Mark Lovett

Your Stories, AI, and George Washington

/in , , , /by

On this day in 1790, President George Washington signed into law the first U.S. Copyright Act. The Act emerged from the unique intersection of Enlightenment ideals, economic necessity, and the practical challenges facing a new nation as leaders were trying to establish its cultural and intellectual identity.

To understand why the law felt so urgent to the Founders, we need to step back and consider the current situation. In colonial America, there was no protection for authors’ works. Publishers could freely reprint books without compensating the original author, which created an environment of need without incentive.

George Washington Signed the U.S. Copyright Act on May 31, 1790

The Founders recognized this as more than just an economic problem — it was a threat to the kind of society they were trying to build. They believed deeply in the power of knowledge and education to sustain a republic. Think about it: how could America develop its own intellectual traditions, its own literature, its own scientific contributions, if there was no financial incentive for Americans to write and publish?

When Washington signed the Act, he was addressing several interconnected challenges. First, there was the immediate practical need to protect American authors so they could make a living from their work. Second, there was a desire to encourage the growth of American publishing and printing industries, which were still quite small compared to their British counterparts. Third, and perhaps most importantly, there was the recognition that a healthy democracy required an informed citizenry, and that meant fostering a robust marketplace of ideas.

If you enjoyed this article…
Buy me a coffee

The law itself reflected these concerns in interesting ways. It protected books, maps, and charts for fourteen years, with the possibility of renewal for another fourteen years if the author was still alive. This was actually quite generous compared to many state laws of the time, but deliberately limited to prevent the kind of perpetual monopolies that the Founders associated with European aristocracy.

It embodied a carefully considered philosophical approach that prioritized societal benefits while providing necessary incentives for creative production. The legislation was conceived in essentially utilitarian terms, taking as its primary goal the encouragement of intellectual activity and production for the good of society as a whole.

This framework aimed to guarantee both material benefits for creators and intellectual benefits for readers, recognizing that sustainable creative industries required economic incentives while knowledge advancement demanded public access to creative works.

The limited scope of the initial law — protecting only books, maps, and charts — demonstrated a focused approach to establishing the copyright system. Rather than creating a centralized copyright office, the legislation directed authors and proprietors to register their works at U.S. district courts in their areas of residence, establishing a decentralized but systematic approach to copyright administration.

Consider how this law would have affected someone like Benjamin Franklin, who was not only a scientist, inventor, and statesman but also a prolific writer and publisher in Philadelphia.

Benjamin Franklin was the author of Poor Richard's Almanac

Without copyright protection, Franklin’s “Poor Richard’s Almanac” could have been freely copied by competitors, eliminating his incentive to continue producing it. The same principle applied to countless other potential authors whose stories and ideas might never have reached the public without the economic protection this law provided.

The timing of this legislation — just one year after the Constitution was ratified — reveals how fundamental the Founders considered intellectual property rights to be a critical step in the country’s evolution. They understood that the stories a nation tells about itself, through its literature, its newspapers, its scientific works, and its philosophical treatises, shape its character and destiny. By protecting authors’ rights to profit from their work, they were essentially investing in America’s future capacity to generate and share knowledge.

To ensure broad awareness of the new protections, the Act was widely printed in newspapers following its passage. This dissemination strategy reflected the government’s recognition that the law’s effectiveness depended upon public understanding of both the rights it created and the obligations it imposed.

Copyright Law and AI Training

Navigating Intellectual Property in the Age of Large Language Models

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has ignited a global debate about the ethical and legal implications of training artificial intelligence systems on copyrighted materials. As AI companies increasingly rely on vast datasets scraped from the internet, questions about intellectual property rights, fair use doctrines, and the boundaries of creative ownership have moved to the forefront of legal and technological discourse. 

Major Pending Cases

1. The New York Times v. OpenAI/Microsoft (2024)

  • Allegation: ChatGPT reproduces NYT articles verbatim and creates derivative works that compete with original reporting.
  • Defense: OpenAI claims transformative use through factual summarization and cites precedents like Authors Guild v. Google (2015).
  • Status: Oral arguments scheduled for Q3 2025; considered a bellwether for news media rights.

