의 기반이 되고 있죠.
is just on this question of the truth.
진실에 대한 질문입니다.
things to people right now,
차원의 동의가 없다는 점인데요.
nationally, on what is true.
분쟁의 대상이 되는 상황을
is delivering fake news every day.
가짜 뉴스를 퍼나르고 있죠.
some kind of consensus,
의견을 갖기 시작하고
됐는지 알 것 같아요.
여파가 일어나고 있는데도
media was biased.
때문이라고 보고있는 겁니다.
between being biased and being fake.
편파적이라는 것에는 차이가 있죠.
distinction in this conversation.
바로 그 부분이라고 생각합니다.
in the mainstream media.
경향이 있다고 가정해보죠.
to try and mend that.
방법이 있을 거예요.
is nuclearizing that and saying,
무기 삼아서 이렇게 말하죠.
all of that fake."
to the truth than to any ...
of not supporting something
지지하지 않는다는 생각도 중요하죠.
a correction at some point?
결국 드러난다고 봅니다.
eventually comes out.
has based a lot of his economic policy
경제 정책 대부분은 그 밑바탕에
have lost manufacturing jobs
중국인 탓이라는 가정이 깔려있습니다.
by the Chinese.
of the jobs that left.
were replaced by technology.
기술 진보로 사라진 것입니다.
and all the jobs will come roaring back,"
폐기하고 일자리를 되찾아 올 겁니다."
지지자들의 생각이 진실이라는 거예요.
his supporters think is the truth,
you might say that,
will come back or they will not come back,
돌아오지 않거나 둘 중 하나죠.
will work or it doesn't work,
없거나 둘 중 하나일 겁니다.
because of great marketing,
정책이 성공하는 것이 아니라
addresses a real problem
경우에 효과가 있습니다.
the truth will out.
드러날 거라고 보는 겁니다.
please raise your hand here.
손 들어주시면 되겠습니다
상자 안에 마이크가 있네요.
talking to each other more
책도 낸 적이 있는 사람입니다.
published on this subject as well,
yes, I live in New York,
말씀을 계속 하시는데요.
진보주의자라고 볼 수 있는데요.
the Rust Belt?
사람들을 무시한 부분이 있었는지,
Middle America better?
이해하려면 어떻게 해야 할지를요.
or conversations from Middle America
동서부 지역의 엘리트들을
the so-called coastal elites better?
자세를 보인 적이 있었나요?
as being put in a box as a coastal elite
소외되거나 무시당한다고 생각하듯
as being considered a flyover state
일반화하는 것이 불편하거든요.
cheering as you --
페이스북에도 많이 올라오죠.
who has been conservative
저는 성인이 되면서 줄곧
테드 뉴젠트의 노래는 듣지 않을 겁니다.
are all on the left.
대부분 진보성향을 띄겠죠.
where the culture is liberal.
학교를 다니려 하겠죠.
진보적인 성향의 방송을 볼 것입니다.
it's going to be liberal.
뉴욕 타임즈를 택하겠죠.
it'll be the New York Times.
입장 모두를 알게 됩니다.
to speak both languages.
for a number of years,
with William F. Buckley,
내셔널 리뷰를 창업하면서
against people every day.
논쟁을 벌여야 했거든요.
is you have ghettoization on the right
보수주의의 틀에 갇혔다는 거예요.
머물 수 있다는 겁니다.
on the right has diminished,
한번도 경험하지 못했기 때문에
약해지고 있는 상태입니다.
in Minnesota or Iowa or Arizona,
지역에 살고있는 사람들을 향해서
make themselves aware to you,
진보측 의견을 잘 알고 있죠.
이루어지지 않습니다.
not get about coastal elites?
사람들에 대해 어떤 걸 이해 못하나요?
with the real problems.
an elitism that is very off-putting.
엘리트 주의를 매우 불편해한다는 겁니다.
진보적인 성향을 띄는
in this room, for example,
진실을 건내줄 수 있다면
사람들인지 말해야겠죠.
is the same problem with elitism.
