Zócalo Public Square

A Saudi journalist living in the United States is murdered by agents of a government to which America provides arms. President Trump openly favors autocratic rulers from Russia to Hungary to the Philippines, and even expresses “love” for North Korea’s dictator. What does it mean when the president of the United States, a country long cast as a defender of freedom, sides with repressive regimes and even withdraws from democratic alliances? Is American financial and rhetorical support for autocrats really responsible for the decline of liberal democracy, or are other factors driving the rise of authoritarianism globally? And what specific U.S. actions strengthen authoritarians around the world—and which policies and institutions might frustrate or weaken them? Director of the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations Kal Raustiala, Washington Post Global Opinions editor Karen Attiah, and UCLA political scientist Richard D. Anderson visited Zócalo to examine how America’s turn away from promoting democracy

The United States is envied around the world for its unparalleled wealth. But its riches would not have been possible without what Alan Greenspan has called America’s “unique tolerance” for the messy effects of capitalism’s creative destruction. What is so special about our brand of capitalism that generations of Americans have been willing to endure so much wrenching change in its service? What moments in history have shaped America’s complicated relationship with capitalism? And how have Americans tried to balance our tolerance of economic inequality with our nation’s long-stated principles of fairness and justice? On January 24, 2019, The Economist’s political editor Adrian Wooldridge, co-author of “Capitalism in America: A History,” visited Zócalo to examine America’s enduring affection for an economic system that produces so much pain alongside its gains. The event, a conversation with Warren Olney, host of KCRW’s “To the Point,” took place at the National Center for the Preservation of Democracy in Litt

What Would Immigration Reform Mean for Chicago?

Reporting From Mexico’s Drug Wars

What Would Immigration Reform Mean for Houston?

An Evening With Debbie Allen

Can Popular Music Still Change Culture?

Is Economic Austerity Good For Us?

What Would Immigration Reform Mean for Miami?

Live Mayoral Debate Moderated by KCRW’s Warren Olney

What Would Immigration Reform Mean for Los Angeles?

How Are The Wars Changing Medicine?

How Do Wars Affect Families?

Is Our Marriage With Mexico Working?

Would Better Leaders Fix Our Problems?

Do Architects Really Shape Cities?

How Do People Re-Invent Spaces?

Who Designs Tomorrow’s Los Angeles?

Should Power Be More Concentrated?

As much as social scientists have learned about what drives people’s decision-making, we still haven’t found a silver bullet for changing people’s behavior. Yet at a panel co-presented by UCLA at MOCA Grand Avenue and moderated by The Atlantic contributing editor David H. Freedman, L.A. County Director of Public Health Jonathan Fielding, University of Minnesota social psychologist Traci Mann, and UCLA health economist Frederick J. Zimmerman agreed that it is possible to get people to make better health choices—if you give them time, and you engage them on several fronts.