2. Sarah Silverman et al. v. Meta (2023)

  • Allegation: LLaMA model trained on pirated book copies from “shadow libraries” like Bibliotik.
  • Defense: Meta argues dataset providers warranted copyright compliance, shifting liability.
  • Status: Motion to dismiss pending; could establish liability chains in dataset procurement.

3. Getty Images v. Stability AI (2023)

  • Allegation: Stable Diffusion outputs contain modified Getty watermarks, proving unauthorized training.
  • Defense: Stability AI claims watermark removal constitutes transformative use.
  • Status: UK High Court allowed copyright claim to proceed to trial in 2025.

Regulatory Developments

  • U.S. Copyright Office Report (May 2025): Concluded that “unauthorized reproduction of entire creative works for commercial AI training likely exceeds fair use boundaries”. Recommended congressional action to clarify liability.
  • EU AI Act (2024): Requires AI companies to document all copyrighted materials used in training and implement opt-out mechanisms for rights holders.

Key Legal Arguments

  • Plaintiffs’ Position: Training constitutes mass infringement by creating unauthorized copies during data ingestion. Outputs act as derivative works, violating market value.
  • Defense Position: Training is transformative analysis protected by fair use, analogous to human learning. Outputs don’t replicate protected expression.

Back to you…

This is obviously a very complex topic, but I bring it up as many of my clients have published books which formed the foundation of their speaking career. In other cases, clients have worked on crafting their signature talk, and now realize there’s a book to be written.

Some storytellers are okay with their stories being referenced by AI — they feel the exposure is a positive thing. Others, however, believe their original works should be protected — they think that if they end up in the public domain they will suffer financially.

I’m not sure what the outcome will be, but I’m thinking that if President George Washington was alive today he would be concerned about how the Act is being circumvented — that the intent of protecting intellectual property was being ignored in the name of amassing wealth.

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved

Mark Lovett

The House Un-American Activities Committee: The Day Freedom of Expression Became a Crime

/in , , , , /by

Throughout history, personal stories have been adversely affected by the acts of unjust and misguided governments. Such unjust actions are often justified for a variety of reasons, including an individual’s ethnicity, culture, gender, religion or political beliefs. This last item — political beliefs — sparked a decision that had far-reaching effects on the fabric of American society.

The date is May 26, 1938. The United States remains in a fragile state as a result of the Great Depression as its citizens watch with growing unease storm clouds gathering across Europe and Asia. But on this spring day in 1938, a war of a very different sort was being declared as the United States Congress established the House Un-American Activities Committee — a name that would in time become synonymous with fear, suspicion, and repression of free thinking.

Seeds of Suspicion

The committee’s origin grew from the genuine feelings of anxiety and concern in much of America. In the 1930s, the U.S. was a nation caught between ideologies. The rise of fascism in Europe and the spread of communist influence worldwide had many Americans wondering: who among us might harbor allegiances to a foreign power?

The committee’s original purpose seemed straightforward — to investigate any alleged disloyalty and subversive activities by private citizens, public employees, and organizations suspected of having communist or fascist ties. Reflecting the fears of their constituents, Congress believed they were creating a shield to protect American democracy from enemies within.

But what began as a tool for national security would gradually transform into something far more reaching, far more troubling, and far more destructive to the ideals of personal freedom — the freedom to think, act, and speak freely.

The Evolution of Fear

In its early years, the committee investigated various groups and individuals, though not in a way that garnered much attention. But history has a way of amplifying certain loud voices, and the committee found its loudest voice in Representative Martin Dies Jr. of Texas, who chaired it from 1938 to 1944.

Dies cast a wide net, often making sensational accusations that grabbed headlines but sometimes lacked substantial evidence.

The committee’s approach evolved with the times, and during World War II, it focused on Nazi sympathizers and fascist organizations. But as the war ended and the Cold War began, the committee’s attention shifted decisively toward communist influences.

This is when the committee truly found its dark purpose — and when it began touching the lives of ordinary Americans in ways that would forever change how we think about loyalty, dissent, and freedom.