엘리트 주의의 문제점과 동일합니다.
사회 계급 구분에 기초를 두고 있죠.
social class distinction
to apply in reality.
너무나도 단순합니다.
there are some people in New York
한심한 사람도 있다는 걸 압니다.
and some people who are pathetic,
are awesome and some people are pathetic.
멋진 사람도, 한심한 사람도 있죠.
어디냐의 문제가 아닙니다.
of what degree you have
in the country.
노린 어설픈 일반화일 뿐이죠.
simplification to arouse political power.
to watch a television news show
안보던 TV 프로그램을 보라는 겁니다.
that they normally wouldn't.
watch the other side for a day,
반대 진영의 입장을 접해야 해요.
갇힌 틀에서 벗어날 필요가 있거든요.
to have a conversation.
언론에 관심을 가져보세요.
that's very conservative.
you would normally read,
of what the other side is thinking,
관점을 얻게 되실 겁니다.
of coming together.
you worry about, these bubbles.
자신만의 틀에 갇히는 걸 우려합니다.
certain entities,
이해할 수 없게 됩니다.
of the world is talking about.
언론을 접하는 것뿐만 아니라
that meets at least once a month
어떤 모임에 참여해서
with people completely unlike yourself
직접 만나봐야 합니다.
a responsibility for.
automotive models in this country,
자동차 모델을 생각해보면
are all pickup trucks.
모두 소형 트럭입니다
do I know who own a pickup truck?
몇이나 되는지 한번 생각해보세요.
for a lot of people.
한 명도 없을지도 모릅니다.
kind of a problem.
경고등이라 할 수 있습니다.
with a person who drives a pickup truck
그에 관해서 얘기를 나눌 동호회를
interest in whatever?
contributing to this.
분명히 있을 텐데요.
of communications,
개인 컨텐츠의 유행이
media and individualized content,
a political divide,
메아리만 전하는 대신에
into echo chambers?"
화합할 수 있을까요?"
and Google, since the election,
이 문제에 대해 고심하는 것 같습니다.
알고리즘에 변화를 줌으로써
것을 막으려고 하고 있는데요.
last time round.
promising signs of ...?
of the equation.
실리는 부분도 있죠.
것이 바로 그거라고 생각해요.
argument from the right,
and the internet in general
that were not their worldview.
기사들을 대서특필한다는 거죠.
더욱 키웠다고 봅니다.
that's not what I believe."
강요받고 있다"라는 것입니다.
changed everything,
모든 것을 바꾸었는데요.
of Twitter changing absolutely everything.
트럼프만 봐도 알 수 있죠.
without a filter,
다가가는 수단인 것입니다.
그렇게 이해하고 있어요.
저는 데스티니 입니다.
correctness, and I'm curious:
제가 궁금한 건..
become synonymous with silencing,
단순한 침묵을 의미하게 된 걸까요?
about other people
위한 논의 수단이 아니고 말이죠.
and preserve their dignity?
really pounded this issue
보수 언론이 계속 얘기했죠.
spent a lot of time
정말, 정말로 많이 다루었고
the ability to say what they think.
말할 수 있어야 한다고 말합니다.
became so popular:
많아진 또 다른 이유인데,
of people in America
동의하는 사람들은 많지만
밝히지는 않는 것 같습니다.
gave them the opportunity
동조하는 기회가 되는 셈이죠.
it's a legitimate point of view
정당한 주장입니다.
in the country,
경제적 비용도 많이 들죠.
특히 영국에서 많이 오죠.
especially from Britain.
너무 그러지 마세요.
미국인 여러분 죄송해요.
sort of impermissible to say that,
애기하는 것은 금기시되었는데요.
you must be a bigot of some sort.
사람이라고 여겨지기 때문이죠.
was not only cracking down on speech
completely offensive,
that was legitimate,
and thought into action
and people thrown out of schools,
학교에서 쫓겨나는 사람들이 생기고
that somebody finds offensive,
you can say "You're insulting my group,"
"흡연자를 모욕하는군요" 라고만 해도
will come down into your dorm room
여러분 기숙사로 들이닥쳐
of what is permissible to say.
