Join Cornell Brooks School experts Jared Carter and Thomas O'Toole as they discuss how American democracy faces serious institutional threats from voting rights challenges to political polarization, while exploring how civic engagement can help navigate this critical moment and potentially reshape the nation's legal and political landscape.
Check out the Executive Master of Public Administration (EMPA) program at the Brooks School https://publicpolicy.cornell.edu/masters/mpa/empa/
Policy Advocacy Cornell Certificate Program https://tinyurl.com/22cnm5w3
The foundations of American democracy are facing unprecedented threats, with our social, legal, and political institutions being undermined by their sworn defenders. As challenges mount to voting rights and judicial independence, and political polarization deepens, our civil society stands at a critical crossroads. And yet, through informed advocacy and civic engagement, we can chart a path forward.
Join Jared Carter and Thomas O'Toole from the Cornell Brooks School of Public Policy for a timely conversation examining America's political institutions, constitutional framework, and civil society. They’ll reflect on the historical context of our current situation, assess today's most pressing issues, and explore how this moment of upheaval presents an opportunity to reshape our legal, political, and cultural landscape.
What You'll Learn
INTRO: Hello and welcome to Cornell Keynotes. On today's episode, we're examining how American democracy stands at a critical crossroads with unprecedented threats to our foundational institutions and the rule of law.
Our Democratic framework faces mounting challenges, voting rights under attack, judicial independence questioned and political polarization deepening. Yet with this moment of upheaval, lies opportunity. Through strategic advocacy and civic engagement, we can chart a path forward and potentially reshape our legal, political and cultural landscape.
We're joined by two experts from Cornell's Brooks School of Public Policy, Jared Carter, who teaches strategic advocacy and has led campaigns at every level of government.
And Thomas O'Toole, whose work focuses on democracy and institutional reform. Now here's our conversation with Jared Carter and Thomas [00:01:00] O'Toole.
Tom O'Toole: So Jared, there have been a lot of discussion in academia, in politics, in media recently on both the rule of law, the fragility of democracy around the world.
In fact, a recent study by the Brooks School Center for Global Democracy found cases of Democratic backsliding in 40 countries since 1990. With a lot of these countries exceeding the wealth threshold. These are advanced industrialized democracies that we conventionally think of as too big to fail.
Apropos the topic of our discussion today, from your perspective, what do we mean by the rule of law? What are we talking about when we talk about the rule of law and given that everything that we're seeing pretty much on a daily basis, does democracy even have a next chapter?
Jared Carter: Yeah, it's, it's a great question, Tom, and it's one I think about often in the work I do as an advocate, as a faculty member, and that I teach about in the courses that I teach. The rule of law in my mind is not a thing. [00:02:00] A lot of times I think we say the rule of law that must be written down somewhere must be in the constitution, or it must be in a federal law or a state law, right?
It's on a piece of paper. And I think. The reality is that lots of countries, lots of communities, lots of states have of course, constitutions and laws, but the rule of law is not the legal rule. The rule of law, in my view, is an idea. It's a faith. It's something that a society believes in and believes and supports, and that's what brings it into existence.
I'll give you a perfect example. In this country, the US Supreme Court is charged with deciding what the law says, what it means. But the US Supreme Court has no ability to enforce that. The only reason that a decision of the US Supreme Court is put into effect is because we as a society believe even if we disagree with what the court does, that that is the final word, that that is what the law means, and that's simply a faith in the rule of law.
And so when I think about the rule [00:03:00] of law, I think about that faith. I think about that idea much more than I think about a piece of paper, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, any of that.
Tom O'Toole: And so thinking about the role of advocacy in a democracy and looking back on some of the effective advocacy campaigns that you've led, you've shaped, you've observed throughout your career, are there any best practices that you can share on what made these campaigns particularly successful?
And sort of relatedly, how does one become an effective advocate? Is effective advocacy and art, is it a science, is it a little of both?
Jared Carter: Oh, it's absolutely a little bit of both. And there are so many things that make an advocate effective. But one of the things that I always talk about, and that I try to put into practice in the advocacy work that I do is this idea that advocacy is really not rocket science. What I tell my students is, you're gonna be using skills that you probably have already developed in school, in your workplace, and you're gonna be using [00:04:00] those towards achieving an advocacy goal. So I think that's number one. You gotta have a clear and defined goal as an advocate.
Number two, I think you need to set expectations. We all wanna think and believe that this is gonna be easy, that we're gonna make these changes overnight that we wanna see made. The reality is advocacy is two steps forward, one step back at best. Sometimes it's two steps back to get one step forward.