The post-war years brought us to the era most associated with the committee’s infamy: the reign of Senator Joseph McCarthy and the broader phenomenon we now call McCarthyism. Though McCarthy himself wasn’t directly part of HUAC, the committee became a central stage for the anti-communist fervor that swept the nation.

Pencil drawing of Joseph McCarthy

Pencil Drawing of Senator Joseph McCarthy

Hollywood in the Crosshairs

Perhaps no single episode better illustrates the committee’s reach — and its tragedy — than its investigation of Hollywood. In 1947, the committee turned its attention to the film industry, convinced that communist writers, directors, and actors were using movies to spread subversive propaganda.

The hearings produced the infamous “Hollywood Ten“—writers and directors who refused to answer questions about their political beliefs and associations. These men were cited for contempt of Congress, served prison sentences, and found themselves blacklisted from working in their chosen profession.

Imagine being a screenwriter, someone whose life’s work involved crafting stories that moved audiences, only to find yourself branded as un-American for your political beliefs. The ripple effects were profound: careers destroyed, families torn apart, and an entire industry gripped by fear. Actors, writers, and directors began policing their own associations, their scripts, even their thoughts.

Pencil drawing of American screenwriter Dalton Trumbo

Pencil Drawing of American screenwriter Dalton Trumbo

This wasn’t just about Hollywood, though. The committee’s actions sent a clear message to every American: think carefully about what you believe, what you say, and whom you associate with. The very foundation of free thought and expression — pillars upon which America was built — began to crack under the weight of suspicion.

The Human Cost

The point is, history isn’t just about government policies and committees — it’s about the human stories that unfold in their wake. Teachers lost their jobs for belonging to the wrong organizations. Labor union leaders found themselves under investigation. Even librarians were questioned about the books they chose to stock.

The committee’s influence extended beyond those directly called to testify. It created what we might call a “culture of conformity” — a climate where Americans began to self-censor, to avoid controversial associations, to keep their political thoughts private. In trying to protect American values, the committee was inadvertently changing what it meant to be American.

The Reckoning

Thankfully, history has a way of (eventually) correcting course, though often at great cost. By the late 1950s and early 1960s, public opinion began to turn against the committee’s methods. The excesses became too obvious to ignore, the damage to innocent lives too severe to justify.

The committee existed until 1975, but its influence waned significantly. Court decisions began to protect the rights of those called before congressional committees. Public sentiment shifted toward valuing civil liberties over security paranoia. The very people the committee had targeted — intellectuals, artists, activists — began to speak out about their experiences.

The Long Shadow

Looking back at the House Un-American Activities Committee, we can now see it as a cautionary tale about the dangers of letting fear override our fundamental values. Historians largely view the committee’s actions as a dark chapter in American history — a time when the pursuit of security led to the trampling of civil liberties.

But here’s what makes this story particularly relevant to our times: the underlying tensions that created HUAC haven’t disappeared. Every generation faces the challenge of balancing security with freedom, of protecting society while preserving individual rights. The specific threats may change — terrorism, cyber warfare, foreign interference — but the fundamental questions remain the same.

Lessons for Today

We can only speculate how history would have unfolded had the House Un-American Activities Committee never been established. Would American society have been more open, more tolerant of dissent, more willing to engage with uncomfortable ideas? Would the civil rights movement, the anti-war protests, or the explosion of artistic expression have happened sooner?

As we navigate our own complex times, with our own fears and uncertainties, the story of HUAC whispers to us across the decades: be vigilant not just against external threats, but against the erosion of the very values that make our society worth protecting. For in the end, the greatest danger to any democracy may not come from its enemies, but from the compromises it makes with its own principles in the name of security.

Even though the House Un-American Activities Committee was disbanded nearly fifty years ago, its shadow still falls across American life, and its basic premise of persecuting people for their beliefs has seen a resurgence in America.

Back to you…

How has your personal story been influenced by some form of discrimination or persecution? Have you ever felt that it wasn’t safe to express your true feelings for fear that you would have to pay a price — a price so high that you remained silent? Do you live in a country — or have lived in a country — that is repressing freedom of thought? Sharing such stories is vital if we want personal freedom to thrive.

