Connect your Claude, Codex or OpenClaw for full transcripts on millions of podcasts. Two week free trial, cancel anytime.

Start free trial →
JP Jedediah Purdy On The Lawfare Podcast

“I think the democratic idea is very closely connected with the thought that we should be able to think of our future as a choice rather than a fate. Even a good fate loses a lot relative to a similarly decent future that we've been able to choose.”

The Lawfare Podcast · Policy · November 2026

“I think the democratic idea is very closely connected with the thought that we should be able to think of our future as a choice rather than a fate. Even a good fate loses a lot relative to a similarly decent future that we've been able to choose.” — Jedediah Purdy, The Lawfare Podcast

Context

In this archive episode from 2022, the host asked why rule by experts is a kind of 'anti-politics', even if it might solve problems. Purdy argues that big decisions on climate, finance or trade create winners and losers, and people should be able to choose them rather than have them handed down.

Transcript

The Lawfare Podcast Around 19:43 into the episode
Speaker 2

being available for deliberate self-conscious political choices by the people who will live with the results and whose children will live with the

Speaker 1

results. So this has to do with, I'm

Speaker 2

going to take this quickly in two directions. One is at a very high level. This has to do with partly with how much you think it matters whether we think of our future as a choice or a fate. I think the democratic idea is very closely connected with the thought that we should be able to think of our future as a choice rather than a fate, and that even a good fate loses something relative to, loses a lot relative to a similarly decent future that we've been able to choose. Now, let me be quickly more concrete in a couple of ways. One is that I think from the point of view of political sociology, sort of just attempting to estimate the future from the present and past, there are real reasons to worry about the stability of regimes like climate regimes or finance regimes or trade regimes that inevitably impose a lot of losses as well as a lot of gains, distribute a lot of pain, and can be, and I mean, in a way, appropriately are, politically framed as never having really been chosen. I think that the economic dimension, it's not the…

Speaker 1

to think that systems of that kind will not always be self-stabilizing, that you actually may need popular political buy-in. So democracy from this point of view is not just a kind of metaphysical ideal of collective freedom. It's also part of the ability of complex modern systems to self-stabilize…

Speaker 2

I'd say quickly is that precisely because a lot of these issues are not merely technical issues, as I was sketching with climate, expert bodies will be subject to the kinds of intensive and extensive partisan pressure that the Supreme Court has been, has long been, it's become very vivid of late to…

Speaker 1

that is and how significant the consequences are. And so in a society where the sort of democratic tools are weakened or neglected, there's

Speaker names come from our own diarization. The position is estimated from where the line sits in the episode.

More from The Lawfare Podcast