So I think it's setting those expectations so you don't lose focus and momentum. And then finally, the other thing that I think is really critical to the success of any advocacy effort and one thing that I highlight in all the classes that I teach is the importance of staying connected to the stakeholders.
Staying connected to the people who are impacted by the issues that you're advocating on. Because if you lose track of them, then you've lost the effort, you've lost the campaign, you've lost the change that you're trying to make. And what ultimately happens then is you end up engaging what I call helicopter [00:05:00] advocacy, where the advocate comes in and thinks they have all the answers and proposes a solution that's disconnected from what the community that's impacted actually needs and wants. And that's a recipe for disaster. So having that humility, having that understanding and connection to the stakeholders, to the community that's impacted absolutely critical to the success of any advocacy effort.
Tom O'Toole: You know, I, I know you discussed the importance of storytelling in your teaching. I also do the same in my teaching. And I imagine that effective advocacy is in part, maybe in, in large part driven by effective storytelling and that effective storytelling is driven by audience awareness and stakeholder engagement.
To that point that you just raised, when you're shaping an advocacy campaign, what are the first steps that someone should take to understand the motivations of their audience, to understand those goals that you were referencing before, to sort of understand the impact that stakeholders might have on a campaign?
Jared Carter: Well, you've gotta start by doing your research, right? [00:06:00] You've gotta go out and investigate what's the history of this issue in that particular community? What are the impacts? In the community, speak to community members, community leaders, others who have been engaged in this issue. You've gotta do your due diligence, right?
You're using that skill that perhaps you've developed elsewhere simply towards an advocacy goal. And then once you've done that, I think you can think about what are the goals that we want to achieve with this advocacy effort? And then what are the tactics we can use to get there?
But it's absolutely critical to start with that research so that you understand what the lay of the land is. It's not just the data that's gonna be effective in making change. It is that narrative. It is that storytelling. And I find in advocacy, it's often much more effective to tell the story about the impacted community, about the impacted person than it is to hit folks with a whole bunch of data and science. That's helpful, but as human beings and legislators, decision makers are human beings, of course. We often make decisions, I think, based on [00:07:00] emotional impact, just as much as we do on data. And so a good advocate recognizes that and harnesses a story based on the needs and the desires of the community they're working in to move the issue forward.
And it's all about, and we talk about this in many of the classes, it's all about finding that right balance. Of course, data's important. And of course, that's compelling to some policymakers. To other policymakers, it's gonna be the story, it's gonna be the emotion or some combination thereof.
And it's really important as part of that research that you do at the outset to know what fires up these particular decision makers, right? What are the issues? Are they interested in environmental issues? For example, are they interested in economic or tax issues? And you tailor your story to that interest, that motivator for them.
And if you do that, you're gonna increase your likelihood of success on whatever issue you're, you're advocating on. But that storytelling, I think, is critical and folks often overlook that. I could go on, but I'll tell one quick story. We were doing advocacy for an advocacy [00:08:00] campaign in Vermont.
And, we had brought in experts, we had brought in MDs, we had brought in PhDs. We had brought in all of these experts to come in and talk about this particular issue. It was around agricultural issues. And it, we couldn't get the bill to move. And we realized we were bringing in the wrong people.
We were telling the wrong story, and we organized to bring in farmers to talk about that experience that they had with the issue and that bill moved out of committee. So that story, how you tell it and who tells it is so, so important.
Tom O'Toole: I think it's an important point about data, right? The role of data in policy in advocacy, right?
I mean, we often think that data is what's driving these campaigns. But if you can't tell an effective story about that data, right, you're really missing out on an important point.
So thinking about the differences between types of campaigns, can you talk about, you know, key differences between political and legal advocacy in a democracy?
So advocacy campaigns themselves can generate momentum for democratic participation, right? It's a way to kind of mobilize stakeholders that might not [00:09:00] otherwise be mobilized. But failed campaigns when a campaign falls apart, can actually have the opposite effects, So, some of that might be rooted in this notion that's, something that's effective politically, like a strategy that's effective politically often runs into challenges when it's litigated.
And we're seeing this almost on a daily basis these days. Right. So when you raise awareness or support for an advocacy campaign, how do you actually I guess balanced stakeholder expectations, right, around what's possible politically and then from, from the perspective of an attorney, what's possible legally?
Jared Carter: Yeah. A couple of things to unpack there. 'cause I think it's really, really important. Number one, when I'm starting out in a community, doing some advocacy on, on whatever issue it is, setting those expectations early is really, really important. So I talk to people about, look, we're gonna have false starts.