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved

Mark Lovett

Crazy Bet by Nate DiMeo @ The Memory Palace

/in , , , , , /by

Long time readers of this blog already know that one of my favorite storytelling podcasts is The Memory Palace, hosted by Nate DiMeo. And the exciting news is that Nate’s new book was recently released. No surprise that the book’s title is: The Memory Palace – True Short Stories of the Past (Kindle, Hardcover). I know many of you are going digital these days, but the book cover is so beautiful I’m recommending people spend a few extra bucks for an edition they can hold.

While avid listeners won’t need an explanation, those of you who are unfamiliar with Nate’s podcast could use a primer as this is an unusual style of storytelling. Not only is the narrator (Nate) not part of the story, but each episode magically condenses what could be a rather long recitation (we’re talking hours here) of someone’s life story into a few brief minutes — a thread, if you will, that leads listeners on a journey of how the person at the center of the story came to be, and how they changed the course of history. While it differs from the type of personal storytelling I typically focus on, Nate’s ability to distill people, places, and events into a compact narrative is a valuable skill we can all utilize when crafting our own story. Pay special attention to the visual nature of his prose.

The Memory Palace Book by Nate DiMeo

So many stories stood out for me — expect a few more posts down the road — so it was hard to pick one to feature, but as I have a thing for historical spycraft (you probably didn’t know that about me) I found one episode of great interest. Spies are characters in every war, but I had never hear of Elizabeth Van Lew, so was unaware of the role she played in aiding the Union during the Civil War.

This chapter in the book spans a bit over three pages, which doesn’t sound like much space for a story, but Nate paints a compelling picture of her personality and active contribution. Elizabeth, or Crazy Bet, as the title informs us, lived in Richmond, Virginia, which became the capital of the Confederacy in spring 1861. People often said she was an odd duck, which I took to be an apt description of her basic nature, but to some extent she would exaggerate her mannerisms in order to deflect suspicion from her real mission.

And when she was twenty-five and her father died, this stange, willful woman did something that confirmed to all of Richmond society that se was indeed nuts. She freed her slaves.

Soon after the start of the war she began visiting Union POWs at Libby Prison, bringing cakes and bread and meat wrapped in cloth, and books and Bibles. Toward the end of the war, when the capital was falling, Elizabeth raised an American flag atop her house. Angry residents attempted to burn her house down, but Crazy Bet didn’t back down and forced the crowd to retreat.

There’s so much more to her story, including the fact that after Richmond fell, General Ulysses S, Grant stopped by for tea and recognized the part she played in helping win the war. As is his style, Nate provides just enough detail, allowing us to visualize Elizabeth and her visits to prison. It’s the kind of storytelling that inspires us to ask, “What else did she do during the war, and during her life?”

That’s the ideal balance to aim for when creating personal stories. Enough detail to make your point, and at the same time, inspire a sense of curiosity, to provide an invitation for listeners / readers to explore the topic further.

◆

If you enjoyed this article…Buy me a coffee

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved

Mark Lovett

Leopoldo Lopez: How to defend democracy and fight autocracy @ TEDNext 2024

/in , , , , , /by

During the week of October 21, 2024 I had the pleasure of attending TEDNext, held in Atlanta. The event is a new initiative from the folks who produce the TED Conference. There were enlightening talks, insightful discussions and revealing discovery sessions. This post is the third in a series highlighting some of my favorite talks.

One of the fundamental ways in which personal stories can create impact is by shifting perceptions on an important topic. When we see an issue in a new light we’re able to think differently, and hopefully, act differently.

In his TED Talk, Leopoldo Lopez reminds us that freedom and democracy are threatened around the world. It was his talk at TEDNext that inspired me to dig deeper into the global state of democracy, which I explored in a previous post — The Story of a Flawed Democracy — so I decided to feature his talk in a separate post as a way to humanize the problem beyond the statistics.

Leopoldo opens with a story of his personal / political experiences, to establish a connection to the issues of democracy and freedom, then begins to explore this problem with a startling revelation:

Only 10 years ago, 42 percent of the world’s population was living under autocratic rule. That was 3.1 billion people. That’s around the same time I was sent to prison. Today, 72 percent of the global population is living under some sort of autocratic rule.