진중한 논의가 진행되었습니다
should be some social sanction against,
특정 단어들도 있죠.
to enforce a political agenda.
이루기 위한 수단이 되기도 했습니다.
진보주의자나 자유주의자들로 하여금
if you like -- progressives --
around political correctness
특정 상황에서는 불편한 언어도
uncomfortable language
않았다고 느낄 정도로
won't be so offended?
especially elite universities,
진보 성향이 압도적입니다.
to try to enforce some sort of thought
고집하려는 욕구가 확실히 덜하죠.
and correct thought.
of, are we doing that?
아닌지 자신을 돌아봐야 합니다.
the University of Chicago,
we will have no safe spaces.
없을 것이라고 선언했습니다.
of micro-aggression.
비판은 없다는 것이죠.
well, welcome to the world of education.
일어난 일로 받아들이라는 것입니다.
of people on the left, by the way --
큰 지지를 얻고 있는데
정도라 생각합니다.
from Karen Holloway:
과거로 돌아가려 하기보다
go back to some fictional past?
방법은 무엇이 있을까요?
아메리칸 드림을 믿습니다.
in the American dream,
our children is the basics,
가르쳐야 한다고 생각하요.
whatever you want.
이루어낼 수 있습니다
wow, that's maybe not always so true.
언제나 맞는 건 아니겠구나라고 생각했죠.
for that to continue.
기대하고 있습니다.
GC: 그런가요?
자기 부모의 소득을 넘을 확률이
exceeding their parents' salary --
in social mobility in the country.
이동성에 문제가 생겼어요.
century has basically been a disaster,
완전히 재앙이었으며
and we're in deep trouble.
큰 문제에 직면했다고 기고하셨죠.
in real terms, population-adjusted,
감안해서 평균치를 냈을 때
2에서 3% 성장을 했지만
성장률을 보이고 있어요.
than one percent growth.
that they should take risks,
감수하라고 말하고 싶지만,
is a rapid decline in mobility,
급감하고 있습니다.
across state lines,
수는 점점 줄어들고 있고
among millennials.
두드러지게 나타나죠.
위험 부담을 줄일 수 있을까요?
from which they can take risk?
theory of raising children,
애착 이론을 신봉하는데요.
is based on the motto
of daring adventures from a secure base.
위험한 모험을 계속하는 것입니다.
안전한 토대를 제공해주셨나요?
we do not have a secure base,
안전이라는 토대는 이제 없습니다.
risk-taking, energetic ethos
활력 넘치는 사회적 분위기는
there's ground here
있는지 궁금하네요.
a bridging conversation,
함께 대화를 이어갈 역량이요
that there is this really deep problem
심각한 문제점을 파악하고
the economic system that we built,
향하고 있음을 알아챌 역량이 있나요?
that it's not all about immigrants,
온전히 이민자 때문이 아니라면,
the single most divisive territory
다른 사람들을 사이에서
which is around the role of the other.
다소 약화될 것으로 보입니다.
to have the other demonized
타인을 지나치게 부정적으로 묘사하면서
seems to be demonized.
되는 것을 매우 불쾌해합니다.
보는 것은 부도덕하며
could agree, as you said,
데이브씨가 말씀하신 것처럼
may have happened too fast,
빠르게 이루어지고 있고
human societies struggle,
보장할 수 없다는 것에 동의할 것입니다.
becomes de-emphasized
자동화가 문제의 핵심이라면
on recognizing that it's real,
현실을 직시하고
probably wasn't properly addressed
보고 듣지 못한 문제점을 파악하고
how to rebuild communities
재건할지 방법을 찾아야겠죠.
the fertile conversation of the future:
나누는 것이 유익할 것으로 보입니다.
in this modern age,
어떻게 공동체를 재구성하고
한다고 말씀드린 거예요.
I'm not looking at the facts,
현실을 부정하자는 것이 아닙니다
at it from an optimistic point of view --
관점을 포기한다고 하더라도
to say, "Look, the world is dim."
암울하다고 가르치진 않을 거예요.
one more question from the room here.
더 받아보도록 하죠.
the infrastructure plan and Russia
러시아 관련 정책을 언급하셨고
traditional Republican priorities.
두지 않을 정책들을 얘기하셨는데요.
will Republicans be motivated
언제쯤 공화당원들이
등을 돌릴 거라고 보시나요?
한동안은 없을 듯 싶네요.
많이 바꾸었거든요.
he's got 85 percent approval,
지지율은 85%에 이르고 있고,
had at this time,
지지율보다도 높습니다.
has just gotten more polarized.
때문이라고 할 수 있고요.
much more than they used to.
정당을 더 지지하고 있는 거죠.
and the Republicans in Congress
대통령과 갈라서기를 기다리신다면
concerned about reelection,
한다는 것도 또 다른 이유이며,
with getting people either for you
능력이 있다는 것도 영향을 미치죠.
every day, probably:
갈팡질팡하고 있을 겁니다.
or should I not?"
sounded presidential,
드디어 대통령다운 언행을 보였죠.
a sigh of relief today.
안도의 한숨을 내쉬고 있을 겁니다.
until Twitter happens again.
트위터를 하기 전까지라고 말하려 했어요.
each of you the chance
발언 기회를 드리고 싶은데요.
to -- I don't know --
somewhere in the middle.
or to relate to other people?
방법에 대해 어떤 조언을 하시겠어요?
나누어 주실 수 있으신가요?
tell them that as well.
그렇다고 말씀하셔도 좋습니다.
and coming together starts from the top,
언제나 위에서부터 시작되고,
마찬가지라는 겁니다.
어떻게든 각 진영의 지도자들로 하여금
could encourage their leaders
보여주도록 이끄는 것입니다
that we could have
자신의 지지자들에게 이렇게 알리는 거죠.
to be more inclusive
보여드리겠습니다"
시작된다고 생각합니다.
저는 잘 모르겠어요.
starts from the top,
people are coming from on the other side.
이해하도록 이끌어야 합니다.
DB: 네, 제가 말씀드리고 싶은 것은
each other to be civil,
인정을 강요할 수 없으며
우리의 행동이 중요합니다.
is he smashed our categories.
구분짓는 것들을 없애버렸단 거예요.
we were thinking in, they're obsolete.
더는 쓸모없게 만들어버렸습니다.
They're not good for today.
더 이상 오늘날에는 아니죠.
무역을 닫는 정책을 세웠습니다.
closing borders and closing trade.
일자리를 더 만들려면
communities, recreate jobs,
범주화하는 현실을 깨부술
divisions and our current categories.
on macroeconomic policy,
아우르고 있습니다.
economy that creates growth.
역동적인 경제 환경을 조성해야 합니다.
경제 정책이었습니다.
기반을 제공해야 합니다.
nurse-family partnerships;
with wraparound programs
마을 공동체와 함께하는
of social solidarity in this country
가족 관계를 회복하도록
a lot more involved
to rebuild communities.
더 깊이 개입해야 합니다.
an economy that's free and open
보수 진영에서 주장하는 바와 같이
열린 무역을 추구해야 합니다.
is how you smash through
ultimately shapes our polarization.
정치 양극화를 만들었기 때문이죠.
감사합니다.
fascinating conversation.
흥미로운 시간이었습니다.
really interesting.
본 내용을 이어가고 싶은데요.
going on Facebook.
견해를 알려주시고,
of the political spectrum you're on,
in the world you are.
전 세계가 관련 있으니까요.
It's about the world, too.
to end today without music,
오늘 대화를 끝내서는 안되죠,
in every political conversation,
음악을 추가한다면
completely different, frankly.
달라질 것이기 때문입니다.
that brings teens together,
가르치는 프로그램을 만들었고
and the impact of gospel music,
through this program.
이 프로그램을 거쳐갔고
이들이 만든 이 음악은
of ending this TED Dialogue
할렘 가에서 오신 바이 히긴센의
Gospel Choir from Harlem.
더 좋은 것은 없을 듯 싶네요.
for spacious skies
펼쳐진 아름다움이여
ABOUT THE SPEAKERS
Gretchen Carlson - TV journalist, women's empowerment advocateGretchen Carlson is a tireless advocate for workplace equality and women's empowerment.
Why you should listen
Named one of TIME's 100 Most Influential People in the World for 2017, Gretchen Carlson is one of the nation's most highly acclaimed journalists and a warrior for women. In 2016, Carlson became the face of sexual harassment in the workplace after her lawsuit against Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes paved the way for thousands of other women facing harassment to tell their stories. Carlson's advocacy put her on the cover of TIME, and her new book, Be Fierce: Stop Harassment and Take Your Power Back, joined the New York Times best-seller list the week it was published. She became a columnist for TIME's online "Motto" newsletter in 2017, focusing on gender and empowerment issues.
Carlson's ongoing work on behalf of women includes advocating for arbitration reform on Capitol Hill; in 2018, she plans to testify before Congress about workplace inequality and forced arbitration clauses in employment contracts. Carlson also created the Gift of Courage Fund and the Gretchen Carlson Leadership Initiative to support empowerment, advocacy and anti-harassment programs for girls and underserved women.
Carlson hosted "The Real Story" on Fox News for three years; co-hosted "Fox and Friends" for seven years; and in her first book, Getting Real, became a national best-seller. She co-hosted "The Saturday Early Show" for CBS in 2000 and served as a CBS News correspondent covering stories including Geneoa's G-8 Summit, Timothy McVeigh’s execution, 9/11 from the World Trade Center and the Bush-Gore election. She started her reporting career in Richmond, Virginia, then served as an anchor and reporter in Cincinnati, Cleveland and Dallas, where she produced and reported a 30-part series on domestic violence that won several national awards.
An honors graduate of Stanford University, Carlson was valedictorian of her high school class and studied at Oxford University in England. A child prodigy on the violin, she performed as a soloist with the Minnesota Symphony Orchestra at age 13, and in 1989, became the first classical violinist to win the Miss America crown.
Ever grateful for the opportunities provided to her and imbued with a "never give up" attitude, Carlson has mentored dozens of young women throughout her career. She serves as a national trustee for the March of Dimes, a member of the board of directors for the Catherine Violet Hubbard Animal Sanctuary in Newtown, Connecticut and a trustee of Greenwich Academy, an all-girls preparatory day school in Greenwich, Connecticut. Carlson is married to sports agent Casey Close and mom to their two children.
Gretchen Carlson | Speaker | TED.com
Vy Higginsen's Gospel Choir - Gospel ensemble
Vy Higginsen's Gospel Choir of Harlem is an influential source of education and self-development for young people.
Why you should listen
Vy Higginsen's Gospel Choir of Harlem is a celebrated group of performers elevated from the Mama Foundation for the Arts' Music School of Gospel, Jazz and R&B. The Foundation, founded by the writer/producer of Mama, I Want to Sing!, is a highly respected and influential source of education and self-development for young people. The award-winning, nationally recognized program offers performance choirs small, medium, and large and has been seen accompanying many of today's pop icons including Ariana Grande, Chance the Rapper, Pharrell Williams, Alessia Cara and Madonna.
In addition to various performances and collaborations throughout New York City, the choir enjoys weekly performances in Harlem. They can be seen every Sunday headlining Ginny Supper Club's Gospel Brunch at Marcus Samuelson's acclaimed restaurant, Red Rooster, which is ranked one of the top five gospel brunches in the nation. The choir will begin Saturday performances in The Harlem Gospel Concert Series beginning April 15th at The Dempsey Theater in Harlem.
Vy Higginsen's Gospel Choir | Speaker | TED.com
David Brooks - Op-ed columnist
Writer and thinker David Brooks has covered business, crime and politics over a long career in journalism.
Why you should listen
David Brooks became an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times in September 2003. He is currently a commentator on "The PBS Newshour," NPR’s "All Things Considered" and NBC's "Meet the Press."
He is the author of Bobos in Paradise and The Social Animal. In April 2015, he released with his fourth book, The Road to Character, which was a #1 New York Times bestseller.
Brooks also teaches at Yale University, and is a member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences.
Born on August 11, 1961 in Toronto, Canada, Brooks graduated a bachelor of history from the University of Chicago in 1983. He became a police reporter for the City News Bureau, a wire service owned jointly by the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times.
He worked at The Washington Times and then The Wall Street Journal for nine years. His last post at the Journal was as Op-ed Editor. Prior to that, he was posted in Brussels, covering Russia, the Middle East, South Africa and European affairs. His first post at the Journal was as editor of the book review section, and he filled in as the Journal's movie critic.
He also served as a senior editor at The Weekly Standard for 9 years, as well as contributing editor for The Atlantic and Newsweek.
David Brooks | Speaker | TED.com
Chris Anderson - TED Curator
After a long career in journalism and publishing, Chris Anderson became the curator of the TED Conference in 2002 and has developed it as a platform for identifying and disseminating ideas worth spreading.
Why you should listen
Chris Anderson is the Curator of TED, a nonprofit devoted to sharing valuable ideas, primarily through the medium of 'TED Talks' -- short talks that are offered free online to a global audience.
Chris was born in a remote village in Pakistan in 1957. He spent his early years in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, where his parents worked as medical missionaries, and he attended an American school in the Himalayas for his early education. After boarding school in Bath, England, he went on to Oxford University, graduating in 1978 with a degree in philosophy, politics and economics.
Chris then trained as a journalist, working in newspapers and radio, including two years producing a world news service in the Seychelles Islands.
Back in the UK in 1984, Chris was captivated by the personal computer revolution and became an editor at one of the UK's early computer magazines. A year later he founded Future Publishing with a $25,000 bank loan. The new company initially focused on specialist computer publications but eventually expanded into other areas such as cycling, music, video games, technology and design, doubling in size every year for seven years. In 1994, Chris moved to the United States where he built Imagine Media, publisher of Business 2.0 magazine and creator of the popular video game users website IGN. Chris eventually merged Imagine and Future, taking the combined entity public in London in 1999, under the Future name. At its peak, it published 150 magazines and websites and employed 2,000 people.
This success allowed Chris to create a private nonprofit organization, the Sapling Foundation, with the hope of finding new ways to tackle tough global issues through media, technology, entrepreneurship and, most of all, ideas. In 2001, the foundation acquired the TED Conference, then an annual meeting of luminaries in the fields of Technology, Entertainment and Design held in Monterey, California, and Chris left Future to work full time on TED.
He expanded the conference's remit to cover all topics, including science, business and key global issues, while adding a Fellows program, which now has some 300 alumni, and the TED Prize, which grants its recipients "one wish to change the world." The TED stage has become a place for thinkers and doers from all fields to share their ideas and their work, capturing imaginations, sparking conversation and encouraging discovery along the way.
In 2006, TED experimented with posting some of its talks on the Internet. Their viral success encouraged Chris to begin positioning the organization as a global media initiative devoted to 'ideas worth spreading,' part of a new era of information dissemination using the power of online video. In June 2015, the organization posted its 2,000th talk online. The talks are free to view, and they have been translated into more than 100 languages with the help of volunteers from around the world. Viewership has grown to approximately one billion views per year.
Continuing a strategy of 'radical openness,' in 2009 Chris introduced the TEDx initiative, allowing free licenses to local organizers who wished to organize their own TED-like events. More than 8,000 such events have been held, generating an archive of 60,000 TEDx talks. And three years later, the TED-Ed program was launched, offering free educational videos and tools to students and teachers.
Chris Anderson | Speaker | TED.com