There's gonna be missteps, right? We're not gonna win every advocacy battle that we take on. And so setting that expectation at the outset, I think helps because in the [00:10:00] end, an advocacy effort is all about momentum. And you're absolutely right. If you falter, that momentum can be lost. But if you go in with the eyes wide open that, you know what, we're not gonna win every time, we're gonna lose a lot, then I think you can get out ahead of that.
So that's number one. With respect to the sort of legal issue, the thing that I tell folks is, look, you're gonna go out and try to make change on some particular issue that's near and dear to your heart. Go out and try to achieve the change that you think would make the world a better place. Right.
And it's, it's okay to dream big. Throughout the advocacy process, there's gonna be give and take. So I say, I always say start big. And then you can negotiate from there because particularly with legislative advocacy, that process is gonna be one of compromise and negotiation.
And so you should dream big. And then, of course, with respect to the legal nuances, it's very important to understand that in the end it's gonna be the courts that are gonna interpret these laws. And so the way that you present a particularly new [00:11:00] policy or new law that you're advocating for is important to make sure you get that purpose and intent of the law in there as part of it, because that's what courts do. In the end they look at, well, what was the intent of the legislature if we're interpreting this new law and giving it meaning? And so it's important to have, I think, that piece of the discussion as you're going through your advocacy.
And the last thing that I would note, and it's a little tangential to what you said, but I think it's related. I view advocacy as a series of different approaches that you can take. One is community organizing and sort of legislative advocacy, and then there's the legal angle, right? Using litigation to try to move the ball forward.
And I think if you look at the history, at least of the United States, whatever social or environmental movement there's been, there has been a litigation armed to that. From civil rights to environmental change to universal suffrage and those sorts of things. There's been a litigation and a legal strategy as well as a community organizing and legislative strategy.
So I think they go hand in hand.
Tom O'Toole: Yeah. We got great question from Emily in Brussels. What happens [00:12:00] if societal ideals are being influenced to be undemocratic? So in other words also, to what extent can advocacy be used in a way to erode some of those ideals or some of those values that Emily's picking up on?
Jared Carter: Yeah, it's a great question, Emily. And we are seeing this happen in the United States and internationally, I think in many areas. , And so what I always come back to is the answer to bad speech or bad advocacy is not to suppress or censor it's good speech and good advocacy.
There's a famous US Supreme Court case that talks about the, the remedy for noxious speech is more good speech. And so what I say to folks who are feeling, and I feel it too, troubled by the state of the world and the, the risk that advocates may in fact be eroding democracy is that's what gives me the motivation and should give us all the motivation to stand up and be a voice in support of democracy, in support of civil society, in support of using the rule of law and using the levers of power to make change.
That's how we push back against [00:13:00] that. There really is no other way. There is no other alternative. Or the other alternative is too troubling to consider. So, I think that's a really important question, and I think that's the, the core of what we need to be looking at.
Tom O'Toole: Yeah.
So going back to that question of kind of managing stakeholder expectations, I imagine that failed advocacy campaigns particularly, and, and they're very common, right? Particularly in the hyper-partisan political environment that we're working in and living in are far more common right than successful advocacy campaigns.
In the course of a campaign, how do you know when it's time to compromise your objectives , to cut your losses for a short term win, right? Would you consider that kind of compromise of failure? And how have you learned from failed campaigns that you've been a part of or that you've observed?
Jared Carter: Yeah, I'm not ashamed to admit, I've probably quote unquote, lost more advocacy campaigns than I've won, and I think most advocates would share that experience. It really is about two steps forward, one step back, incremental change that doesn't always feel as, you know, [00:14:00] successful as we might want.
But I think the way you deal with that, that issue is really to focus in on what is the goal of the community, right? You can compromise and there's absolutely nothing wrong with compromise, but not if it puts the ultimate objective at stake or puts your principles at stake. And the only way that I as an advocate or an organizer can figure out whether that's happening, is you gotta talk to the community.
You gotta talk to the people that are being impacted. And you sort of find out, hey, is there zone of potential agreement here where we might be able to compromise or not? And sometimes there is and sometimes there isn't. But I think the key thing is you don't wanna get out over your skis as the advocate.
You need to be connected and, and in touch with those stakeholders, those impacted people. That's how you're gonna figure out, Hey, can we compromise this? Or can we make some adjustments to try to satisfy the needs of, the people that are opposing it and get it to move even if it's not everything we want?
And that's how you figure out where that line is so that you don't compromise the principles and the ideals.