I’ve worked with a long list of people who currently live, or used to live, in one of those countries subject to autocratic rule. These are places where critical issues, such as poverty, healthcare, education, and nearly all aspects of equality suffer when compared to countries living under full democracy.  As Leopoldo notes: “80 percent of the world’s poverty comes from autocratic countries.”

If you happen to be a human rights, political, or environmental activist, work in a government agency or NGO that’s subject to the inadequacies of autocratic rule, you probably have a story to share that can provide a personal perspective that others can relate to. As you view Leopoldo’s talk, and read the transcript below, think about how your personal story, combined with a description of the critical problem, and your proposed solution can shift perspectives on a global scale.

Transcript

So today I want to talk to you about something that has been at the core of my existence for the past years: freedom and democracy.

I was elected mayor of Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, in the year 2000. I was reelected in the year 2004. And then in the year 2008, when I was running for higher office, I was banned to run for office. Because we were going to win. At that time, we started a movement, a nonviolent civil resistance grassroots movement that went all over Venezuela and worked with people all around the country to build a network that could face off the dictatorship of Nicolás Maduro.

In the year 2013, Maduro was elected. He stole an election. And in January of 2014, we called for protest. Tens of thousands of people went to the streets. And that took me to prison. I spent the next seven years in imprisonment, four of them in solitary confinement in a military prison.

The history of my country, Venezuela, is one, like many other Latin American countries, African countries,
one of military rule, exile, imprisonment and politics. So I had read a lot about what it meant to be in prison. I read the usual suspects, I read about Mandela, I read about Gandhi, I read about my [role] model, Martin Luther King.

But I also read a lot about the experience of Venezuelans, including my great grandfather, who had been a political prisoner for years and died in exile. Everything that they had to say was relevant to their own condition, but they all spoke about the importance of having a routine. So I had my own routine since day one, February 18 of 2014.

My routine was simple. I would do three things every day. I would pray to take care of my soul. I would read, write, to do something with my mind. And I would do exercise. I did those three things with Spartan discipline every day. If I did them, I would feel that I was winning the day. But there was one thing that I would think about every single day: why I was in prison. And in fact, this is something that I’m sure happens to all prisoners, political prisoners or not. That’s what prison, in a way, is made for.

So every day I thought about what freedom and democracy meant. And it was there in a cell, two by two, in solitary confinement that I really got to understand what freedom was. And it became clear to me that freedom is not about one thing. In fact, freedom is about the possibility of doing many things. So the possibility to speak out, to express your mind. It’s the possibility to move around in your country. It’s the possibility to assemble with whomever you want to assemble, to pray to whomever you want to pray, to own property.

And all of those things were taken away from me and from millions of Venezuelans. And it also became very clear to me that freedom and democracy were two sides of a coin. Were interdependent. You cannot have freedom without democracy. You cannot have democracy if people are not free. So that took me to think about the state of democracy. In fact, next month, in November, we’re going to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, 35 years.

Back then, I was in grad school. It was the ’90s. And I remember the excitement that was everywhere about spreading democracy, spreading freedom, human rights, all over the place. I remember my teachers going to different countries with students. But when we look back 35 years ago and we fast forward, things didn’t really come out the way it was expected.

Only 10 years ago, 42 percent of the world’s population was living under autocratic rule. That was 3.1 billion people. That’s around the same time I was sent to prison. Today, 72 percent of the global population is living under some sort of autocratic rule. So let’s think about this. This is 5.7 billion people in the world that don’t have the rights that most people in this room have. They can’t speak freely, they can’t move freely, they can’t pray freely, they can’t own property. 5.7 billion people in the world.

After seven years of imprisonment, I was able to escape prison and went into exile. Exile is another form of imprisonment. At the beginning, it was tough. But then I started to meet other people like myself, who had been leading protests in their countries, who had been political prisoners, who were in exile. And we were very different in any way we could think about: our skin color, our religion, our languages, the story of our families, the history of our countries.

We were very different. But when we spoke about what it meant to fight for freedom and to confront autocracies, I was with my buddies. It was the same people, the same movement. So we decided to create an alliance of democracy defenders and freedom fighters. So alongside with Garry Kasparov, from Russia, and an incredible woman from Iran, Masih Alinejad, we decided to create an alliance of freedom fighters and democracy defenders.

And that’s how we created the World Liberty Congress, which is an alliance of hundreds of leaders, many of them you have seen their work in Hong Kong, in Russia, in Belarus, in Uganda, in Zimbabwe, in Afghanistan, in Cambodia, Nicaragua, Cuba, in many countries. And we decided to work together, to come together with a single purpose: to stop autocracy and to bring democracy to our countries.

But it became very clear to us that we were not only facing our local autocrat, we were also facing a network of autocrats, an axis of autocrats. And this is something that might not be obvious to many people. But in fact, autocrats work together. They support each other. In many ways: diplomatically, financially, militarily, through their kleptocratic networks.

And this is not an ideological alliance. It has nothing to do with ideology. Right, left, conservative, liberals, nothing to do with that. It has to do with power, money and a common enemy: democracy. So that’s why you have the nationalists from Russia, the theocrats from Iran, the communists from China, working together under a similar alliance.

So if autocrats are working together and the world is coming to a point where 72 percent of the world’s population is under autocracy, it’s time to think about why should you care about this? Why should everybody, anybody care about this? Why should someone who’s living in the United States or in Europe or in a functioning democracy care about this?

Well, if you care about climate change, if you care about gender equality, if you care about women’s rights, if you care about human rights, if you care about corruption, if you care about migration, you need to be concerned about the rise of autocracy and the need for democracy.

30 percent of the CO2 emissions come from China and Russia alone. 80 percent of the world’s poverty comes from autocratic countries. 90 percent of the forced migration, and we from Venezuela can speak about this, has at its root cause autocracy. So we need to care about this.

And what can be done? What can be done about this? Well, I believe that we are now at a moment where we need to make a tipping point of the engagement of people around the world to create a movement towards freedom and democracy. Think about the climate change movement 20, 30, 40 years ago. It was not mainstream. It was there, but it was not mainstream.

But then what happened? Researchers, governments, policymakers, activists, artists, school teachers, students, children, everybody came together under the same cause. Because I remember during the 1980s, ’90s, you would look up to the sky and you would think that there was an ozone hole in the sky that was going to destroy. So the threat was very clear. People came together, policy came together, and now it’s mainstream. Things are being done. I believe we are at that point with respect to democracy and freedom. If that trend continues, today 72 percent, if that trend continues, maybe in the next 25 years, in 2050, the entire world would be autocratic. And that is less than a generation ago.

So we must take action. What can we do? Well, the first thing I believe is to assume that we need to take the offensive. Stop legitimizing autocrats. Autocrats today are comfortable. They do business with governments, with businesses. We need to think of smart sanctions, of ways to make them accountable for the violations of human rights. Second, there needs to be a support for pro-democracy and freedom movements.

In the United States, that is the most actively philanthropic society in the world, only two percent of philanthropy goes to democracy-related issues. Only two percent. And a fraction of a fraction of that two percent goes to promote democracy outside the US. It’s not a priority. So supporting pro-democracy movements, supporting the people that want to be free, should be a priority for all. And I mean, let me give you some examples.

Technology. Access to internet, to free and uncensored internet. Think of the potential transformational capacity to give people all over the world access to internet. Let me give you another example. Using new technologies like Bitcoin to promote and support the potential of these movements. We are doing this already. In the case of Venezuela, we supported more than 80,000 medical doctors and nurses using Stablecoins and Bitcoins because under autocracies you are under a financial apartheid.

Give opportunities for training. Give opportunities for these movements to be part of a global conversation. And finally, we need to build a global movement. There is not one person, one organization, one government, that can do this by themselves. Similar to climate change. We need to think of this challenge as a network. We need to create nodes of network, nodes of network that activate all over the place.

We need to activate anyone with the things that they can do. Musicians should think about singing for freedom. Artists, intellectuals, researchers, activists, governments. Everybody can create their own node with a similar goal, which is freedom and democracy. When I was in solitary confinement, I had a window, and I could see through the crack of that window that there was a tree, and in that tree there was a hawk. And I contemplated that animal for hours and hours and hours. I only think that you contemplate an animal that long if you’re in biology or you’re in prison.