Tom O'Toole: yeah, it [00:15:00] kind of touches on Andrea. Andrea had a great question. She has asking how can we work to find more common grounds with groups or individuals who don't necessarily agree with us at the outset of our advocacy work.
So what does that groundwork look like in sort of building trust among stakeholders in the early stages of a campaign?
Jared Carter: So I talk about this a lot when I teach courses on advocacy. It is so important in my view as an advocate to not just be talking to your supporters. Not just be talking into the echo chamber of your supporters.
You absolutely have to be able to talk to the folks that are in the other camp. That's how you're gonna move things forward. And I'll give you a perfect example. It was another legislative advocacy effort that I was involved in, and we thought we had the votes on this particular committee to make things happen.
But the co-chair was adamantly opposed, and for some reason, I think because it's sometimes uncomfortable to talk to people you don't agree with, we didn't speak with him. And bumped into him in the hallway outside of the [00:16:00] committee room one day and we had an informal conversation and as part of that, we were able to move that along.
So I think it's really important that we talk to people that we disagree with because we're gonna lose opportunity as advocates if we don't. So that's, I think, number one, you also learn things about what motivates the other side. So those are really, they're hard conversations to have. But I think they're so, so important if we're gonna be successful in moving forward, whatever it issue is that we're working on.
Tom O'Toole: And do you find that those conversations are getting harder and harder to have as we sort of like move through this hyper-partisan environment that we're working on?
Jared Carter: Yeah, they're always hard to have. I think they are, in some respects getting harder and harder. One of the things that I focus on and I encourage folks that are interested in doing advocacy to focus on is think about what's going on in your local community or at the state level.
I find that those conversations are much easier to have than they are at, say, the federal level where hyper-partisanship seems to be much more deeply seeded. When you're talking to your neighbor, it's a much different conversation. The other thing [00:17:00] that I would add is, and I'm a First Amendment lawyer.
Free speech is kind of my thing. But if we don't couple the right to free speech with the responsibility to listen. Then we're all yelling into the void. We could be protesting and shouting and screaming, but if we're just doing that and nobody's listening, because nobody takes that responsibility to listen seriously, then the free speech rights that we have under the first Amendment are meaningless.
So I'm a big believer in the right to free speech coupled with the responsibility to listen.
Tom O'Toole: So you worked on advocacy campaigns at every level of government. You've worked on campaigns around the world. What are some of the key differences that you've seen in terms of best practices at these various levels of advocacy?
Jared Carter: So one of the things that I, I think is worth noting is every jurisdiction, right? Whether you're talking about a, a municipal legislative body, city council or a neighborhood planning association all the way up to state legislatures and the federal government or international [00:18:00] organizations all have slightly different norms and rules of the road in terms of how, a bill becomes a law, for example. And so you really need to understand those nuances. And one of the things I encourage people to do in the courses I teach and in and just talking about this stuff is, hey, part of your research is figuring out how does the process work?
'cause it's different everywhere. And if you do that and you do your research, you can figure out where the pressure points are, where you can use your limited time and resources most effectively to move whatever your agenda is forward. So it's different at every level. Every jurisdiction's gonna be different.
You gotta do your homework and know sort of how it works. But, and this is really important, in my experience, a lot of advocates do the research and get concerned that like you have to be the world's biggest expert in whatever it is you're gonna do advocacy on, and you sort of talk yourself out of actually doing it.
So you don't wanna let research and the need to do this sort of research hold you hostage from going out and actually doing the advocacy, right? You don't need to be the world's biggest [00:19:00] expert to go out and do this work.
Tom O'Toole: You know, going back to this discussion of rule of law that we had before is correlated to some extent with accountability.
And we've seen a trend around the world, including here in the United States of significant challenges holding elected officials accountable for maladministration malpractice. Some of that I think is related to transparency. We just don't have a good idea Of what government is doing.
Some of that's just related to sanction. We just don't have any teeth to enforce accountability. So how can effective advocacy serve to promote transparency, accountability, and sanction in a democracy?
Jared Carter: Yeah, really great question. I think really important to the conversation. Good advocacy, and I'll sort of start at the back end of it.
I think good advocacy can support a democracy and provide an effective check and balance. 'cause in the end, a sanction is meant to check a government, uh, [00:20:00] processes or a government official from doing something that they otherwise should not be doing. And so effective advocacy, what it does is it motivates and it stimulates civil society.
It gets people engaged, it gets people paying attention. It gets people showing up. And once you've done that, it becomes a lot harder for government officials, governors, presidents, legislators, you name it, mayors, to engage in behavior that is outside of those norms. But I think it's an important point and I think it's one that advocates often struggle with, how to do that.
But in the end, I think it really is about your, your advocacy in and of itself is an important check. And if that doesn't work, there is of course the ballot box. But you know when the rule of law is being challenged and those norms are being pushed up against, it's a real and legitimate concern.
Tom O'Toole: So one of the endemic challenges democracy seem to have, and I think this is a global phenomenon, right? Not just here in the United States, but all democracies is that [00:21:00] elected officials tend to be very reactive rather than proactive. Right. And I think that's likely because there on this constant campaign right, always campaigning and they need to generate these short-term wins for their constituents in order to get reelected.
And in many respects, I think that's why it's difficult for advocates to raise awareness and push for change, in order to meet long-term goals. So climate change, for example, has historically been treated by many elected officials as sort of a slow moving crisis, even though it was and is an acute crisis.
So as an advocate. How do you push elected officials or anyone involved in making or shaping policy to be more proactive rather than, and think in the long term, rather than being so, reactive?
Jared Carter: Yeah, I think we've seen it time and time again. One of the things that democracies struggle with is exactly what you're highlighting.
They have a very difficult time thinking long range and acting long range. They're much better at [00:22:00] we've got this crisis in front of us, we can solve it. And in part is because of the way our elective system is set up. And if a politician knows they have to get elected every two years, then that in and of itself is going to dictate the things that they work on and the approaches that they take.
So one of the things that I think advocates can do in the face of that is really talk about, and whether it's climate or any other myriad of issues that are out there that are sort of that slow burn that don't necessarily have that crisis right here and now is to think about and talk about the urgency of now.
Tell the story in such a way that narrative that we talked about a moment ago in such a way that it really creates a sense of urgency, the importance of doing it and acting even if in fact it is one of these issues that's gonna be a perpetual issue, and much more long term.
And I think if you do that, then you can motivate politicians who are, or policy makers who are much more short-term thinking around elections. But that [00:23:00] urgency of now that narrative, that storytelling, that approach is really important. The flip side of that though, is overuse of what we call the apocalyptic narrative.
If you say the sky is gonna fall tomorrow, if we don't do this and it doesn't fall, well, what happened to your credibility? And so you've really gotta be measured in the way you use that. And in the end, the best advocates are the ones that can be nimble and strategic and think through when and how do I use this approach, that narrative versus some other narrative and some other approach, right?
There's no silver bullet solution to these issues. It's strategy and strategic engagement connected to whatever it is that your goal, your advocacy goal is. because if you cry wolf and it doesn't happen, that credibility shot, it's gonna be much, much harder to move the ball forward.
So creating that urgency of now in a reasonable way, that's what we need to do.
Tom O'Toole: Now you mentioned before that you've done a lot of work in constitutional law, and so this is kind of a, a fundamental constitutional controversy, I guess, right? [00:24:00] So in the United States, many democracies around the world, we often find ourselves caught in this balancing act. So this is like federalist paper stuff, right? This balancing act between tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority. So for example, historically here in the United States, we've seen civil society organizations, social justice movements effectively advance and protect the rights of minorities.
So how can we balance advocacy in a democracy in a way that protects minority rights, but respects majority rule?
Jared Carter: Yeah, it's a great question. I think throughout certainly the history of the United States, we've obviously, there's many instances of the tyranny of the majority impacting the minority population, whatever that is.
Here's what I, I how I think about it from a constitutional and advocate's perspective. The Constitution sets the floor. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights in particular provide a check against the tyranny of the [00:25:00] majority, right? Things like equal protection, the 14th amendment, due process. All of those things protect against a democratic majority running rough shot over the rights of the minority population or people in the political minority.
And so I think that's really, really important. That's what sets the floor. Otherwise, I'm a big believer in it's what democracy is, right? Majority rules subject to a constitutional check. It's a constitutional democracy. So we vote for things or against things and as long as they don't violate the constitutional rights that we all share, then those things should be able to come into fruition.
Many states and communities have a referendum process, and it's somewhat controversial. Some folks think. Those referendum processes, which are essentially direct democracy, right? You're voting for proposition, whatever or against it are a bad thing because you end up with a lot of interesting ballot measures, some good, some bad. And I take that point, but in the end, that is direct [00:26:00] democracy.
And as long as those things don't violate the constitutional rights of others then the solution isn't to stop people from voting and from engaging in electrical electoral advocacy. It's, we go out and do more of it.
Tom O'Toole: So sometimes advocacy gets a bad rap. There are often concerns raised about advocates perhaps unduly influencing law or policy.
This is a smokey backrooms concern, right? so in other words, some forms of advocacy might privilege stakeholders that are better resourced or that enjoy kind of back channel access To policy makers. So, just from your perspective, at what point does advocacy itself undermine democratic institutions?
Jared Carter: Yeah. You know, it's one of the things that I always ask my students to do at the beginning of our conversation around legislative advocacy in particular, is they say, close your eyes and picture a lobbyist. And then tell me what that person looks like. And invariably you know, they described somebody that looks [00:27:00] like a slick lobbyist with a briefcase full of cash handing it out to legislators or congress persons or senators.
That's the popular perception. And look, there's no question that within our system there is some, even if it's not direct corruption, there is some large element of the power of money in politics and the access that that buys you if you have significant resources. But what I say is we've gotta stop thinking about lobbying and advocacy in the pejorative sense.
That is a fundamental first Amendment, right? That's how we petition the government for redress. And so while there is no question that there are elements of corruption within our political system that are more subtle perhaps than, you know, briefcase full of cash that does exist, but in the end, effective, particularly legislative advocacy is about relationships. And so again, it's this theme of we're not talking about rocket science. You wanna learn how to be an advocate. A big part of it is networking and building relationships. [00:28:00] Legislators listen to their friends, the people that they know.
And so if you're out there building those relationships you're gonna have much more success. Now, no question money buys access and the ability to make those relationships, particularly at the federal level, but at the state and local level, you can call your assembly person up. You know, you're gonna get someone on the phone, you can send an email to your city council.
You're You're gonna get a response probably. And so going out and building those relationships, I think helps deal with both that perception of the Smokey backroom deal and the reality of the fact that it does in some ways occur.
Tom O'Toole: So in, in the context of this recent discussion around democratic backsliding, there's been a lot of debate on the role of freedom of expression in democracy. So in particular, the changing nature of expression, given the dramatic rise of disinformation and misinformation around the world. And again, not just here in the United States, around the world, as well as the suppression of speech and [00:29:00] democracies that are backsliding.
So how do you feel advocacy campaigns have been and will be affected by these dynamics around freedom of expression, disinformation, misinformation?
Jared Carter: Yeah. It's a complicated issue and there's a lot of nuances around it. Of course, it's, it's a truism living in a moment of rapidly expanding technology.
The ability to communicate, how we communicate, how we interact, is changing dramatically. And advocates are trying to keep up with that. And there's no doubt that part of that is in many instances, the elevation through the algorithms or whatever it is, of misinformation and disinformation. And it's troubling.
But what I always come back to is, look, at least in the United States, the first amendment, freedom of speech petition, the government for redress is a fundamental right. And if we start trying to censor even speech that maybe we think is dishonest or is misinformed, the slippery [00:30:00] slope is someday it's gonna be my speech.
Right? And so in my mind, we have to be very careful when we start talking about deciding that this is this is censorable speech. And I think the better solution is you know, the answer to noxious speech is more good speech. So we get out there and we speak up, we talk, we organize, we advocate, we engage.
All of those things, I think can surmount in the end. It's not gonna be clean and efficient, but in the end it's gonna surmount that disinformation and that misinformation. And democracies move slowly, right? But that's how it's gotta work because if it doesn't then those fundamental first Amendment rights that are so important don't have any effect.
So that's how I think about it.
Tom O'Toole: Yeah, there's been a lot of discussion lately and this week, in fact, Davos is going on right now, the rule of law in international context. And we know that in many countries including the United States, the force of [00:31:00] international law is somewhat controversial.
Recent backlash against the United States action in Venezuela, for example, removing President Nicholas Maduro as a violation of international law, the crescendo this week around the Trump administration's interest in Greenland. How does international law and international norms shape our understanding of the rule of law domestically and as a result our advocacy strategy and practice?
Jared Carter: Yeah, look, we're not in the United States operating in a vacuum. Sure there's state law. We have a federalist system of government where there's state law and federal law. And the interplay between those two is complicated and confusing enough when you add on this other layer of international law, it becomes very hard to determine where we should be putting our advocacy efforts. , Here's what I'll say, under federal law, certain international laws treaties, the UN charter for example, are on parody with federal law. Once the US has ratified, has become a signatory, through the process that the [00:32:00] Constitution lays out.
So with something like the UN charter, I know there's a lot of conversations around that and what happened in Venezuela. There's no doubt in my mind that international law in my view, prohibits what happened there. Whether federal law does or not is a little less clear. You go back to, I think it was 1989, and what happened in Panama with Noriega.
You know, the US went in and did that and they made arguments around whether or not that was constitutional at the time, and the courts allowed that prosecution to proceed. Um, so there's this weird overlay between the international law and federal law. In the end I come back to that sort of core value of I'm probably as one advocate sitting here in New York, not going to be able to impact international law, international treaties.
I come back to advocate local, right? Think nationally, think internationally, but do what you can in your community. and that's gonna bubble up, right? You get a a, an ordinance or a law or a resolution passed at city council and all of a [00:33:00] sudden the state legislature's paying attention.
State legislature does something enough, state legislatures do something, and then the federal government's paying attention. So, it's not that we have to go out and change the international law overnight to deal with these things. That's overwhelming to me. We gotta really come back and focus on like, what do we actually have the power to do here and now and put our energy there.
Tom O'Toole: So thinking about the future of advocacy this relates to our earlier discussion of the role of storytelling and advocacy. We know that, as in all spaces, advocacy will be affected perhaps significantly, by the rapidly evolving landscape of technology, Right. Artificial intelligence, data science. I can envision these tools as both helpful and harmful to advocates. What's your take on the role of technology, how technology will shape advocacy, the rule of law, democracy? How do we ensure that, um, in the midst of all of this technological change that the science of advocacy, [00:34:00] right, we aren't losing the authenticity and the passion, to your point before about the role of passion, the emotional connection, the art that's so essential to our storytelling as advocates.
Jared Carter: Yeah. So there's so much in that, and I think there's so many interconnections between law and policy.
Social media and its impacts. And there's no doubt we're in this rapidly evolving world. I think advocates and I talk about this all the time, advocates cannot be scared to move forward into new mediums, into new spaces. Being an effective advocate is about shifting the balance of power, and you've gotta be using the tools that are the most effective at the time, right?
So as we see a rapid expansion of AI and social media and all of those new areas, those emerging areas, effective advocates have to use them. But, and I think this is a giant, but there is something that I call, and I didn't come up with this term, slacktivism. When you like a Facebook post or you watch a TikTok or you heart something on [00:35:00] Instagram, we get this feeling of, well, we've done something.
Sure we have, right? It's not entirely meaningless. But if that in the end, results in us not actually going out and sending an email to our city counselor or participating in some sort of march or making a phone call to the mayor or whatever it is that we're advocating on.
If the result of that, like click means that we've got our activism bug out of our system and we don't do anything else, well then we're in for, I think, a really bumpy ride. And so it can't be a substitute. These emerging technologies can't be a substitute for just good old advocacy. I think they are things that we can use to leverage the messaging, the reach who we're talking to.
So, if I am gonna go testify at my city council on a particular issue, say, I'm gonna send out a press release the old school way, and I'm also gonna post it on all of my social media accounts. And so how can we leverage and use those tools to leverage the message? They're great for that.
Where they become problematic is where we have [00:36:00] that I think the slacktivism that I alluded to, and I had an interesting conversation with a group of students recently in the certificate program. During an office hours, folks observed, gosh, all of these protests that we're seeing across the country right now, it seems to be an older population that's out there marching.
What's going on? Where are all the young people? And we had a really wide ranging conversation about the role of social media, how that's changed the way that we interact with the world. And I think there's legitimate concerns about is it making it so that young people who are spending a lot more time in these spaces, don't actually get out and go do this stuff.
And is that why it seemed to be an older population? Was there a, Is there a sense of apathy that like, Hey, this protest just isn't gonna work. Why go do it. And we didn't come to an answer of course, but these are really important conversations to have and that it's one of my greatest joys of teaching is having those conversations with students about these real critical issues.
And thinking through how can we deal with this?
Tom O'Toole: And in thinking about just pushing on that, that point a bit further you know, there's been a [00:37:00] lot of discussion about the lack of civic education Mm-hmm from a youth development perspective in K through 12 education.
There's something that we're not doing as a society to sort of energize younger generations about becoming more engaged with political and civic advocacy and developing those skills required to be effective advocates.
Jared Carter: Oh, we absolutely need to be doing much more, in my view.
Both my parents were public school teachers. But I think we absolutely need to be doing more, in my view about not, certainly not advocating a particular position in a public school curriculum, but talking about that history and that role and that importance of engagement, of advocacy, of civil society.
And you can point to numerous instances in our history where that's been the case where that's been the change maker. People getting out and marching, people getting out and walking across bridges while they're being sprayed with fire hoses. Those were the engines of change.
We need to be telling that story to the coming generations I [00:38:00] think in the school system certainly. And then showing examples of success. Right. I think when people feel like it isn't effective, Hey, we had this march and nothing happened, or we sent these letters in and they didn't change the policy.
First of all, we gotta be real with folks. Like everything isn't gonna be
Tom O'Toole: manage expectations. Yeah, yeah,
Jared Carter: exactly. And then showing those instances of success. And I think also one of the things that goes unsaid is when you're involved in a campaign, a collective action, I don't care what it is, there's this wonderful sense of solidarity comradery that I don't get anywhere else.
And that's a really good feeling. And I think the more that the young people are sort of in the online space where that's harder to create, sure you can relate through social media on some level, but it's not the same as being out there together on a cold, windy day protesting for whatever it is you're advocating for.
And that sense of solidarity that comes with that is a really good feeling. And I think we emphasize that more and we'll have more people engaged.
Tom O'Toole: Question from one of our viewers. Emily, thanks so much for your question. This sort of relates to [00:39:00] our discussion of the role of technology in advocacy kind of e-government and government maturity. So Emily asked, do you have any views to share on the role and impact of e petitions?
Jared Carter: Ooh. Yeah. I mean, I think one of the things about our ability to communicate in an e petition is, is sort of a form of this is, uh, you get a lot more noise. I wouldn't say it's easy to go out and do an e petition to get a lot of folks to sign onto it, but it's certainly in many ways easier than standing in front of the supermarket asking people to sign your petition. And so you end up with a lot more of these.
And so then there's a lot of noise, right? If you're petitioning a legislature to do something and they're getting hit with 57 e petitions on the issue, right, there's a lot to cut through. So while I think they can be effective because they allow us to leverage and use technology to reach more people, I do have concerns about the fact that when you've got so much noise coming at, uh, and maybe noise isn't the right word, but just a lot of information signal,
Tom O'Toole: strength of the signal.
Jared Carter: Yeah. The strength of the signal coming at a legislator or a [00:40:00] mayor or a governor or whoever it is, it gets drowned out. To cut through that is hard to do. But when you show up with a big stack of papers to the mayor's office or the governor's office or wherever you're doing your advocacy with 500 signatures on it, and you hold a press conference in front of the State House and you know, it gets covered and people listen to that, people see that, and it has a way of cutting through I think some of that noise.
Tom O'Toole: So you are a faculty member in the Brooks School's Executive Master of Public Administration, the EMPA program, as am I. And in addition to teaching a course on strategic advocacy in the EMPA program, you recently offered a really fantastic e Cornell certificate on strategic advocacy. So can you talk a little bit how our discussion today and some of the best practices that were raised kind of map onto some of the work that you do with students in your courses?
Jared Carter: Yeah, so the certificate, all the courses I teach, I think are meant to be geared towards not just the theory and the [00:41:00] concepts, but particularly in the advocacy space toward actually figuring out how do I go out and get started and actually do some of this. 'Cause I think that's one of the hardest things that I see in the conversations I have with students.
Gosh, I'm really passionate about, you know, whatever it is, but I just dunno how to get started. And so what the courses and the certificate try to do is map that out for you. So sure, you could come in and take one or two, but really if you go through the whole certificate program, you're gonna have soup to nuts.
Here's how you get started. Here's the research you need to do. Here's how you identify the issue that you're gonna work on. Here's how you identify the place where you're gonna do that advocacy, and then actually how to go do it. Once people get going, I think they find that, Hey, I can do this stuff.
I can engage in the storytelling. I can identify right where the legislative fix might be. I don't need to be a lawyer or a professional lobbyist. But a lot of it is just getting people going. And so the certificate in particular is meant to sort of provide that quiver if you will, so you know which arrow to pull out to do whatever it [00:42:00] is that you're gonna try to do to accomplish whatever your goal is.
So we run through the whole process from how do you identify the issue? How do you do legislative advocacy? How do you do administrative advocacy? It's something we haven't really talked about today, but is a really important part of an advocate's toolkit. How do you engage in media advocacy and storytelling? Electoral politics, right?
These are all different tools that an advocate can pull from. And so the courses are really meant to provide you with a roadmap so that you can take it back to your community and do advocacy on whatever issue it is that you are passionate about.
Marcus Terry: Thanks for listening to Cornell Keynotes.
If you're interested in learning more about Professor Carter's policy advocacy certificate program from e Cornell, check the episode notes for details. Thanks for listening and subscribe to stay connected with Cornell Keynotes. [00:43:00]