And one day, a guard told me, because I was always telling the guards about the hawk, he said, “You know, the hawk is injured, went through barbed wire, and he’s injured.” And I said, “Bring it to me.” And to my surprise, they brought it to me. Maybe because they thought it was going to die. I fed that hawk. And that’s the hawk in my cell. That’s a drawing I made of the prison I was [in], of that tree and of the hawk.

And then one day, after a couple of months, they came to my cell, they threw a blanket on the hawk, they took it away. Of course it affected me. But less than a day after, that hawk was in the same tree. And it reassured me that it doesn’t matter how low you are, how low percentage possibilities you have to succeed, there is always possibility to do so.

So I came out and being in exile, I met a tattoo artist, that put me a tattoo of Venezuela on my leg, so I now have that eagle here, and I have it always with me. As a reminder, as a reminder that we can always rise up to all of the challenges. So I ask all of you to stand up, to speak out, to do something about our freedom. This is our time. Think of 25 years, and let’s give our children a free world with human rights, democracy and respect for all.

Thank you very much, thank you very much.

◆

If you enjoyed this article…Buy me a coffee

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved

Mark Lovett

The Story of a Flawed Democracy

/in , , , , /by

As many of you know, the focus of my work is helping individuals discover, write, and share impactful personal stories. In my view, these stories — human stories — matter most, but some stories come from non-human entities. For example, businesses have stories to tell, as do cities, states and countries. You could also posit that the planet has stories to tell. And the fact is, the collective actions of these non-human entities have the ability to influence our individual stories. Whenever a new law is enacted, for example, it may alter our life in some way.

In this light I was recently reflecting on the state of democracy around the world today, and how different styles of government might affect our personal stories. This topic could fill thousands of pages, so my goal was to just get a sense of the big picture. As I’ve been playing with AI lately, I was curious as to the insights it would provide. So here goes…

If someone asked you what percentage of the world’s population lived in a true democracy, what would you guess? As I live in a democratic country, the notion of “democracy is the default form of government” quickly came to mind, but as I reflected on this question, countries such as Russia and China challenged that assumption. So I thought I’d ask ChatGPT for some guidance, and I must say, I got more than I bargained for after entering the prompt:

ChatGPT Artificial Intelligence AI

What percentage of the world’s population lives in a democracy?

ChatGPT: As of 2023, approximately 45.4% of the world’s population lives in some form of democracy, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index. This includes both “full democracies” and “flawed democracies.” However, only 7.8% reside in “full democracies.” Meanwhile, more than one-third of the global population, about 39.4%, lives under authoritarian regimes.

World Population Review – Democracy Countries 2024
Our World in Data – Democracy Index 2023

—-End of response

My reaction was one of surprise that the number of people living in a democracy was under 50%. What I didn’t count on was a further breakdown that talked of a difference between “full” and “flawed” versions of democracy. Maybe I’m the one who didn’t get the memo, but I hadn’t heard of this distinction before, and I had no idea that less that 10% of the world’s population lived in a “full democracy”.

So I asked:

“What countries are “full democracies”?

ChatGPT: “Full democracies” are countries that score highly in areas like electoral process, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation, and political culture. According to the 2023 Democracy Index by the Economist Intelligence Unit, examples of “full democracies” include:

1. Norway
2. Iceland
3. Sweden
4. New Zealand
5. Finland
6. Denmark
7. Ireland
8. Switzerland
9. Netherlands
10. Taiwan
11. Luxembourg
12. Germany
13. Canada
14. Australia
15. Uruguay
16. Japan
17. Costa Rica
18. United Kingdom
19. Austria
20. Mauritius
21. South Korea
22. France
23. Spain (Author’s note: recently reclassified as “flawed”)
24. Chile (Author’s note: recently reclassified as “flawed”)

—-End of response

Countries based on level of democracy

It’s a pretty small list, and with one notable omission, the United States. Really? How could that be? In my mind, America had always been held up as a beacon of democracy. But as I continued my line if inquiry, it made perfect sense.

So I asked:

Why is the Unites States not a “full democracy”?

ChatGPT: The United States is classified as a “flawed democracy” rather than a “full democracy” due to several factors identified in the Democracy Index:

1. Political Polarization

• High levels of political polarization and partisan gridlock have weakened the functioning of government. This polarization affects decision-making processes, leading to legislative stagnation and reduced government effectiveness.

2. Decline in Civil Liberties

• There have been concerns over civil liberties, including issues related to freedom of the press, voting rights, and minority protections. This has affected the U.S. score in the areas of political culture and civil liberties.

3. Electoral Integrity

• While the U.S. has a robust electoral process, challenges such as voter suppression, gerrymandering, and disputes over election legitimacy have impacted its democratic standing. The events surrounding the 2020 presidential election, including the January 6 Capitol attack, have further raised concerns about electoral integrity.

4. Public Trust in Institutions

• There has been a significant decline in public trust in government institutions, including Congress and the judiciary. This decline affects political participation and the perceived legitimacy of democratic institutions.

5. Role of Money in Politics

• The influence of money in U.S. politics, particularly through lobbying and campaign financing, has been criticized for undermining democratic accountability and equity in political participation.

These factors collectively contribute to the U.S. being categorized as a “flawed democracy” despite its longstanding democratic traditions and institutions.

—-End of response

The explanation didn’t surprise me, of course, as each of the factors listed were well documented. But I wondered whether this had always been the case, or if the demotion from “full” to “flawed” was a recent event?

So I then prompted:

When did the United States stop being a “full democracy”?

ChatGPT:

The United States was reclassified from a “full democracy” to a “flawed democracy” in 2016 by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). This downgrade was primarily due to increasing polarization, a decline in public trust in institutions, and concerns about the health of democratic norms.

One of the key triggers for the downgrade was the growing perception that the U.S. political system was not fully reflecting the will of its citizens. Political polarization, partly driven by the 2016 presidential election, led to greater division and challenges in effective governance. Additionally, issues such as gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, and the outsized influence of money in politics were identified as factors that weakened the quality of democracy in the U.S..

Another significant factor was declining public confidence in key democratic institutions, such as Congress and the judiciary. Trust in government had been falling for years, and the 2016 election cycle highlighted concerns over the fairness of the electoral system, which exacerbated feelings of disenfranchisement among many citizens.

This shift underscored a broader trend of democratic backsliding, as similar downgrades have occurred in other established democracies facing comparable challenges.

—-End of response

Once again, the fact that the U.S. is divided — some would say broken — along political lines has been talked about for many years. But was this demotion unique, or were there other countries that had experience a downward change in their democracy status?

So I asked:

Which counties have been downgraded from a “full democracy” to a “flawed democracy” in recent years?

ChatGPT:

In recent years, multiple countries have been downgraded from “full democracies” to “flawed democracies” by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), largely due to issues in governance, trust, and political stability. Spain and Chile, for instance, were reclassified as flawed democracies in the 2021 index. In Spain, concerns arose over judiciary independence, while in Chile, political instability and significant protests contributed to the downgrade. The UK has also been on the edge of a similar downgrade, driven by scandals around government transparency and rule-breaking during the pandemic, which weakened public trust and engagement.

These changes reflect a broader global trend of democratic backsliding, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, economic challenges, and rising populism in many regions.

Democracy Digest – Democracy Review
The Oslo Desk – Decline of Global Democracy

—-End of response

I came away with the feeling that democracy was on the ropes, as various forms of fascism, communism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism increasingly take hold. Which brings me back to the beginning of this post. How might ruling ideologies affect each of our stories? As I consider issues such as climate change, human rights, discrimination, gender equality, education and health, I can’t help but think that the world is heading in the wrong direction, and that there are many more personal stories ahead of us that will illustrate the pain and hardship such a world brings.

So I had one final request for ChatGPT:

Can you create an image that symbolizes broken democracy?

What does the state of fractured global democracy look like?

ChatGPT: Here’s an image symbolizing a broken democracy, showing a cracked statue of justice with tilted scales under a dark, stormy sky. This represents imbalance, weakened rights, and hope for renewal through small growth emerging at the statue’s base.

—-End of response

◆

If you enjoyed this article…Buy me a coffee

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved