Keen On Democracy

How to Save the American experiment? That's the question the Yale historian John Fabian Witt asks this week in both a New York Times feature and his just published new book, The Radical Fund. Sometimes, Witt suggests, we need what he describes as a “calamity” to recognize and protect the American experiment in democracy. In the 1920s, the historian reminds us, this happened with the emergence of the Garland Fund, a charitable organization set up in 1922 which spawned many of the most profound economic and civil rights reforms of the mid century. Founded by Charles Garland, a disillusioned yet idealistic Harvard heir who refused his million-dollar inheritance, the Fund brought together unlikely bedfellows—from the ACLU and NAACP to labor unions—creating what Witt calls an “incubator” for progressive change. Drawing striking parallels between then and now, Witt argues that strategic philanthropy and what he calls “cross-movement dialogue” can reinvigorate American democracy in a similarly turbulent age of cultural anxiety, political distrust and violent division. History may not repeat itself, Witt acknowledges, but it rhymes. And the real calamity, he warns, would be the end not of history, but of the almost 250 year-old American experiment in political and economic freedom. * The 1920s-2020s Parallel Is Uncanny: Both eras feature post-pandemic societies, surging economic inequality, restrictive immigration policies, rising Christian nationalism, and disruptive new information technologies. Understanding how America navigated the 1920s crisis without civil war offers crucial lessons for today.* Small Money, Strategic Impact: The Garland Fund operated with just $2 million (roughly $40-800 million in today's terms)—a fraction of Rockefeller or Carnegie fortunes—yet proved transformative. Success came not from sheer dollars but from bringing together feuding progressive movements (labor unions, civil rights organizations, civil liberties groups) and forcing them into productive dialogue.* Incubators Matter More Than Calamities: While crises like the Great Depression provided energy for change, the Fund created the institutional forms and intellectual frameworks that shaped how that energy was channeled. They pioneered industrial unions, funded the legal strategy behind Brown v. Board of Education, and staffed FDR's New Deal agencies with their “brain trust.”* Cross-Movement Dialogue Is Transformative: The Fund's greatest achievement was convening conversations among groups that disagreed fundamentally—labor versus racial justice organizations, communists versus liberals. These uncomfortable alliances produced the cross-racial labor movement and civil rights strategies that defined mid-century progressivism. Today's left needs similar bridge-building across fractured movements.* We Need New Categories for New Economics: The institutions that saved 1920s democracy—industrial unions, civil rights organizations, civil liberties groups—are each in crisis today. The gig economy, AI, and virtual work demand fresh thinking, not just recycling 1920s solutions. Witt suggests progressives must incubate new organizational forms for 21st-century capitalism, just as the Garland Fund did for industrial capitalism.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

For financial journalist Elizabeth MacBride, the New American economy is like the old one - only worse. Describing it as the “Frankenstein version of neo-liberalism”, MacBride explains that business has overtaken government to create ever-more-powerful bankers like Larry Fink and Jamie Dimon. But all is not lost. In her upcoming new book, Capital Evolution, co-authored with the VC Seth Levine, MacBride argues that there's a new consensus taking shape - what she calls “Dynamic Capitalism” - which balances profits with purpose. So if we can get beyond today's neo-liberal Frankenstein moment, she promises, America will be able to address the great 21st-century challenges of inequality and climate change. I have to admit I'm not convinced. Rather than capital evolution, I see the growing political power of Wall Street players like Dimon and Fink. We shall see. But when a Wall Street CEO like Jamie Dimon announces $10 billion bets on national security (as he did early this week), it's no surprise that the loudest calls these days are for revolution rather than evolution. Nor is it surprising that a 21st century version of Frankenstein - Mary Shelley's apocalyptic 1818 warning about the destructive consequences of industrialization - will be appearing on Netflix next month. 1. Business Has Overtaken Government in Power and InfluenceMacBride argues that CEOs like Jamie Dimon and Larry Fink now wield more power than most elected officials, yet remain fundamentally unaccountable. When Dimon announces $10 billion investments in national security, the lines between Wall Street and Washington have clearly blurred—perhaps irreversibly.2. We're Living in a “Frankenstein Version of Neo-Liberalism”The current system isn't classic neoliberalism but a corrupted mutation where government has been “co-opted and turned into a tool for punishing people.” The small-government ideology has created not freedom but a punitive state that serves corporate interests while abandoning its regulatory role.3. “Dynamic Capitalism” Requires Long-Term Sacrifice—But Who's Really Sacrificing?MacBride believes trauma from climate change, inequality, and COVID is creating willingness for short-term sacrifice for long-term stability—similar to the post-WWII generation. But as the interviewer notes, when titans like Dimon and Fink talk about sacrifice, they only get richer. The question remains: whose sacrifice?4. Trust Is the Currency of the New Economy—And It's in Short SupplyIn an age when institutions have weakened, MacBride advocates “trust but verify” as the operating principle. She argues figures like Dimon and Fink are “generally trustworthy” even if not “morally authoritative.” The interviewer's skepticism about figures like PayPal's Dan Schulman highlights how fragile this trust actually is.5. New Coalitions Are Forming, But Revolution May Trump EvolutionMacBride sees evidence of consensus-building around stakeholder capitalism and long-term thinking, particularly among Democrats after their electoral losses. But her optimism about “capital evolution” may be wishful thinking when the loudest calls are for revolution, not gradual reform.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Churchill described Communist Russia as a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. For Pulitzer Prize winning Princeton historian, Paul Starr, America might be the new Soviet Union. It's a such contradiction, in fact, that he entitles his new book American Contradiction, in an attempt to describe the dominant narrative of “revolution and revenge” from the 1950s to today's America. But unlike Churchill, who unwrapped the Russian enigma through national interest, Starr finds only more contradictory contradictions about America. The civil rights revolution triggered the Goldwater/Reagan/MAGA revenge. Obama's hope intensified the reactionary backlash. Economic progress created deeper cultural despair. Each new development triggers an old question, each fresh solution an even staler problem. After 250 years tracing America's conflicts from slavery through Trump, the distinguished historian admits he has no idea how it ends (or even begins). Perhaps that's the biggest contradiction of all: a brilliant, yet paralysing diagnosis that offers no cure, an explanation of everything, everywhere all at once that leads us back to the original contradiction. Futile snakes and ladders. A never ending game of one step forward and one step back. 1. The Diagnosis Without a Cure Starr traces America's current divisions back to the founding contradiction between freedom and slavery, through civil rights, to today's Trump era. But after 500 pages and decades of study, he admits he has no solutions - not even a “solutions chapter.” His analysis is comprehensive yet paralyzingly circular.2. Nixon: The Forgotten Liberal? The most surprising historical insight: Richard Nixon implemented affirmative action, desegregated Southern schools, and pushed for guaranteed income and universal healthcare. Starr argues Nixon was temperamentally like Trump but substantively “the last liberal president” - a paradox that complicates standard political narratives.3. “Wokeism is to Trumpism as a Flea is to an Elephant” When pressed on whether progressive cultural politics contributed to the backlash, Starr dismisses “cancel culture” concerns as trivial compared to Trump using state power against media outlets. He signed the Harper's Letter but won't seriously examine the left's role in alienating working-class voters.4. The “Sleepwalking” Theory Starr's one semi-original contribution: 1990s Democrats didn't understand they were creating conditions for their own defeat. The 1965 immigration reformers had “no idea” of long-term implications. Free trade's concentrated devastation of Midwest communities was unforeseen. But he stops short of saying these were mistakes.5. Obama Made Everything Worse Perhaps the most deflating revelation: Starr thought Obama's election would end America's racial contradiction. Instead, it “intensified racial feeling” and triggered the revenge cycle. He's now “sobered” by this mistake and doesn't expect to see resolution in his lifetime - essentially admitting his life's work has led nowhere.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

At 85, the venerable Jeffrey Archer has lived through enough crises to stay calm and carry on whatever the stormy political weather. The best-selling author—who has sold 275 million books and, as a Conservative MP and party chairman, served Margaret Thatcher for 11 years—speaks with the authority of someone who witnessed the Iron Lady's firm politics up close and personal. But Mrs Thatcher isn't the only British grande dame who Archer now mourns. His latest William Warwick thriller End Game, set against the backdrop of the 2012 London Olympics, is the story of a plot against Queen Elizabeth II, the beloved monarch who, in contrast with Mrs T, unified Britain. And then there's what Archer definitely calls his “final novel”—a World War II story to be published next year that he believes will be “bigger than Cain and Abel.” But he also weighs in on today's political chaos in Britain and America: Trump's absurd contradictions, the chilling specter of Farage and Robinson, Starmer's political problems, and why Maggie would have known exactly how to handle them all.1. Archer's Final Chapter At 85, Archer announces his next book will be his last. After 50 years and 275 million books sold, he's on the 17th draft of a WWII novel about September 15, 1941—a day when the war “could have ended” if Hitler hadn't changed his mind three times. He believes it's “bigger than Kane and Abel.”2. Thatcher Would Have Dominated Trump Archer, who served Thatcher for 11 years, believes she would have “handled Trump very well” and that “Trump would be in awe of her.” He compares it to her successful management of Reagan, Gorbachev, and Chirac—knowing exactly “what to do with each one.”3. Farage Could Be 30 Seats From Power Archer reveals he warned David Cameron a decade ago to neutralize Farage by making him a Lord. Cameron ignored the advice when Farage polled at 0%. Now Farage leads in polls and could be “only 30 seats short of forming a government”—despite having no one in his party with governing experience.4. Britain Has Peaked Archer sees 2012's Olympics as Britain's high-water mark. Since then: five Conservative leaders in six years, Starmer's rapid collapse, potential bankruptcy from an aging population, and a declining interest in the monarchy among young people. “Top people are not going into politics anymore.”5. AI Threatens the Next Generation of Writers While grateful his 50-year career predated artificial intelligence, Archer worries about the future. He's discussed with his children ensuring no AI-generated “Jeffrey Archer” books appear after his death, calling it “a cop-out.” The odds for aspiring writers have never been tougher: 1,000 manuscripts submitted weekly, only one published.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

History rarely repeats itself, especially speculative bubbles. As it becomes increasingly obvious that today's AI bubble will dramatically burst, the real question is not when but how.What makes this boom profoundly different from the DotCom crash of the nineties is OpenAI's attempt to create an AI private monopoly by positioning itself at the center of trillions of dollars worth of self-serving “deals”. Sam Altman wants to simultaneously be the gambler, the slot machine owner, and the house. It's a gamble that is, of course, brazenly rigged: he's trying to simultaneously make OpenAI too important to fail and too well-financed to go public.That Was The Week's Keith Teare cutely describes this imperial play as “Come To Daddy.” But it's more complicated—and more dangerous. By weaving OpenAI into the heart of America's AI economy, Altman isn't just building a company; he's constructing a systemic chokepoint not just for Silicon Valley and Wall Street, but possibly for an entire global economy dependent on AI exuberance for growth. If there's a historical analogy, it's the banking crisis of 2008. The US government bailed out the banks because they were supposedly too big to fail. The same will likely happen with the coming AI crash, especially given bipartisan American hysteria over the China threat —only this time, the crisis will center on OpenAI as both the dominant cause and the primary casualty of the crash. Here history might, indeed repeat itself: privatized gains during the boom, socialized losses during the bust.Sam is dealing. Heads he wins, tails we all lose. Yes, the house always wins, especially when it is powered by OpenAI chips and wearing a ChatGPT hoodie.1. OpenAI's Platform Play Is Eliminating StartupsOpenAI's developer day introduced an agent development platform, embedded ChatGPT applications, and Sora video generation—directly competing with dozens of startups. Keith Teare observed that over half of the 58 AI companies showcased at Andreessen Horowitz the next day had lost their competitive positioning overnight. OpenAI is no longer just a product company; it's becoming a comprehensive platform that absorbs innovation opportunities across the AI landscape.2. Potential Market Dominance Raises Competition QuestionsStatistics from SQ Magazine claim OpenAI controls 88% of global AI interactions, with Anthropic at 8% and Google under 3%. While these figures require verification, such concentration would represent one of technology's most rapid consolidations and raise fundamental questions about competition and innovation in the AI sector.3. “Industrial Policy by Private Contract” Signals New State-Corporate PartnershipOpenAI's relationship with the Trump administration suggests an emerging model of state capitalism without direct government funding. The state facilitates deals between major players and benefits through future taxation and ownership stakes in certain projects. OpenAI has become strategically essential for U.S. economic competitiveness against China—suggesting that no future administration, Republican or Democrat, could allow the company to fail. This creates an implicit government backstop without traditional public investment.4. Infrastructure Funding Remains the Critical ChallengeAI requires approximately 10 gigawatts of power annually for the next decade—translating to trillions in data centers, chips, and energy costs. Recent deals involving Nvidia, AMD, and Oracle's $500 billion Stargate project are down payments, not solutions. Energy costs remain a key constraint, with nuclear and solar options still expensive relative to demand.5. The Speculative Age Concentrates WealthAndreessen Horowitz's Alec Danco describes our current “speculative age” as defined by timing and short-term positioning. Unlike previous tech booms where retail investors could buy stock, OpenAI equity remains inaccessible to most, concentrating wealth among institutional investors and insiders while speculative energy redirects into prediction markets and gambling.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Tom Brokaw famously described America's World War II servicemen as the “Greatest Generation”. But according to the historian David Nasaw, the Americans who fought in the Second World War are better understood as The Wounded Generation. His eponymous new book describes the pain and hardships that 16 million veterans endured upon their return home - a tragic story of PTSD, racism and family breakup. Brokaw celebrated the nobility with which these ex-soldiers got on with civilian life without either complaining or even talking about the war. But for Nasaw, this silence wasn't just stoicism—it was often undiagnosed and sometimes even untreatable trauma.1. WWII Was America's Longest and Most Brutal War The average soldier served nearly three years in uniform (compared to less than one year in WWI), with 75% deployed overseas. Combat on the European front was relentless, especially in the final year, with severe manpower shortages keeping GIs on the front lines for weeks or months without relief.2. Millions Returned with Undiagnosed PTSD Veterans came home with what we now recognize as PTSD, but it was neither diagnosed nor treated. Unable to talk about their experiences, many self-medicated with alcohol. The silence wasn't stoicism—it was trauma. Writers like Salinger and Vonnegut could only process their experiences through fiction years later.3. The GI Bill Excluded Most Black Veterans While celebrated as transformative legislation, the GI Bill's benefits were distributed by local officials. In the South, this meant Black veterans were systematically denied college access (segregated schools were full) and unemployment benefits (they were told to return to sharecropping). Only Northern Black veterans like Harry Belafonte, John Coltrane, and Tito Puente could fully access their benefits.4. America Faced Its Worst Housing Crisis Ever No homes had been built during the Depression or the war years, creating unprecedented shortages when 16 million servicemen returned. This housing crisis, combined with fears of renewed economic depression, added to veterans' anxiety about rebuilding their lives. Politicians like JFK and Jacob Javits fought hard for veterans' housing subsidies.5. The War's Aftermath Lasted Decades 1946 saw record divorce rates and increased lynchings as racial tensions exploded. Veterans who liberated concentration camps or survived POW camps (especially in the Pacific) carried lifelong trauma. Nasaw's central message: wars don't end with peace treaties—the harm to soldiers and civilians lasts for generations.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

According to the platform economist Sangeet Paul Choudary, author of Reshuffle, today's AI hype is a feature rather than a bug in Silicon Valley. It's a deliberate mechanism to attract capital in an “attention-poor, capital-heavy economy” while distracting from the lack of short-term business results. So who will ultimately win and who will lose in today's AI arms race? While Choudary predicts power will concentrate around infrastructure players like Nvidia and enterprise workflow companies like Microsoft and Google, he warns that OpenAI risks becoming “the Cisco of this revolution” unless it moves beyond the commoditizing model layer. More troubling, for Choudary, is AI's societal impact. We cannot trust Big Tech with our “agentic future,” he cautions—particularly as technologies like OpenAI's Pulse preview eliminate the last vestige of user agency that we still possess. While pessimistic about US and Chinese models built on data hoarding and state-backed monopolies, the Dubai-based Choudary sees promise in India's stack experiment, where digital public infrastructure allows users to own their data and get paid when AI trains on it.1. The Algorithm Creates a New Class Divide The critical inequality today isn't traditional capital vs. labor—it's between those who work “above the algorithm” (designing systems, like Uber data scientists) and those working “below it” (controlled by systems, like Uber drivers whose rates and job access are algorithmically determined).2. AI Hype is a Feature, Not a Bug In an attention-poor, capital-heavy economy, hype serves as a mechanism to attract investment. Companies selling distant AGI narratives and engaging in circular deals (OpenAI-Nvidia-Microsoft-Oracle) are propping up valuations while actual business results remain uncertain. A market correction is “long overdue.”3. Power Will Concentrate at Two Layers of the AI Stack Winners will emerge at the infrastructure level (Nvidia for chips/inference) and the customer workflow level (likely Google or Microsoft with their enterprise relationships). The middle layer—the model itself—is already commoditizing. OpenAI risks becoming “the Cisco of this revolution” unless it successfully moves up to the workflow layer.4. We Can't Trust Big Tech with Our “Agentic Future” Today we still have agency to click, even if our attention is manipulated. But as AI agents make decisions for us (like OpenAI's Pulse preview), we surrender that agency entirely, enabling even more extraction. Current business models are built on data hoarding—adding agent technology on top eliminates user agency completely.5. Four Distinct Geopolitical AI Models Are Emerging The US favors private enterprise (increasingly intertwined with government), China lets innovation happen then absorbs it into state control, India is building digital public infrastructure where users own their data and get paid for AI training, and UAE is converting oil reserves into compute power to sell AI services globally.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

It's springtime for charlatans. At least according to Quico Toro, coauthor (with my old friend Moises Naim) of Charlatans, a new screed about how grifters, swindlers and hucksters are bamboozling the media, the markets and the masses. If you listen to Toro, you wouldn't want to get out of bed in the morning. Everywhere - on our screens, in our churches, even in the White House - there lurk charlatans intent on stealing our souls. As you can tell from my rat-a-tat scepticism, I'm not totally convinced by such hysterical fearmongering. Though he's probably right that social isolation and AI-powered scams are making us sitting ducks for scammers. Anyway, at least there's no chapter about huckster podcasters in Charlatans. So you are safe here from bamboozlers of all stripes. 1. The Harm Standard Is Everything Quico's core thesis: charlatans aren't just persuasive people you disagree with - they leave a trail of destroyed lives. No harm = not a charlatan (even if you find them distasteful, like the astrology businesswoman he mentions).2. Your Deepest Beliefs Are Your Biggest Vulnerabilities Charlatans don't create new beliefs - they identify what you already passionately believe in (religion, crypto, politics, health) and exploit that commitment to manipulate you. The stronger your conviction, the easier you are to con.3. Technology + Social Isolation = Charlatan Playground AI and algorithms can now identify and target “marks” with unprecedented precision. Combined with loneliness and screen-mediated relationships (no flesh-and-blood friends to reality-check you), we're more vulnerable than ever.4. Not All Grifters Are Criminals Motivations vary: money, sex, power - the “dark triad.” Some are outright thieves (Madoff, SBF), others are narcissists or sexual predators using their influence. But they share antisocial personality traits and lack of remorse.5. Even Legitimate Movements Get Hijacked The Falwell Sr. vs Jr. example: sincere ideological movements (even ones you disagree with) can be credible, but charlatans infiltrate and weaponize them. Brexit, prosperity gospel, anti-vax - all started somewhere and got exploited.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Next Monday is Columbus Day. Or should it be Indigenous People's Day? According to the historian Matthew Restall we should be celebrating both Columbus and Indigenous People on Monday. The author of the timely The Nine Lives of Christopher Columbus, Restall places Genoa's most famous sailor as a prisoner of history - endlessly protean to reflect each era's changing values. The many lives of Columbus, then, is a mirror of how we have thought differently about him over the last 500 years. As history's greatest saint and sinner, Christopher Columbus might be the ultimate Rorschach test. Tell me what you'll be celebrating next Monday and I'll tell you who you are. Happy hols!1. Columbus Was a “Manic Narcissist” Who Believed He Was God's Agent Restall discovered Columbus wasn't likable—he descended into believing he was divinely chosen and could even be found in the Old Testament. This grandiosity was partly his undoing as a colonial administrator.2. Columbus Failed as a Colonizer and Administrator Unlike the conquistadors who came after him, Columbus lacked political and diplomatic skills. He was “just a sailor”—son of a weaver, grandson of a cheesemaker—and Spanish authorities quickly sidelined him. He died in 1506, only 13 years after his first voyage, with a declining reputation.3. The Columbus Day Debate Is About Different Columbuses Italian-Americans defend a 19th/20th century “Italian-American Columbus”—a symbol of immigrant achievement—while Indigenous Peoples' Day supporters condemn the “historic Columbus” who began a colonization process that killed 70-90% of indigenous populations within a century. These groups are talking past each other about entirely different figures.4. Conquistadors Were “Armed Entrepreneurs” Running Investment Companies Spanish conquistadors functioned like venture capital firms—assembling ships, soldiers, and supplies as investments, seeking returns through plunder and enslaved people, then winning authority positions to generate more profit while paying a 20% tax to the crown.5. Columbus's One Success: Founding a Noble Dynasty That Still Exists Despite his failures, Columbus achieved his main ambition—establishing an aristocratic dynasty. The title “Admiral of the Ocean Sea” granted in 1493 is still held today by the 20th admiral, a Spanish naval officer and businessman named Don Cristóbal Colón.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Last weekend, the English reggae band UB 40 played in the Orpheum in Los Angeles and included in the set their 1980 song “Tyler”. Tyler is guilty white judges said soWhat right do we got to say it's not soTyler is guilty white judges said soWhat right do we got to say it's not soTyler is guilty white judges said soWhat right do we got to say it's not soTyler is guilty white judges said soWhat right do we got to say it's not soIn the audience was the song's muse Gary Tyler who, as a sixteen year old in 1974, was put on death row for a crime he didn't commit:Appeal to the governor, of LouisianaYou may get an answer the process is slowFederal court won, too much to openHe's been there for five years and they won't let him goThis week, Tyler released his autobiography, Stitching Freedom, in which he tells the story of the 41 years he spent in Angola high security prison for his “crime”. Yes, the process was slow - shamefully slow. It's the shockingly true story of injustice, defiance and hope in Louisiana's bloodiest prison. Tyler is free now, living in Los Angeles, having successfully stitched his life together. He doesn't seem to have forgiven the system for this injustice (why should he?), yet the one thing that 41 years in Angola clearly didn't destroy was Gary Tyler's humanity. So I guess there's hope in this tragic story. 1. A 16-Year-Old Scapegoat for Racial Violence Gary Tyler was arrested at age 16 during a racial confrontation at a newly integrated Louisiana school in 1974. After a 13-year-old white boy was fatally shot during the chaos, police brutally beat Tyler to extract a confession he never gave, then charged him with first-degree murder despite no evidence linking him to the crime.2. Political Prisoners Saved His Life In Angola's death row, Tyler found unexpected mentors - former Black Panthers and civil rights activists who recognized his case as part of systemic injustice. These older inmates taught him to channel his anger into education and activism, helping him write letters that would eventually bring national attention to his case through organizations like Amnesty International.3. Finding Purpose in America's Bloodiest Prison Despite facing execution, Tyler transformed his imprisonment into service. He became president of multiple prison organizations and, most meaningfully, a hospice volunteer caring for dying inmates - including some of the very men who had mentored him. This work became his “sense of redemption” and healing.4. Justice Denied, Freedom Granted Tyler was never exonerated. Despite multiple appeals reaching the Supreme Court and three favorable parole board recommendations, politics kept him imprisoned. He was finally released in 2016 only because of new Supreme Court rulings against juvenile life sentences - not because the system admitted its mistake.5. Stitching a Life Back Together Tyler discovered quilting in prison, initially resisting it as “feminine” before recognizing it as both a way to help dying inmates leave something for their families and a metaphor for his own healing. Now a professional artist in Pasadena, he literally and figuratively pieces together a life that was torn apart, remaining optimistic that struggle against injustice must continue.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Just be yourself many career coaches tell us. But for the psychologist and entrepreneur Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, the reverse is true. Don't Be Yourself Chamorro-Premuzic advises in his new book, arguing that authenticity Is overrated and what to do instead. Drawing from extensive behavioral science research, Chamorro-Premuzic contends that success comes not from unleashing your unfiltered self but from understanding where “the right to be you ends and your obligation to others begins.” Authenticity has not only become a privilege for the elite and a trap for everyone else, he argues, but increasingly impossible to distinguish from AI-generated fakery. So don't be yourself, Chamorro-Premuzic suggests, in defiantly inauthentic advice for both our careers and our lives. 1. Strategic Self-Presentation Beats Radical HonestySuccess comes from “strategic impression management” rather than authentic self-expression. The person who confidently claims “I've done this a hundred times” gets the job over the honest candidate who admits they'll need to learn.2. Authenticity Is a Luxury for the PowerfulThe more status and power you have, the less you need to care what others think. For everyone else, “telling women they can just be themselves” while incompetent male leaders act without restraint perpetuates inequality.3. Self-Delusion Can Be a Competitive Advantage“B**********g others will be a lot easier if you can b******t yourself first.” While self-awareness helps build competence, overconfidence often wins in systems that confuse confidence with competence—though this benefits individuals at society's expense.4. AI Forces Us to Fake AuthenticityAs AI becomes better at mimicking humans, we're paradoxically pressured to be more deliberately “human”—inserting typos in emails, swearing strategically, creating “artificial hallmarks of authenticity” to prove we're not machines.5. Focus on Your Obligations to Others, Not Your Right to Self-ExpressionThe fundamental shift Chamorro-Premuzic advocates: stop asking “how can I be more myself?” and start asking “what do others find valuable?” Your freedom to be yourself ends where your responsibility to others begins.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

What unites America, it used to be said, is a common commitment to “freedom”. But in our disunited times, it's worth remembering that two incompatible versions of freedom have actually divided rather than brought the United States together. As the historian Nicholas Buccola notes in his intriguing new book One Man's Freedom, these competing freedoms are represented in the thinking of the two icons of modern American conservatism and liberalism: Barry Goldwater and Martin Luther King. For Goldwater, freedom meant liberation from government interference—the right to be left alone to pursue economic success without federal meddling. For King, it meant empowerment—ensuring people had genuine capacity to participate fully in society. And as Buccola demonstrates, these competing visions persist in today's debates over everything from healthcare to voting rights. When conservatives champion ‘medical freedom' to refuse vaccines while liberals demand ‘reproductive freedom' through government-protected abortion access, they're not just disagreeing on policy—they're wielding incompatible definitions of freedom itself. When some see voter ID laws as protecting electoral freedom while others view them as destroying it, they're replaying the Goldwater-King divide: Is freedom merely the absence of federal interference, or does it require active measures to ensure everyone can meaningfully participate? Two freedoms, two Americas—no wonder the United States now feels so bitterly divided. 1. Freedom Isn't One ThingGoldwater championed “negative freedom” (freedom from government interference), while King advocated “positive freedom” (empowerment to actually participate in society). Both men claimed to seek “authentic liberalism,” but their visions were fundamentally incompatible. You can't just say you're “for freedom” without specifying which kind.2. Goldwater's Consequential SilenceThroughout his career, Goldwater had numerous opportunities to speak out on civil rights from his libertarian perspective but repeatedly chose silence. His refusal to use what King called “the moral power” of leadership to support racial justice—even while claiming personal opposition to segregation—helped set a pattern for the modern conservative movement's approach to race.3. The 1964 Pivot PointThe 1964 Republican Convention was a watershed moment when race and “extremism” tore the party apart. When Goldwater sided with the far right and voted against the Civil Rights Act in the name of “freedom,” it drove Black Republicans like George Parker from the party and reshaped American political coalitions in ways that persist today.4. Economics Was Central to the DivideKing saw Goldwater's economic philosophy as almost as dangerous as his stance on civil rights. While Goldwater focused on protecting economic freedom from “big government,” King advocated for an economic bill of rights that would address inequality across racial lines. This wasn't just about race—it was about whether economic empowerment is necessary for genuine freedom.5. These Divisions Persist in 2025The Goldwater-King debate isn't historical trivia. Today's arguments about the role of government, economic inequality, and racial justice still break along these same philosophical lines. When politicians invoke “freedom,” they're usually choosing sides in this 60-year-old debate without acknowledging that their opponents are using the same word to mean something entirely different.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

We've done a couple (here and here) of shows recently about the war on cars. But we never discussed the connections, both literal and metaphorical, between the damage of “Big Car” and “Big University” . According to the tenured Emory law professor Deepa Das Acevedo, what she calls in her new book, The War on Tenure, is really an attempt to transform the modern university into an academic version of Uber. By getting rid of tenure, Acevedo argues, academia is creating a new precariat of adjunct professors who are living in their cars. What she calls the “uberification” of academia is, so to speak, driving an assault not just on tenure, but on free thought and intellectual innovation. The war on tenure, then, is part of the broader neo-liberal project to replace full-time jobs with precarious labor. Academics - you have nothing to lose but your cars!1. The Charlie Kirk Fallout is a Watershed MomentIn just one month, an estimated 40-60 professors have been fired over social media posts about the assassination - with perhaps 10-15 being tenured faculty. This represents potentially half the number of academic freedom-related terminations that occurred over the entire previous 20-year period (2000-2020).2. Rich Universities Are Leading the Race to the BottomContrary to expectations, it's not cash-strapped colleges but wealthy universities with substantial endowments that are most aggressively replacing tenure-track positions with contingent adjunct labor - choosing to spend their resources elsewhere while casualizing their core academic workforce.3. Academic Job Markets Are Essentially MonopolisticThe entire state of Georgia has only 5-6 positions for a labor law professor. This extreme scarcity means academics can't simply “get another job” like workers in other industries - making job security through tenure essential for attracting people to spend 8-10 years training for these positions.4. The “Lazy Professor” Myth is Unsupported by DataResearch shows tenure doesn't reduce productivity - highly productive scholars remain productive after tenure, while those who did minimum work continue at that level. People become academics for reasons beyond job security, contradicting the stereotype of post-tenure retirement.5. Academic Precarity Has Reached Crisis LevelsAdjunct professors are literally living in cars while teaching classes. When academics lose stable employment, they typically exit the profession entirely rather than finding another academic position, creating a brain drain that threatens the future of higher education and research.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

One of the most painful lessons of the Kirk assassination is that conservatives are running rings around progressives in political mobilization - especially of young Americans. So how to make the left relevant in America again? For the philosopher Michael Brownstein, co-author of Somebody Should Do Something, progressives need to learn to lose both cleverly and loudly. And they can learn from NRA on this. Despite holding positions unpopular with most Americans, Brownstein acknowledges that the NRA created a powerful social identity around gun ownership and leveraged it for decades of legislative victories through masterful political strategy and organization. Drawing from social science research on collective action, Brownstein argues that highly theatrical defeats—like the recent Texas Democrats' walkout or John Lewis' bloody fate on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965—can catalyze change by forcing opponents into untenable positions. The key isn't winning every battle, but making individual actions visible enough to shift social norms and inspire others, especially the young, to join the cause. So lose often and lose loudly, Brownstein says. It's a winning strategy. 1. Individual Actions Are Social Signals, Not Just Drops in the Bucket When you install solar panels or drive an electric car, the impact isn't just environmental—it's social. Research shows your neighbors are far more likely to adopt these behaviors after seeing you do it. Stop calculating carbon molecules; start thinking about social influence.2. The “Do-Gooder's Dilemma” Is a Corporate Invention From “jaywalking” (coined by 1920s car companies) to “personal carbon footprints” (popularized by BP), industries have systematically shifted responsibility for systemic problems onto individuals. Recognizing this manipulation is the first step to effective collective action.3. Losing Loudly Can Be More Powerful Than Winning Quietly The Texas Democrats knew they'd lose their walkout fight. John Lewis knew he'd be beaten at Selma. But theatrical defeats that force opponents to reveal their brutality or absurdity can shift public opinion more effectively than quiet procedural victories.4. Study Your Enemies' Playbook The NRA succeeded for decades despite holding unpopular positions by creating a powerful social identity around gun ownership. Progressives should learn from these organizing tactics rather than dismissing them.5. Beware the “Anti-Incrementalism Bias” Revolutionary change like Prohibition often fails because it lacks public buy-in. Lasting progress—like Social Security—comes from incremental victories that build over time. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

“Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown,” were, of course, the closing words from Polanski's 1974 movie, Chinatown. But the point of Jeff Chang's new biography of Bruce Lee, Water Mirror Echo, is that by 1973, when Lee died, Asian America was more than just Chinatown. Lee made Asian America, Chang argues, by giving Asian Americans dignity. Chang shows how Lee's journey from segregated Seattle and San Francisco neighborhoods to global stardom paralleled the rise of Asian American political consciousness. His films weren't just action movies but anti-colonial spectacles - kicking down “No Chinese and Dogs” signs, fighting for workers against bosses, defending communities against gentrification. After Bruce Lee, chinatown became more, so much more, than just chinatown.1. Lee was an “anchor baby” who embodied the immigrant struggle Born in San Francisco in 1940 during Chinese Exclusion, Lee lived in segregated neighborhoods and learned firsthand what it meant to be a racialized minority - making him a powerful symbol for those Trump-era immigration debates Chang references.2. His movies were explicitly political, not just action films From labor solidarity in The Big Boss to anti-colonialism in Fist of Fury to fighting gentrification in Way of the Dragon, Lee's films consistently championed underdogs against oppressors.3. Lee's rise paralleled the birth of “Asian American” identity Just as the term “Asian American” emerged in Berkeley in 1968, Lee was transforming from Hollywood sidekick to global hero, giving form to a new political consciousness that refused second-class status.4. Hollywood's racism forced Lee to find stardom in Asia After losing the Kung Fu role to David Carradine in yellowface, Lee had to return to Hong Kong to be seen as a leading man - becoming Asia's biggest star in six months.5. Hip-hop embraced Lee through shared spaces of segregation Inner-city theaters showed both Blaxploitation and kung fu films to the same audiences, creating an unexpected solidarity between Black and Asian communities that continues through artists like Wu-Tang Clan.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Back in 1990, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur called Jim Fruchterman chose purpose over profit. In his new book, Technology for Good, Fruchterman explains how nonprofit leaders like him are using software and data to solve our most pressing social problems. Thirty five years ago, when his investors vetoed a reading machine for the blind because the market was only $1 million annually, Fruchterman walked away from his $25 million-funded AI company to start his first nonprofit. Today, he's still on the front line of the battle to show that technology's greatest potential lies not in making billionaires richer, but in serving the 90% of humanity that big tech conveniently ignores.1. When profit and purpose clash, profit usually wins Fruchterman argues that when companies face a choice between social good and making money, they “pretty much always pick making more.” His own experience—investors vetoing a reading machine for the blind despite having the technology ready—exemplifies this. Even OpenAI, which started with a nonprofit mission, ultimately flipped to prioritize profit when Sam Altman was briefly fired then reinstated.2. The nonprofit sector is 15 years behind in technology adoption While companies like Uber and banks have essentially become software companies, most nonprofits are still operating with outdated technology. This creates what Fruchterman calls a “target-rich environment” for improvement—nonprofits don't need cutting-edge AI to transform their operations, just the basic data and software tools that for-profit businesses mastered years ago.3. Effective altruism has gone “out of control” Some philanthropists focus so narrowly on measurable impact that they dismiss causes like women's rights or education as “immoral” investments compared to deworming programs. Fruchterman advocates for diversity in philanthropic approaches, arguing that the complexity of global problems requires varied solutions, not just those with the cleanest metrics.4. U.S. foreign aid primarily benefits Americans Contrary to isolationist arguments, 80% of U.S. foreign aid money goes to American staff and American products. Cutting aid doesn't help American farmers—it just leaves their grain piling up in silos. Fruchterman sees nonprofit work as “market development capital for the capitalist system,” turning aid recipients into future customers.5. Mental health represents AI's most promising social application Within five years, Fruchterman believes AI could revolutionize mental health support—not because the technology is revolutionary, but because “we'll never have enough people to help solve our mental health issues.” While big tech's algorithms have exacerbated mental health problems for profit, the same tools could be redesigned to provide accessible support at scale.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

It's not exactly news that the Nazis didn't like the Jews. But according to the Rutgers historian Jochen Hellbeck, author of World Enemy Number One, the Nazi obsession went so far as to believe that the Soviet Union was owned and operated by a global cabal of Jews. And so, Hellbeck argues, it was not the Western powers but Communist Russia that Nazi Germany viewed as an existential threat—in fact, “World Enemy No. 1.” Jewish revolutionaries, the Nazis believed, had seized power in 1917 and were preparing the Soviet state to destroy Germany and the world. This paranoid delusion drove Nazi Germany's most catastrophic decision: launching Operation Barbarossa in 1941. While Hitler made tactical alliances and fought on multiple fronts, Hellbeck demonstrates through his meticulous archival research that the destruction of “Judeo-Bolshevism” remained the Nazis' primary ideological mission. Drawing on overlooked Soviet sources, including war correspondent Ilya Ehrenburg's writings, Hellbeck shows how this twisted worldview shaped not just propaganda but military strategy, ultimately leading to both the Holocaust and Germany's catastrophic defeat on the Eastern Front.1. The Nazis saw “Judeo-Bolshevism” as one unified threat The Nazis genuinely believed Soviet communism was a Jewish conspiracy for world domination. They conflated Russians, Bolsheviks, and Jews into a single enemy - viewing Karl Marx's Jewish heritage as proof that communism itself was a Jewish plot to destroy Germany.2. This obsession drove Nazi military strategy, not just propaganda Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union wasn't merely opportunistic. German military planning for attacking the USSR, including detailed preparations for different rail gauges and propaganda leaflets, began in the mid-1930s - showing this was a long-term ideological priority, not a tactical decision.3. Soviet sources deserve serious historical consideration Western historiography has often dismissed Soviet wartime accounts as propaganda. But Hellbeck's research, particularly examining war correspondent Ilya Ehrenburg's work against German documents, shows these Soviet sources accurately documented Nazi atrocities and mindsets without fabrication.4. Ordinary Germans, not just the SS, committed atrocities The Wehrmacht's brutality on the Eastern Front wasn't limited to special units. Hellbeck found that whenever German soldiers felt threatened, they defaulted to extreme racial violence - a pattern that intensified as the Red Army approached Germany in 1944-45.5. The war's memory continues shaping current conflicts The different ways Eastern and Western Ukraine remembered WWII (Soviet liberation vs. Soviet occupation) contributed to the country's political divisions. Putin's Russia still invokes the “Great Patriotic War” to justify current actions, showing how WWII's contested legacy remains politically explosive.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

The numbers are mind blowing. According to Roadkill authors Henrietta Moore and Arthur Kay, cars have killed more people than both world wars combined. That's how toxic our relationship with cars has been over the last century, they argue. The UN figures they cite—60 to 80 million direct deaths since the automobile's invention—don't even include premature deaths from air pollution or the millions seriously injured. Yet we've become “car blind,” Moore and Kay contend, unable to see how we've surrendered 80% of urban public space to vehicles that sit idle 96% of the time, creating what they call a hidden “car industrial complex” that reshapes cities in its image. So what to do? They advocate for “choice not obligation”—redesigning cities so people can drive if they want but aren't forced to. They point to successful experiments from Barcelona's superblocks to Dallas's highway cap parks, where reclaimed streets have actually increased business revenue by up to 34% in some cases. Their goal isn't to ban cars but to stop letting them dominate every aspect of urban planning and life.1. The Deadly Math of “Car Blindness” Cars have directly killed 60-80 million people since their invention—more than WWI and WWII combined. Yet we've normalized this death toll and become “car blind” to how thoroughly automobiles dominate our lives, with 80% of urban public space dedicated to vehicles that sit unused 96% of the time.2. Electric and Self-Driving Cars Aren't Silver Bullets Moore and Kay argue that EVs and autonomous vehicles like Waymo don't solve the fundamental problem: they're still cars taking up urban space. Plus, EVs bring their own issues—from lithium extraction devastating places like Chile's Atacama Desert to the question of whether electricity generation is actually clean.3. “Choice Not Obligation” - A New Freedom Framework The authors aren't advocating car bans but rather redesigning cities so driving becomes optional rather than mandatory. They argue true 21st-century freedom means being able to walk to school safely, access nearby shops, and move through cities without car dependence—not just the 20th-century freedom to drive anywhere.4. Global South Solutions Leading the Way Surprisingly, innovations aren't coming from Copenhagen but from places like Nairobi's matatu system (on-demand informal transit) and Dallas's highway “cap parks.” These demonstrate that car reduction isn't just for wealthy European cities but can work across diverse economic contexts.5. Follow the Money - It Actually Works When done properly, reducing car dominance boosts business. Times Square restaurants saw revenue jump 34% after pedestrianization. The key is integrated planning with communities rather than top-down mandates, ensuring alternatives exist before removing parking.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

It's the $320,000 question both parents and students are asking themselves: Is that four-year liberal arts degree really worth it? According to Brandeis University President Arthur Levine, it's a question they should, indeed, be asking. In his co-authored book The Great Upheaval, Levine argues that the United States is experiencing a profound transformation not seen since the Industrial Revolution—when America's classical colleges adapted to meet the needs of an emerging industrial economy. So what, exactly, does that mean for a useful liberal arts education today? Should students really invest their time in women's studies in our AI age of Claude and ChatGPT?1. America is experiencing its second great transformation in historyLevine argues we're in a shift from national analog industrial economies to global digital knowledge economies—comparable only to the Industrial Revolution. This creates massive winners and losers, with educational level becoming the primary dividing line in society.2. The $320K liberal arts degree must prove its worthTraditional liberal arts education isn't enough anymore. Levine is reforming Brandeis's curriculum to combine “durable life skills” (critical thinking, communication) with practical “career skills,” creating a second transcript to show employers what graduates can actually do.3. Higher education is splitting into two unequal systemsWe're developing one system for the wealthy (traditional campus experience) and another for working people (online education). Only 20% of college students now fit the traditional model of 18-24 year-olds attending full-time on campus.4. Universities are under political attack because they represent changeThe populist backlash against “elite” institutions isn't really about ideology—it's about anger from those left behind by economic transformation. Universities are being scapegoated as symbols of a changing world that has hurt many working-class Americans.5. Federal policies are actively damaging higher educationInternational student visa denials, research funding cuts based on forbidden words, and threats of deportation for student activists are isolating America and weakening universities' capacity to innovate and compete globally.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Some liberals might shake their virtuous heads and tut-tut disapprovingly. But, as the Brookings scholar William Galston argues, Donald Trump's Old Testament politics of retribution has exposed the limitations of liberal thought. In his new book, Anger, Fear, Domination, Galston argues that liberals must recognize the dark passions driving politics and incorporate them into their own language. The power of political speech, Galston reminds us, depends on the recognition and promise of human passion. Those passions don't have to be so hatefully retributive as Trump's, of course. But contemporary liberals, Galston argues, must recognize that humans aren't simply calculating machines and shape their language accordingly. Only then, he warns, will they be able to take on and defeat the dark passions currently corroding American politics. 1. Liberals Have Been Politically Naive About Human Nature Galston argues liberals have expected “dark passions” (anger, fear, domination) to disappear through rational discourse and commercial interests, but these emotions are “perennial” and “part of our nature.” Trump succeeded because he understood this; liberals failed because they were surprised by it.2. Trump's Politics Are Fundamentally About Retribution, Not Policy His famous CPAC line “I am your retribution” wasn't campaign rhetoric—it was a governing philosophy. Trump genuinely believes his supporters have been wronged and that “revenge and retribution represent justice the old-fashioned way.”3. Political Speech Can Either Inflame or Soothe These Passions Galston advocates for leaders who use rhetoric like “foam on a runway fire”—dampening rather than stoking destructive emotions. He points to FDR's “only thing we have to fear is fear itself” as an example of transforming paralyzing fear into productive confidence.4. History Has No Predetermined Direction Unlike Hegelian or Marxist narratives, Galston argues there's no “History with a capital H” moving inexorably toward liberal democracy. Regression is always possible, and believing in historical inevitability is one of liberalism's dangerous illusions.5. Americans Are Growing Tired of Constant Political Combat Despite polarized extremes, Galston detects a “rising sense that we need civil peace” and believes many Americans are “yearning” for a peacemaker who can restore “domestic tranquility”—creating an opening for the right kind of leader.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

“It's happening. The question is whether it's a dream or a nightmare. This week, OpenAI introduced Pulse, an AI assistant that knows what we want to do and think before we do. That Was The Week publisher Keith Teare welcomes Pulse as a “habit” that will “shape your day.” Unlike the techno-teleological Keith, however, I'm less enamored by Pulse. Do we really want a proactive AI assistant that not only controls what Keith calls the “front door” but every other door (and window) in our lives? Keith describes this as the “consumer install moment” - Sam Altman's $10 trillion bet on ‘Abundant Intelligence.' But what, exactly, is so abundant about this personalized machine intelligence that installs itself into our lives? Having a smart assistant determine our daily calendar might actually make us dumber. Such an “agentic” future is certainly no friend of human agency. Yeah, it's happening. The end of the beginning or the beginning of the end?* The “Front Door” Battle is On: OpenAI's Pulse represents a strategic shift from reactive search to proactive assistance, with tech giants racing to control the primary interface through which we interact with information and make decisions.* Privacy Becomes an Afterthought: While OpenAI claims privacy protections, most users don't understand what data these AI assistants access. The $200/month price point currently limits exposure, but mass adoption will create unprecedented privacy challenges.* The Infrastructure Gold Rush: Sam Altman's 10-gigawatt power deals and NVIDIA's GPU dominance reveal the massive energy and capital investment required to scale AI - with an $800 billion gap between current investment and projected revenue.* “Consumer Pull” is Driving the Boom: Unlike previous tech bubbles, AI demand from actual users (not just hype) is outstripping supply, forcing companies to race to build data centers and power infrastructure to meet real usage.* The “Idiocracy Trap” Question: As AI assistants take over more cognitive tasks - from scheduling to decision-making - we face a fundamental question about whether this technology will enhance human intelligence or create dependency that makes us collectively dumber.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

“What Trump is doing is not popular”. For the This Old Democracy podcaster and veteran Democratic activist Micah Sifry, that's the good news of Trump's sub-40% approval rate. The bad news, Sifry warns, is that the Dems remained a weak, divided party struggling to counter the MAGA-controlled Republicans. Learning from the campus success of Charlie Kirk, he says, the Democrats need to rediscover what once made them a party of the vibrant counterculture. And that certainly isn't going to happen if grey functionaries like Schumer and Jeffries retain control of an increasingly gerontocratic party. He favors economic populism over identity politics, arguing that progressives made a “gigantic mistake” by favoring the woke politics of the university over working-class concerns. And so the New York based Sifry is cautiously optimistic about Zohran Mamdani whose primary victory, he is convinced, demonstrated that young voters will turn out for dynamic candidates who offer both generational change and credible ways to address economic anxiety. 1. Trump's Weakness Creates Democratic Opportunity Sifry argues that Trump's sub-40% approval rating means 50-60% of Americans are politically available to the opposition. The challenge isn't Trump's popularity (he's not popular) but Democrats' failure to effectively organize and mobilize this majority.2. Democrats Must Use Their Leverage or Lose It Rather than capitulating on government funding, Sifry advocates that Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats should force shutdowns when necessary. Trump backs down when faced with sufficient pushback, as evidenced by his quick reversal on tariffs when markets crashed.3. Generational Change Is Already Underway Mamdani's primary victory over Mario Cuomo signals the end of the Biden-Clyburn-Pelosi era. Young voters (under 40) turned out in unprecedented numbers, suggesting the Democratic Party's old guard has lost touch with a crucial demographic.4. Economic Populism Beats Identity Politics Sifry admits progressives made a “gigantic mistake” by centering identity hierarchies that marginalized working-class concerns, particularly young men. He advocates for Bernie Sanders-style economic populism that focuses on class and corporate power rather than cultural issues.5. Charlie Kirk Built What Progressives Lack Despite disagreeing with Kirk politically, Sifry acknowledges he created a successful youth movement through genuine debate, chapter-based organizing, and relationship building. Progressives have no equivalent infrastructure for engaging and converting opponents through sustained conversation and local organizing.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Jacob Ward warned us. Back in January 2022, the Oakland-based tech journalist published The Loop, a warning about how AI is creating a world without choices. He even came on this show to warn about AI's threat to humanity. Three years later, we've all caught up with Ward. So where is he now on AI? Moderately vindicated but more pessimistic. His original thesis has proven disturbingly accurate - we're outsourcing decisions to AI at an accelerating pace. But he admits his book's weakest section was “how to fight back,” and he still lacks concrete solutions. His fear has evolved: less worried about robot overlords, he is now more concerned about an “Idiocracy” of AI human serfs. It's a dystopian scenario where humans become so stupid that they won't even be able to appreciate Gore Vidal's quip that “I told you so” are the four most beautiful words in the English language. I couldn't resist asking Anthropic's Claude about Ward's conclusions (not, of course, that I rely on it for anything). “Anecdotal” is how it countered with characteristic coolness. Well Claude wouldn't say that, wouldn't it?1. The “Idiocracy” threat is more immediate than AGI concerns Ward argues we should fear humans becoming cognitively dependent rather than superintelligent machines taking over. He's seeing this now - Berkeley students can't distinguish between reading books and AI summaries.2. AI follows market incentives, not ethical principles Despite early rhetoric about responsible development, Ward observes the industry prioritizing profit over principles. Companies are openly betting on when single-person billion-dollar businesses will emerge, signaling massive job displacement.3. The resistance strategy remains unclear Ward admits his book's weakness was the “how to fight back” section, and he still lacks concrete solutions. The few examples of resistance he cites - like Signal's president protecting user data from training algorithms - require significant financial sacrifice.4. Economic concentration creates systemic risk The massive capital investments (Nvidia's $100 billion into OpenAI) create dangerous loops where AI companies essentially invest in themselves. Ward warns this resembles classic bubble dynamics that could crash the broader economy.5. “Weak perfection” is necessary for human development Ward argues we need friction and inefficiency in our systems to maintain critical thinking skills. AI's promise to eliminate all cognitive work may eliminate the mental exercise that keeps humans intellectually capable.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

So where exactly is Trump's America? According to the Brookings fellow Jonathan Rauch, the world's largest economic, military and cultural power is “half way to Hungary” - the small, landlocked Central European country run by an equally small and landlocked man called Viktor Orban. For Rauch, this suggests that America is on its way to becoming the sort of pathetically petty patrimonial state that the wannabe dictator Orban is trying to establish in Hungary. But the idea of the world's dominant superpower being “halfway to Budapest” sounds more like the title of a characteristically absurd central European novel. It suggests that Trump's America is, in fact, currently lost in the mid-Atlantic. It's nowhere. And if making America great again really does require borrowing anything from a country as small and landlocked as Hungary, then I fear for the historical significance of both Trump and his MAGA movement. Surely they could come up with a more original playbook than that?1. America is Following the “Hungarian Playbook” of Modern Authoritarianism Rauch warns that Trump is deploying Viktor Orbán's four-part strategy: sue critics into bankruptcy, use regulatory power to threaten licenses, buy out media outlets, and intimidate advertisers. This represents a new form of authoritarianism that doesn't require tanks or military coups.2. The Rise of the “Woke Right” - Postmodern Tactics Adopted by Conservatives The right has borrowed from postmodern philosophy the idea that there's no objective truth, only power and narrative control. This creates a “postmodern right” that focuses on winning stories rather than establishing facts - exemplified by claims about vaccine dangers or election fraud.3. Constitutional Crisis is Already Underway, Not Coming Rauch argues we're not heading toward a constitutional crisis - we're already in one. He points to executive orders targeting political enemies and the “naked politicization” of prosecutorial systems as evidence that democratic norms have already been breached.4. 2028, Not 2026, Will Be the Real Test While Rauch expects the 2026 midterms to be relatively fair (70-80% likelihood), he's deeply concerned about 2028. The administration won't have enough time to fully implement election interference by 2026, but 2028 could see systematic attempts to rig the democratic process.5. Resistance Requires Slowing Down Authoritarian “Shock and Awe” The most effective resistance strategy is to slow down Trump's rapid implementation of authoritarian measures through litigation and civil society pushback. Early capitulation doesn't work - it only invites more demands. The key is preventing the normalization of antidemocratic behavior.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Donald Trump made his own controversial case against the United Nations at the UN today, lecturing world leaders that “the UN is supposed to stop invasions, not create them and not finance them.” But he was beaten to this anti-UN manifesto by the New York City based journalist Seth Barron, who wrote “The End of the UN ” cover story for Tablet magazine this month. While Barron's historically grounded critique is more academically rigorous than Trump's, it essentially makes the same realpolitik argument: that there's an irreconcilable contradiction between American interests and multilateral governance. Barron blithely suggests it's time for the United States to withdraw from the UN entirely. But as I pressed him, without success, in our conversation, what then would replace international institutions when it comes to resolving seemingly intractable conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and beyond? 1. The UN Is Already Dead in PracticeBarron argues the UN has lost all meaningful influence and relevance. He compares it to the Roman Senate, which continued meeting for 200 years after Rome's collapse in 476 AD, discussing wars and public works they had no power to conduct. The UN, he suggests, has become a similar zombie institution.2. Peacekeeping Missions Have Been Catastrophic FailuresFrom Somalia (1993) and Rwanda (1994) to Bosnia (1995) and Haiti, Barron cites repeated examples where UN peacekeepers either failed to prevent massacres or, in Haiti's case, became predators themselves—with Sri Lankan peacekeepers systematically raping Haitian children while building brothels.3. International Law Is a Fiction Used by the PowerfulBarron argues that without enforcement mechanisms, international law becomes merely “a cudgel by powerful countries to throw their weight around.” He notes that the International Criminal Court typically prosecutes African leaders from weak nations while ignoring crimes by major powers.4. Israel Has Become the UN's ScapegoatSince 2015, the UN has passed 173 resolutions condemning Israel compared to just 27 against Russia and 12 against Syria. Barron sees this as evidence of institutional anti-Semitism and argues that post-colonial nations use Israel as a “whipping boy” to deflect from their own human rights violations.5. No Viable Alternative to National SovereigntyWhen pressed on what would replace the UN, Barron offered no clear answer beyond bilateral agreements and regional arrangements. He dismissed the idea that global challenges like climate change require international cooperation, arguing that agreements like the Paris Accords are toothless without enforcement mechanisms. Barron's critique has some merit but offers no constructive vision for addressing genuinely global problems in an interconnected world. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

As the prize-winning author of Dreamland and The Least of Us, Sam Quinones is one of the most acclaimed authorities on America's deadly drug epidemics. So it might seem a little surprising that his follow-up to these two best-sellers is a book in praise of the bass horn, a relatively unglamorous musical instrument that he neither plays nor learned in marching band. But it all makes perfect sense. In The Perfect Tuba, Quinones resurrects the American Dream in the form of the bass horn (tuba) which he describes as the “tuba civil rights movement”. It's the story of how to forge fulfillment from the bass horn, high school band and hard work. This isn't just Quinones' journey. It's a map of how America can get from fentanyl to fulfillment. 1. You Don't Find Your Passion—You Forge It Through Hard Work Quinones discovered that fulfillment doesn't come from finding something you're naturally drawn to, but from working so hard at something that you become good enough to love doing it. This creates a cycle where competence breeds passion, leading to deeper engagement and growth.2. Band Teaches What Sports Can't: True Community Values While athletics get the glory, band programs create lasting life skills. In schools with 66% dropout rates, band students had 100% graduation rates. Twenty years later, former band members showed strong family and professional lives because band teaches accountability, precision, collaboration, and finding joy in small accomplishments.3. The "Tuba Civil Rights Movement" Challenges Low Expectations Tuba players have fought against being seen as limited—both the instrument and the people who play it. This mirrors broader social justice themes: when we expect little from people or communities (like Roma, Texas), we waste hidden talent that just needs proper cultivation and support.4. Hard Work Is the Antidote to America's Addiction Economy Quinones sees tuba players as the opposite of addicts. Instead of seeking happiness through consumption (buying something external), they find fulfillment through creation (developing internal capabilities). This offers a model for moving from quick dopamine hits to sustained contentment.5. Democracy Requires Orchestral Thinking, Not Solo Performance Real democracy sounds like a band—people with different roles working toward shared goals, not wanting to let others down, and being accountable for their part. The collaborative discipline learned in music programs teaches essential democratic values that social media and individual achievement culture are eroding.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

I suspect both left and right have the Kimmel-Kirk story wrong. Rather than being about free speech versus hate speech, it's actually the story of the end of the television era and the rise of open internet platforms like YouTube and Substack. So when Keith Teare asks who is for free speech in his latest That Was The Week newsletter, what he's really saying is that free speech has never been freer. Anyone can say anything they want, he says. The only real question is whether anyone is actually listening. So the Kimmel-Kirk story is really about the shift in broadcast business models and the future of paid content. Getting fired from ABC might be the best thing that ever happened to a generic tv comic like Jimmy Kimmel. What he now needs to figure out is how to monetize his instant global fame. 1. The Cancellation Paradox Getting "canceled" from traditional media might now be a career accelerator rather than a death sentence. Kimmel has instant global recognition - the hardest thing to achieve in the creator economy - and can now build a direct audience relationship without network interference.2. Television is Already Dead (But Nobody Wants to Admit It) When late-night TV audiences are "well under 100,000 people" watching live, we're witnessing the final death throes of broadcast television as a relevant medium. The controversy feels big because it's symbolic, not because TV actually matters anymore.3. The Real Battle is Platform Independence vs. Platform Dependence The fundamental shift isn't about what you can say, but about who controls your ability to monetize what you say. Traditional media creates "intellectual codependency" between talent and publishers - breaking free requires becoming your own platform.4. Attention is the New Scarce Resource As Keith Teare notes, "anyone can say anything they want" - distribution is infinite. The challenge isn't getting a voice; it's getting an audience. Controversy, even negative controversy, solves the attention problem that most creators struggle with for years.5. Both Sides Are Fighting Yesterday's War While left and right argue about speech policing, the real action is in the economic disruption of media business models. YouTube, Substack, and other platforms are quietly becoming the new infrastructure for public discourse - making the entire "who controls traditional media" debate irrelevant.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Is there anyone who will defend Kamala Harris' latest debacle, her 107 Days memoir that has irritated prominent Democrats like Josh Shapiro, Tim Walz and Pete Buttigieg? Certainly not the progressive writer David Masciotra, who has appeared on this show several times in the past to defend the former Vice President. According to Masciotra, the person most damaged by the ridiculous narcissism in 107 Days is Harris herself, who appears utterly out of touch with reality. "I was wrong, you were right," Masciotra admitted to me (never a fan of Harris), describing the memoir as a "literary political travesty" that reveals Harris as a "callous, petty, self-involved careerist." Even more damning, Masciotra argues, the book's timing couldn't be worse: while Trump dismantles democracy, Harris chooses to settle scores with the very Democrats who helped her in the last election, effectively torching her political future.1. Progressive Defender Completely Reverses Position on Harris David Masciotra, who previously defended Harris in "spats" with Keen, now admits: "I was wrong, you were right." He calls the memoir a "literary political travesty" revealing Harris as a "callous, petty, self-involved careerist" - a stunning reversal from a left-wing intellectual who wanted to support her against Trump.2. Harris Attacks Every Democrat Who Helped Her The book targets Joe Biden (who made her VP and endorsed her), Tim Walz (her chosen running mate), Josh Shapiro, and even includes complaints from her husband Doug Emhoff. As Masciotra notes, she's "trying to set fire to an already weak, enfeebled Democratic Party" by attacking those who supported her candidacy.3. The Timing Reveals Profound Political Incompetence While Trump "dismantles civil society" and threatens the First Amendment, Harris publishes a book settling personal scores. Masciotra observes she's quoting her husband about being mistreated instead of "quoting a nurse who worked at a defunded Planned Parenthood clinic" or others suffering under Trump's policies.4. The Book Effectively Ends Any Future Political Ambitions Both interviewers agree this memoir kills Harris's political future. When asked if she might run again, Masciotra suggests if she thought this book would launch a 2028 campaign, "she should probably seek psychiatric help rather than political."5. Harris Lives in a Parallel Universe Disconnected from Political Reality The memoir reveals someone who doesn't understand basic humor (missing Gore Vidal's wit), blamed her loss on identity factors ("a black woman married to a Jewish man"), and believed Pete Buttigieg would have been ideal "if I were a straight white man" - showing she fundamentally misunderstands why she lost.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Gutted by AI larceny and glutted by an avalanche of shows, the podcast economy is in deep crisis. So says Marshall Poe, founder of The New Books Network, a publisher of almost 30,000 independent podcasts. Things really are that bleak, Poe insists. Drawing parallels between today's AI content appropriation and Napster's music piracy in the late Nineties, he argues we've entered an era where "the theft of IP is an accepted business model." AI companies appear to scrape podcast content without permission or payment, then repackage it as their own product. Meanwhile, the market drowns in a vast ocean of shows, with AI-generated podcasts now flooding platforms at unprecedented scale—one company claims profitability with just 20 listeners per episode while producing 3,000 episodes weekly. For independent creators lacking deep pockets or legal teams, podcast economics have become impossible. "The cost of that theft has gone to zero," Poe explains, describing an environment where authentic human voices struggle to survive against algorithmic content mills that operate without either the constraints of paying creators or sometimes even acknowledgement of IP law. It's like 1999 all over again, he warns. But this time around, it's AI, not Napster, that is now radically rewriting the rules of the creative economy. 1. AI content appropriation follows historical patterns Poe argues current AI practices mirror past disruptions like Napster - companies take content without payment, repackage it, and profit from advertising. The core business model isn't new, just more efficient.2. The podcast market has reached unsustainable saturation With millions of podcasts and AI companies producing thousands of episodes weekly, discovery has become nearly impossible for independent creators. Poe describes the market as "beyond glutted."3. Content creators lack power to protect their work Small operations like Poe's New Books Network have no way to detect if AI companies are scraping their content and no resources to fight back even if they discovered it. The power asymmetry is stark.4. Authentic human voices may survive through alternative funding Poe sees hope in foundation support and direct audience relationships for podcasts that build trust around authenticity. Traditional advertising models may fail, but mission-driven content could find other revenue streams.5. Starting a podcast in 2025 is economically irrational Poe bluntly advises against launching new podcasts unless creators have other motivations beyond making money. The combination of oversupply and AI competition has made the economics impossible for newcomers.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

It's the most curious paradox of today's digital revolution. While the computers, the internet, smartphones and AI all appear magical, they haven't actually translated into equally magical economic progress. That, at least, is the counter-intuitive argument of the Oxford economist Carl Benedikt Frey whose new book, How Progress Ends, suggests that the digital revolution isn't resulting in an equivalent revolution of productivity. History is repeating itself in an equally paradoxical way, Frey warns. We may, indeed, be repeating the productivity stagnation of the 1970s, in spite of our technological marvels. Unlike the 19th-century industrial revolution that radically transformed how we work, today's digital tools—however impressive—are primarily automating existing processes rather than creating fundamentally new types of economic activity that drive broad-based growth. And AI, by making existing work easier rather than creating new industries, will only compound this paradox. It might be the fate of not just the United States and Europe, but China as well. That, Frey warns, is how all progress will end.1. The Productivity Paradox is Real Despite revolutionary digital technologies, we're not seeing the productivity gains that past technological revolutions delivered. It took a century for steam to show its full economic impact, four decades for electricity—but even accounting for lag time, the computer revolution has underperformed economically compared to its transformative social effects.2. Automation vs. Innovation: The Critical Distinction True progress comes from creating entirely new industries and types of work, not just automating existing processes. The mid-20th century boom created the automobile industry and countless supporting sectors. Today's AI primarily makes existing work easier rather than spawning fundamentally new economic activities.3. Institutional Structure Trumps Technology The Soviet Union succeeded when scaling existing technology but failed when innovation was needed because it lacked decentralized exploration. Success requires competitive, decentralized systems where different actors can take different bets—like Google finding funding after Bessemer Ventures said no.4. Europe's Innovation Crisis Has a Clear Diagnosis Europe lags in digital not due to lack of talent or funding, but because of fragmented markets and regulatory burdens. The EU's internal trade barriers in services amount to a 110% tariff equivalent, while regulations like GDPR primarily benefit large incumbents who can absorb compliance costs.5. Geography Still Matters in the Digital Age Silicon Valley's success stemmed from unenforceable non-compete clauses that enabled job-hopping and knowledge transfer, while Detroit's enforcement of non-competes after 1985 contributed to its decline. As AI makes many services tradeable globally, high-cost innovation centers face new competitive pressures from lower-cost locations.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Should being a billionaire be illegal? Or, at least, actively discouraged? That's the argument at the heart of Ingrid Robeyns' intriguing case against extreme wealth, Limitarianism. It's an argument particularly pertinent in a week when Tesla is offering to make Elon Musk a trillionaire if he can reach certain sales targets. For Robeyns, an ethicist at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, her arguments against extreme wealth are both moral and utilitarian. On the one hand, she argues that nobody truly "deserves" billions because economic success depends heavily on factors beyond individual control - genetic lottery, family circumstances, educational opportunities, and market timing. On the other hand, she contends that extreme wealth concentration actively harms society by undermining democracy, encouraging unsustainable consumption patterns, and creating inefficient resource allocation. While acknowledging that such reforms may take decades to implement, Robeyns floats the idea of wealth caps around $10 million, arguing this still rewards success while preventing the most flagrant concentrations of economic and political power. Spare change for Elon and his plutocratic bros. So don't hold your breath for a Musk funded Limitarian political party in the next few centuries. 1. Why Billionaires Don't "Deserve" Their Wealth Robeyns argues that extreme wealth is largely undeserved because success depends heavily on factors beyond individual control - genetics, family background, education access, and market timing. She contends that acknowledging luck's role should make us more humble about wealth accumulation and challenge narratives of self-made billionaires.2. Extreme Wealth Threatens Democratic Equality She identifies a concerning alliance between extreme wealth holders and anti-democratic forces, arguing that billionaire-level fortunes inevitably translate into disproportionate political influence that undermines the principle of political equality essential to democratic governance.3. Billionaire Lifestyles Are Environmentally Unsustainable The consumption patterns of the ultra-wealthy - private jets, space tourism, multiple estates - cannot be scaled to the broader population without ecological collapse. This creates a sustainability paradox where a tiny elite's lifestyle choices constrain options for everyone else.4. Wealth Caps Could Preserve Innovation While Limiting Harm Rather than eliminating all inequality, Robeyns proposes capping individual wealth at roughly $10 million, arguing this still provides substantial rewards for success while preventing the most harmful concentrations of economic and political power.5. Implementation Requires Generational Cultural Change Robeyns acknowledges her proposals are "regulative ideals" that may take decades to implement, comparing the timeline to how neoliberal ideas took generations to become mainstream policy. She emphasizes changing cultural narratives about extreme wealth as the essential first step.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

If Donald Trump is a broken clock only right twice daily, then one of those truths might be US policy toward Greenland. According to the Australian based geo-strategist Elizabeth Buchanan, Trump is correct to be preoccupied with American influence over, and perhaps even ownership of Greenland. In her new book, So You Want To Own Greenland, Buchanan argues that the 57,000-person continental super-sized island is becoming central to 21st Century geopolitics. From the Vikings to the (yes) colonizing Danes, she argues, Greenland has always been an important piece of the North Atlantic strategic jigsaw. Today, however, with the melting polar ice cap and its vast mineral resources, Greenland is becoming essential - not just to native Greenlanders, the United States, Denmark and Canada, but also to Russia, China and even India. 1. America's Greenland Interest Predates Trump by 160 Years US interest in Greenland dates back to 1867 and the Seward Purchase ("Seward's Folly"). Trump's fixation isn't erratic - it reflects longstanding American strategic thinking about North American geography that transcends partisan politics.2. Denmark is a Colonial Power, Not a Progressive Beacon Contrary to its reputation for happiness and human rights, Denmark runs Greenland as a modern colony. This includes a forced contraception program targeting 12-13 year old Inuit girls and economic control where 50%+ of working-age Greenlanders work for the government.3. Climate Change is Creating the "New Panama Canal" The melting Arctic ice cap is opening new shipping routes between Europe and Asia through the North. Any cargo passing this route must go through Greenlandic/Danish waters, making Greenland a critical chokepoint for 21st-century global trade.4. Greenland Wants Independence, But Denmark Won't Let Go Greenlanders voted for independence in a referendum, but Danish law requires the Danish Parliament to approve any independence - a catch-22. Without Greenland (and the Faroe Islands), Denmark ceases to be a "kingdom" and becomes just Denmark.5. China and India Are the Real Wild Cards While focus remains on US-Denmark tensions, China and India are rapidly expanding their Arctic presence through "research" missions and shipping investments. For every American business jet landing in Greenland, there are Chinese and Indian interests as well.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

So are millennials really the unluckiest generation? Yes and no. At least according to their unofficial biographer, Charlie Wells, the energetic London based Bloomberg reporter and author of What Happened to Millennials. In a way, Wells is a defender of his much-maligned and misunderstood generation. But his new book is also a kind of confessional of five millennials who, in his view, represent the spirit of those who came of age at the turn of the century. Wells' own soulful mix of forthrightness and insecurity offers a glimpse into the millennial heart. Could it really be the ubiquitous electronic screen that is both the cause and effect of his generation's over-publicized struggles with anxiety? Or are millennials simply the first cohort to have their universal coming-of-age confessions broadcast live for all to see?1. Generational narratives are often outdated Wells argues that millennials are actually 31% wealthier than boomers were at the same age, but the "unlucky generation" story persists. This suggests we cling to generational myths even when underlying data changes.2. Technology made universal struggles visible Critical questioning revealed a core insight: millennial coming-of-age difficulties aren't unique - they're just the first to be documented and broadcast through social media. Previous generations had similar struggles without the surveillance.3. The "lived through" narrative is problematic Challenges to claims about "living through" 9/11 and the Great Recession exposed how generations can inflate shared cultural moments into defining traumas, even when most people weren't directly affected. This suggests we should scrutinize whether collective experiences truly shape entire cohorts or simply become convenient narratives.4. Confessional culture shapes identity Wells connected reality TV's "confessional" format to how millennials communicate - suggesting media formats influence how entire generations process and share experiences, from AOL Instant Messenger to social media oversharing.5. Economic inequality matters more than generational identity The wealth gap between rich and poor millennials ($100,000 wider than for boomers) suggests class divisions within the generation are more significant than generational differences between cohorts.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

So why do we humans have such big brains? According to the NYU neuroscientist Nikolay Kukushkin, it's because of language. In wanting to talk to one another, Kukushkin argues in his new book, One Hand Clapping, we need to be able to think more coherently than other species. Thus our uniquely big brains. Language itself emerged from our increasingly social lifestyle, Kukushkin explains, which developed after our mammalian ancestors spent 150 million years hiding from dinosaurs in what he calls the "nocturnal bottleneck." And what good have our big brains done us? That, according to Kukushkin, is a trickier question. It's certainly made us more social, even collective, in our politics and culture. But it also seems to have divided us from one another, fostering as much misery and violence as harmony. Indeed, Kukushkin suggests that we've always been "grumpy"—even back when we lived in caves. The difference now is that we have the internet to advertise our grumpiness. More seriously, though, we're the first species to actually care about our global impact—and that's something worth celebrating, even in our seemingly apocalyptic age. * Big brains evolved for language, not intelligence - Humans developed large brains specifically to handle the cognitive demands of communication and social coordination, not because we're inherently "smarter" than other species.* Dinosaurs accidentally created human society - Our mammalian ancestors spent 150 million years hiding from dinosaurs in a "nocturnal bottleneck." When dinosaurs died out, primates moved into daylight and trees, exposing them to predators and forcing them into larger social groups for protection.* The mind-body divide is imaginary - Kukushkin argues that consciousness isn't a special, separate phenomenon but simply part of the natural world—like discarded notions of human exceptionalism or "vital force" in living beings.* Collectivism may be more "natural" than individualism - Most human societies throughout history have been collectivist; highly individualistic societies like modern America may be the evolutionary outlier requiring explanation.* We're the first species that cares about global impact - While humans have always been "grumpy" and prone to conflict, we're unique in actually caring about our planetary-scale effects—giving us potential to change course unlike previous species that nearly destroyed Earth.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

How should we punish criminals? In Impermissible Punishments, the Arthur Liman Professor of Law at Yale Law School, Judith Resnik, provides a historical narrative of punishment in European and American prisons. Tracing the evolution from Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian Panopticon through post-World War II human rights frameworks, Resnik argues that punishment systems developed as a transatlantic rather than uniquely American project. Her analysis reveals how prisoners themselves, not reformers, first articulated the concept of retained rights during detention. Resnik's new book chronicles a crucial divergence after the 1980s, when European systems maintained stronger human rights commitments while American prisons retreated from recognizing prisoners as rights-bearing individuals, thereby making prison a problem for its democracy. 1. Prison systems developed as a transatlantic project, not American innovation Punishment theories and practices emerged from shared Enlightenment thinking across Europe and America in the 1700s-1800s. Figures like Beccaria, Bentham, and Tocqueville created interconnected ideas about rational, purposeful punishment that crossed national boundaries.2. Prisoners, not reformers, first articulated the concept of retained rights While reformers debated how to punish effectively, it was people in detention themselves—like Winston Talley in Arkansas in 1965—who first argued they retained fundamental rights during incarceration. This represented a revolutionary shift from viewing prisoners as "civilly dead."3. World War II created the crucial turning point for prisoners' rights The horrors of concentration camps and fascist regimes made clear the dangers of treating any group as less than human. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 1955 UN prison rules marked the formal recognition of prisoners as rights-bearing individuals.4. America and Europe diverged after the 1980s on prisoner treatment While both regions initially embraced prisoners' rights in the 1960s-70s, the U.S. retreated during the "war on crime" era. Europe maintained stronger human rights commitments, while America expanded punitive measures like solitary confinement and mass incarceration.5. Prison conditions reflect broader democratic health Resnik argues that how a society treats its most marginalized members—prisoners, immigrants, minorities—indicates the strength of its democratic institutions. Authoritarian treatment of any group threatens the rights of all citizens in a democratic system.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In a week dominated by the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk, Cynthia Miller-Idriss' insights as the founding director of American University's Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL) are particularly valuable. Her new book about what she identifies as “the new misogyny and the rise of violent extremism” is entitled Man Up. But its message might be summarized as Man Down in its attempt to temper the violent fringes of what she calls the manosphere. Miller-Idriss, one of America's leading researchers on violent extremism, argues that misogyny is the cause of today's troubling rise of political assassinations and mass shootings. Her research across seven countries reveals that hostile sexism ranks among the top three predictors of support for political violence. She traces a disturbing pipeline from seemingly innocuous self-help searches by lonely young men to radicalization by influencers who blend fitness advice with violent scapegoating of women and minorities. Miller-Idriss documents how 60% of mass shooters have histories of domestic violence, yet this connection rarely appears in media coverage when targets aren't explicitly gendered. Her work suggests that what she calls "the law enforcement arm of patriarchy" is crucial in preventing both left and right-wing political violence that has reached levels unseen since the 1970s. 1. Misogyny is a Cross-Ideological Predictor of Violence Hostile sexism ranks among the top three predictors of support for political violence across seven countries, appearing in both left-wing and right-wing extremism. This suggests misogyny functions as a mobilizing force that transcends traditional political boundaries.2. The Domestic Violence-Mass Shooting Connection is Underreported 60% of mass shooters have documented histories of domestic and intimate partner violence, yet this pattern rarely receives attention in media coverage when the eventual targets aren't explicitly women. This represents a missed opportunity for early intervention and threat assessment.3. Generation Z Shows Unprecedented Acceptance of Political Violence While 93% of Baby Boomers believe political violence is never acceptable, only 42% of Generation Z holds this view. This generational shift reflects young people's loss of faith in political solutions and their perception that "there is no political solution" to major issues.4. Online Self-Help Searches Create Radicalization Pipelines Innocent searches by lonely young men for fitness, dating, or financial advice often lead to influencers who mix legitimate self-improvement content with violent scapegoating of women, feminists, and minorities, creating pathways to extremism.5. Community-Based Early Warning Systems Could Prevent Violence Nearly every mass shooter makes plans and leaks intentions to someone beforehand, but communities lack accessible resources for reporting concerning behavior that falls short of immediate FBI involvement. Mobile advisory centers, like those used in Germany, could fill this gap.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Today's $3 trillion investment in AI is not only rational and beyond inevitable - it's “predestined”. At least according to That Was The Week newletter publisher and techno-determinist Keith Teare. Exuberance is not only required, Keith argues, but absolutely essential in today's AI mad gold rush. And he's particularly critical of all skeptics - from traditional tech naysayers (like myself) to mainstream publications like The Economist - which are all a touch questioning of today's unprecedented boom. What if the $3 trillion AI investment tsunami goes wrong? The Economist asks. But for Keith, it can't possibly go wrong. The investment has already been made, he argues, and the resultant technology will inevitably benefit humanity. He envisions a world where AI adds $20 trillion to global GDP by 2035, where a kid in rural Africa with an Android phone can access the world's best AI, and where economic growth hits an unprecedented 20% annually. I think this type of teleological argument adds up to about $3 trillion worth of madness. But what do I know?1. The Scale Defense: $3 Trillion is Actually Small Teare argues the massive AI investment looks rational when measured against projected returns - $20 trillion added to global GDP by 2035, potentially creating $400 trillion in company value (at 20x multiples). His math: even if the investment seems huge, the predicted gains are exponentially bigger.2. AI's Business Model Advantage Over Previous Tech Booms Unlike the internet (which relied on advertising and attention-grabbing) or early TV (which devolved into reality shows), AI operates on subscriptions and API usage. Teare believes this model doesn't require undermining human outcomes to generate profit - making it fundamentally different from past transformative technologies.3. Individual Failures Don't Equal Systemic Collapse While specific companies (like Perplexity at $20B valuation) might fail, Teare argues the overall AI ecosystem is "failure-proof" because trained models retain their value even if companies go bankrupt. He compares it to the Channel Tunnel - the infrastructure survived financial collapse and eventually thrived.4. The "Western Suicide Wish" Cultural Diagnosis Echoing Elon Musk and Alex Karp, Teare sees Western civilization as increasingly "ashamed" of Enlightenment values - viewing humans as problems rather than solutions. He argues AI represents a return to human agency and innovation as answers to global challenges.5. Content Creators Face a Reckoning The decline of web traffic (8% this year) signals the end of advertising-based content monetization. Creators must either embrace quality/subscription models or find ways to integrate with AI systems through attribution and linking - but the traffic-based economy is dying.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

David Lesch is a poster child for something. I'm just not sure what. On the one hand, given his personal reinvention from Los Angeles Dodgers first-round draft pick to official biographer of Bashar al Assad, some might consider him proof that the American Dream still exists. But others, including even himself , would argue that his incredible pivot from baseball protege to Harvard-educated Middle Eastern expert, reflects the privilege of his social class and perhaps even gender. In any event, the Lesch story is pretty amazing - which is why the San Antonio-based biographer Catherine Nixon Cooke has just published Dodgers to Damascus, the story of his journey from star pitcher to star diplomat. So it was intriguing to not only host Cooke but also David Lesch to discuss his highly unusual journey from the youthful potential of baseball to the grim reality of Bashar al Assad's Syria. 1. Privilege complicates the reinvention narrative Lesch's transformation from baseball to diplomacy required significant advantages - supportive family, financial stability, and access to elite education. His story demonstrates both genuine resilience and the reality that dramatic career pivots often depend on existing social capital.2. Failure as preparation has limits While Lesch credits baseball's culture of failure with preparing him for diplomacy, this framework works better in retrospect. The "fetishization of failure" narrative is easier to embrace after achieving success than during actual setbacks.3. American Middle East policy remains deeply flawed Despite Lesch's generous B-grade assessment based on narrow objectives (oil access, Israeli security, Soviet containment), the broader record suggests more fundamental failures in understanding regional complexities and long-term consequences.4. Assad's evolution illustrates power's corrupting force Lesch's insider perspective on Bashar al-Assad's transformation from potential reformer to authoritarian ruler provides a case study in how institutional constraints and personal ambition can override initial intentions.5. Listening skills transfer across domains The interview emphasizes how Lesch's approach to conflict resolution - particularly deep listening and cultural understanding - represents transferable expertise that America needs more of, regardless of political administration.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Things aren't quite as sunny on the environmental front as some recent guests suggest. According to the award winning science writer Peter Brannen, our planet is in an unprecedented crisis. We're burning 500 million years of the earth's history in a few decades, Brannen warns, so we should all quit pretending that our recycling will miraculously save the planet. That said, though, his latest book, The Story of CO2 is the Story of Everything, is the complex narrative of how carbon dioxide (CO2) both made and might unmake our world. So CO2 is simultaneously the good guy and the villain in our environmental story. Without carbon dioxide, Brannen warns, Earth would freeze into an uninhabitable ice ball. But too much creates a Venus-like greenhouse hell in which all life would be quickly extinguished. We hang in a delicate sweet spot that took nature millions of years to manufacture —and we humans are now disrupting this ecological balance at breakneck speed. The result is what Brannen calls a terrifying planetary experiment with no safety net. So stop pretending your recycling will save the earth, he warns. Fixing the planet will require more than a new Tesla and regular trips to Whole Foods. 1. CO2 is Earth's Essential Paradox Carbon dioxide both enables life and threatens to destroy it. Without CO2, Earth would freeze into an uninhabitable ice ball within decades. But too much creates a Venus-like greenhouse hell. We exist in an extremely narrow window that took millions of years to establish.2. We're Conducting an Unprecedented Planetary Experiment Humans are burning 500 million years of stored solar energy (fossil fuels) in just a few decades, releasing ancient CO2 at a rate 100 times faster than natural volcanic processes. This speed overwhelms Earth's natural ability to rebalance the system.3. Individual Consumer Actions Won't Save Us Recycling, driving electric cars, and other personal choices create demand for better technologies but won't solve a problem of this scale. The focus on consumer responsibility was actually a strategy pushed by fossil fuel companies to deflect from systemic change.4. Technology Offers Hope, But Carbon Removal is Fantasy Solar power costs have plummeted dramatically, offering genuine reasons for optimism. However, carbon capture and removal technologies are thermodynamically expensive and cannot scale to meaningful levels—they're "basically useless" if we don't first cut emissions to nearly zero.5. Democracy May Be Too Slow for Climate Action International climate treaties produce "mealy-mouthed press releases" while missing targets. Brannen suggests the most realistic path forward is that clean energy becomes so economically superior that countries adopt it regardless of political will, potentially leaving the U.S. behind if it doesn't adapt.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

If Geoffrey Hinton is the Godfather of AI, then Bruce Schneier might be described as the Godfather of Security. A celebrated cryptographer and computer security expert, Schneier's latest co-authored (with Nathan Sanders) book is entitled Rewiring Democracy and speculates on how AI might transform our politics, government and citizenship. American democracy, Schneier notes, runs on archaic 1776 technology in today's digital 2025 world. Rather than fighting against AI then, he suggests, Americans should adapt this new technology to update how they do politics in the 21st century. But Schneier offers the crucial caveats that AI can neither solve fundamental human problems nor transcend ideology. "A value is just a bias we like," he warns about the impossibility of a “valueless” AI system. While cautiously optimistic about AI's potential to democratize power—from helping local politicians without resources to enabling mass citizen assemblies—he warns that without fixing underlying political and economic structures, AI will simply radically empower the already powerful. Trust the Godfather of Security on this one. AI might well turn out to be reassuringly less revolutionary than both its critics and supporters promise. 1. You're Already Using AI More Than You Think Schneier distinguishes between generative AI (ChatGPT, Claude) and the AI that's already embedded everywhere - from Google searches to map apps to spell checkers. While he rarely uses generative AI himself, he points out we're all using AI constantly without realizing it.2. AI Can't Solve Democracy's Core Problems "A value is just a bias we like," Schneier argues. AI won't transcend human ideology or provide objective answers to political questions. Democracy isn't about getting the "correct" answer - it's about the messy human process of figuring things out together.3. Trust No One with Too Much Power - Including AI Leaders When asked about trusting Sam Altman or other tech leaders, Schneier is clear: "I don't want anyone to have that sort of power, no matter who they are." The problem isn't the individual but the system that allows such concentration of power.4. Politics and Economics Matter More Than Technology AI will either democratize power or make the rich richer, but technology alone won't determine which. "If you don't have the agency politically, no amount of tech can change that," Schneier insists. Fix the political and economic structures first.5. AI-Run Government Would Be Dystopia, Even If It Worked Even if an AI could make perfect decisions about climate policy or monetary supply, Schneier argues it would be fundamentally dystopian. Democracy is the process of deciding, not just the outcome. Lose that process, and we're no longer in control of our future.Thanks for reading Keen On America! This post is public so feel free to share it. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

There are few more prolific Americans than the Harvard scholar, activist and athlete Cass Sunstein. The author of almost 30 books (including the best-selling Nudge) as well as an influential advisor in the Presidencies of Biden and Obama, Sunstein's new book, On Liberalism, is an unambiguously full throated defense of freedom. Both Reagan and FDR are part of the same big tent liberal family, Sunstein argues, in this defiantly bipartisan reminder of foundations of modern American freedom. There's not a lot of nudging On Liberalism. He warns that while liberalism faces "severe pressure" today, its core commitments to freedom, pluralism, and the rule of law must unite American citizens across political divides. The alternative, he says, is an unAmerican scenario of unfreedom. In a word: illiberalism. 1. The Liberal "Big Tent" Includes Both Reagan and FDRSunstein argues that liberalism isn't just for the left—it's a broad tradition unified by commitments to freedom, pluralism, rule of law, and security (freedom from fear). This tent includes everyone from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair, from Ronald Reagan to Franklin Roosevelt, united against illiberal forces like Hitler, Stalin, and Putin.2. "Experiments in Living" Are Liberalism's FoundationWhile just a throwaway line for John Stuart Mill, Sunstein sees "experiments in living" as central to liberalism. Whether it's entrepreneurs trying new businesses, people exploring different religious commitments, or individuals choosing unconventional lifestyles, liberalism protects and celebrates this diversity of human experience.3. Nudging and Freedom Are CompatibleSunstein defends his famous "nudge" concept as fundamentally liberal. Like a GPS that suggests routes but lets you choose your destination (or ignore its advice entirely), nudges inform and guide while preserving freedom of choice. Calorie labels nudge but don't coerce; you can still choose the fudge.4. Liberalism Faces "Severe Pressure" But Isn't CollapsingWhile warning that attacks on universities and political opponents are "not consistent with liberal traditions," Sunstein maintains optimism. America's robust liberal foundations—from the Revolutionary War to its cultural commitment to freedom—remain strong, though renewal and vigilance are needed now more than ever.5. Both Right and Left Harbor Illiberal TendenciesSunstein critiques illiberalism across the spectrum: from those who attack political opponents and universities on the right, to the "woke left" that sometimes opposes free speech and seeks to shame rather than persuade. His prescription: a liberalism focused on opportunity and individual agency, free from shaming and open to all. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Can we humans make it to 2125? According to Gary F. Bengier, author of Journey to 2125, our species faces three existential threats over the next 100 years. His horsemen of the apocalypse are climate change, nuclear war and robots. No great surprises there. Where Bengier is more original is his stress on narrowing the manifold threats to humanity. Focus, focus, focus is Bengier's species survival mantra. The ex-eBay technologist turned philosopher argues we're distracted by too many doomsday scenarios. His classic Silicon Valley solution: ignore the noise, solve these three core problems, and humanity might be able to "muddle through." But, as always in these cliffhanger narratives, there's a potential catch—nuclear war could destroy the resources needed to fight climate change, while robot factories in the business of building more robot factories could short circuit capitalism itself. Ooops. So there's no guarantee that any of us - even (or especially) those Kurzweilian crazies who believe we can live forever - will squeak through to 2125. 1. The Three Threats That Actually Matter Bengier argues humanity faces three existential challenges over the next century: climate change, nuclear war, and mass unemployment from robots that build robot factories. His core message: stop getting distracted by "50 other things" and focus solely on these civilization-ending threats.2. The Dangerous Interconnection Nuclear war isn't just catastrophic on its own—it could destroy the economic resources needed to fight climate change. A limited nuclear exchange (losing "10 or 20 cities each") would consume so much wealth in rebuilding that climate action would become impossible, creating a cascade of existential failures.3. The Robot Revolution Will Be Different This Time While the current AI wave won't eliminate most jobs, Bengier warns of a second wave when AI-embedded robots become ubiquitous. When "robots build the robot factories that build the robots," the fundamental question becomes: who owns the robot factories? This could mark the end of capitalism as we know it.4. Nuclear Power Is Essential, Solar Isn't Enough Despite solar costs dropping 90%, Bengier argues we need nuclear power (especially small modular reactors) because renewables alone can't provide consistent baseline power. More critically, developing nations need accessible nuclear technology to avoid using their cheap fossil fuel reserves.5. Consciousness Isn't Coming to Machines Against Silicon Valley hype about AGI and conscious AI, Bengier (who studied philosophy of mind) argues machines lack "qualia"—the subjective experience of what things feel like. Machines can analyze an apple's 37 components but can't understand what an apple actually is. The "hard problem of consciousness" remains nowhere near solved.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

For anyone who has seen Michael B. Jordan's excellent new movie Sinners, it's clear that any sort of deal with the devil - what has become known as the Faustian Bargain - is still very much alive. So relevant, in fact, that cultural historian Ed Simon has a book, just out in paperback, about its enduring relevance entitled Devil's Contract. From Shakespeare and Goethe to Thomas Mann and Donald Trump, Simon argues, the Faustian Bargain is more than just a literary trope. In fact, he suggests, it is as relevant today, in our social media age of the Mephistophelian Donald Trump as it was in the German Reformation of the equally populist Martin Luther. The Art of a Deal with the Devil. And we all know how it ends. Go and see Sinners. Spoiler warning: not without the spilling of a great deal of innocent blood. 1. The Faustian Bargain is Fundamentally About Irrationality Despite knowing the terrible consequences, Faust signs the contract anyway. As Simon explains, "if you know that the devil is real and that the Devil collects souls at the end of your life, then like you'd never sign on the dotted line. And yet these characters continually do." This captures our human tendency to act against our own best interests.2. The Contract Makes It Modern What distinguishes the Faust legend from earlier devil stories is the literal paperwork. Simon argues this bureaucratic element - signing on the dotted line - transforms it into a distinctly modern tale about legal systems, capitalism, and bureaucracy. It's not just about temptation; it's about documentation.3. AI is Our Latest Faustian Bargain Simon sees artificial intelligence as having "a shockingly obvious kind of Faustian gloss" - from the magic of conjuring something from nothing to the environmental destruction of massive server farms. We're trading our future for technological convenience, knowing the costs.4. Trump is Mephistopheles, Not Faust In Simon's reading, Trump isn't the one making the deal - he's the devil others make deals with. JD Vance becomes the perfect example: fully aware of what Trump is, yet "willing to seemingly abandon whatever principles he may have had in the past... for power alone."5. Sometimes Faust Wins (But Usually Doesn't) While Goethe's Faust finds redemption and salvation, most versions end badly. The American "Yankee Faust" tries to trick the devil but still gets his house burned down. The lesson? You might think you're clever enough to beat the devil, but the house always wins.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

How to bring peace to Gaza and Ukraine? Maybe the United Nations can help. Or, sadly, maybe not. But there really was a time, in the second half of the 20th century, when the United Nations could help bring peace to supposedly insoluble wars. The U.N.'s glory days were in the Sixties when it was run by a former Burmese school teacher called U Thant. His incredible story is told by his grandson, the Cambridge University historian Thant Myint-U, in a new book appropriately called Peacemaker. Thant Myint-U reminds us of a halcyon time when the UN Secretary-General could summon presidents at will, mediate between nuclear superpowers, and command respect from Castro to Kennedy. Today's forgotten history reveals how U Thant's intervention during the Cuban Missile Crisis helped prevent nuclear war—a role not-so-surprisingly airbrushed from most American and Soviet accounts. Yes, even in the glory years of the Sixties, the bureaucratized U.N. was far from perfect. But under a dedicated peacemaker like U-Thant it could help bring ceasefires to seemingly endless wars. Like in Ukraine and Gaza. 1. U Thant's crucial role in preventing nuclear war has been erased from history During the Cuban Missile Crisis, U Thant provided the face-saving framework that allowed both Khrushchev and Kennedy to step back from the brink. He articulated the missiles-for-no-invasion deal, gave Khrushchev a neutral party to respond to instead of American ultimatums, and bought Kennedy time against his hawkish advisors. Yet this intervention barely appears in American or Soviet accounts.2. The UN's decline stems from lost enthusiasm on both sides The UN's marginalization wasn't inevitable. It resulted from America's disillusionment after Vietnam-era challenges to its power, combined with a new generation of Third World leaders less interested in the global stage than their predecessors like Nehru, Nasser, and Nkrumah. Both superpowers and smaller nations stopped investing in the institution.3. Decolonization needed the UN's framework to succeed Without the UN providing a structure where newly independent nations had equal status and a voice, decolonization might have resulted in continued informal empire or Commonwealth arrangements. The UN gave these countries both legitimacy and a platform to resist neo-colonial pressures.4. The next Secretary-General selection could determine the UN's survival With the current term ending in 2025, the choice of the next leader—requiring agreement between Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping—may be the UN's last chance for relevance. Without strong leadership focused on the UN's core peacemaking function, the institution may not survive.5. The UN worked best when it rejected Cold War binary thinking The non-aligned movement wasn't passive neutrality but active rejection of a world divided into camps. Leaders like U Thant succeeded by creating space for all parties to negotiate without choosing sides, offering an alternative to the superpower confrontation that risked nuclear war.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Lead in gasoline powered cars have killed more people than those that died in World War Two. That's the astonishing claim of David Obst who, in his new Saving Ourselves From Big Car, lays out a strategy to kick our self-destructive automobile addiction. The former investigative reporter, who worked with Seymour Hersh on the My Lai massacre story and represented Woodward and Bernstein for All the President's Men, argues that the auto industry suppressed knowledge about lead's deadly effects for 70 years. More controversially, Obst claims electric vehicles are no better due to the lead in batteries. The only safe future is one without cars, he insists, pointing to car-free communities like Tempe, Arizona and Taipei, Taiwan as models for breaking what he calls our addiction to automobiles.1. Lead in gasoline killed more people than World War II Obst claims that from 1927 to the 1990s, lead additives in gasoline caused more deaths globally than WWII, citing World Health Organization statistics - though interviewer Andrew Keen found this claim conspiratorial.2. Electric vehicles aren't the solution Surprisingly, Obst argues EVs are just as dangerous as gas cars because their batteries contain lead. He points to Tesla fires in the California Palisades spreading lead pollution as evidence of this ongoing problem.3. The auto industry suppressed the truth for 70 years The Ethel Corporation (formed by Standard Oil, DuPont, and GM) allegedly kept lead's deadly effects secret through lobbying and silencing critics, including exiling Caltech scientist Claire Patterson who tried to expose the danger.4. Americans are "addicted" to cars Inspired by his granddaughter telling him "you are the traffic," Obst argues we must treat car dependence like any other addiction - acknowledging that 30% of gasoline is burned just looking for parking spaces.5. Car-free communities are the only answer Obst profiles successful car-free zones from Tempe, Arizona (6,000 residents, no cars allowed) to Taipei's bicycle-centric system, arguing for gradual implementation of car-free neighborhoods rather than overnight transformation.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

There is no more shakespearean parable of the tragic rise and fall of the postwar American meritocratic elite than Robert Strange McNamara. War hero, Harvard Business School, head of Ford, begged by JFK to take a role - any role - in Camelot. Then came the equally meteoric fall as JFK and then LBJ's Secretary of Defense - Vietnam and all its death and deceit. With his brother William, Philip Taubman has written about what he calls McNamara's “double life” in his new biography, McNamara At War. In this “new history”, they uncover new documents showing that McNamara was privately telling his aide John McNaughton in April 1966 - just nine months after advocating for massive escalation - that he "wanted to bring the boys home so bad I can hardly stand it." Yet this analytic whiz-kid, a poetry loving smart machine in a grey suit, continued prosecuting this unwinnable war for nearly two more years. The Taubmans suggest, therefore, that the catastrophic American defeat in Vietnam wasn't simply a military failure. It was a defeat of the entire postwar American technocratic meritocracy represented, above all, by the tragic double life of Robert Strange McNamara.1. Institutional Loyalty Can Override Moral Judgment McNamara's "contorted loyalty" to LBJ and the presidency led him to continue prosecuting a war he privately knew was unwinnable. His defense was that cabinet members serve the president, not some "higher calling" - yet the actual oath of office mentions defending the Constitution, not the president.2. Technical Brilliance Doesn't Guarantee Moral Leadership The "whiz kids" represented a new technocratic approach to governance based on data analysis and corporate efficiency. Yet when faced with Vietnam's moral complexities, these analytical skills became tools for prolonging catastrophe rather than preventing it.3. Elite Institutions May Inadequately Prepare Leaders for Ethical Dilemmas McNamara's stellar credentials - Berkeley, Harvard Business School, Ford presidency - represented the pinnacle of American meritocracy. But this system apparently failed to develop his capacity to act on moral conviction when it conflicted with institutional pressure.4. The "Double Life" Problem in High-Stakes Decision Making The gap between McNamara's private knowledge (war unwinnable by late 1965) and public actions (continued escalation through 1968) suggests a psychological split that may be endemic to powerful positions where personal judgment conflicts with role expectations.5. Personal Character Flaws Amplified by Power McNamara's failures weren't limited to Vietnam - his treatment of his dying wife, his emotional manipulation by LBJ, and his suppression of his own moral compass suggest character weaknesses that became magnified and consequential when combined with immense institutional power.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Dumb globalization: America's worst bet. That, at least, is the view of the Washington Post financial writer David J Lynch and author of The World's Worst Bet. From Clinton to Bush, Lynch argues, America has bet stupidly on globalization and, not surprisingly, has lost. It's no coincidence, he suggests, that the American dream has also unraveled in this tumultuous period. While globalization lifted billions from poverty worldwide and enriched coastal elites, Lynch contends that America's failure to help displaced manufacturing workers created the resentment that ultimately put Trump in the White House. The promised assistance to globalization's losers never materialized, leaving entire communities devastated by both catastrophic job losses and the equal catastrophe to tens of million Americans of the 2008 financial crisis. So what to do? Lynch argues that both Trump's tariffs and Biden's industrial policy are fighting yesterday's battles. Instead, America needs robust labor market policies—wage insurance, place-based economic development, and real safety nets for workers displaced by trade, automation, or AI. The missing piece has always been helping people transition, not futile attempts to resurrect lost manufacturing jobs. Smart globalization: America's best bet. 1. The Unappreciated Gamble America bet it could reap all of globalization's benefits without addressing its costs. Politicians from Clinton onward promised help for displaced workers that never materialized, while prioritizing balanced budgets, wars, and bank bailouts over struggling communities.2. The Obama-to-Trump Pipeline is Real Counties that voted for Obama by 59% flipped to Trump by 56%. These voters saw both as outsiders promising change. When "hope and change" failed to deliver, they turned to "Make America Great Again" - two sides of the same anti-establishment coin.3. We're Going Backwards, Not Forward U.S. tariffs are now at their highest level since the 1930s. Both Trump's tariffs and Biden's industrial policy are fighting yesterday's battles, trying to resurrect manufacturing jobs that economists agree won't return at any reasonable cost.4. The Financial Crisis Was the Breaking Point The 2008 crash wasn't just another recession - it was the second devastating blow to communities already reeling from job losses. Watching banks get bailed out while losing their homes cemented the perception that the system was rigged.5. AI Makes This Urgent The next wave of displacement won't hit factory workers - it'll hit the coastal elites. Doctors, lawyers, and knowledge workers face AI disruption, possibly creating the political will for the safety nets America should have built decades ago.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In our angry MAHA times, how can we get people trusting science and scientists again. According to MIT's Alan Lightman, one of America's greatest scientific writers, we need to both demystify science and humanize scientists. Lightman is the co-author, with Martin Rees, of The Shape of Wonder, a timely collection of essays about how scientists think, work, and live. We need to learn from scientists like Albert Einstein, Lightman - himself the author of the 1993 classic Einstein's Dreams, suggests. He argues that Einstein's "naive" willingness to challenge millennia of thinking about time exemplifies the wonder that drives great science. Lightman discusses why scientists have become entangled with "elite establishments" in our populist moment, and argues that critical scientific thinking—from balancing checkbooks to diagnosing a child's fever—belongs to everyone, not just scientists. So make America smart again (MASA), by demystifying science and humanizing scientists.1. "Naive" questioning drives breakthrough science Einstein revolutionized physics at 26 by refusing to accept millennia of received wisdom about time—showing that great science requires childlike willingness to challenge fundamental assumptions.2. Scientists are victims of populist backlash The mistrust of science isn't really about science—it's part of a global populist movement against "elite establishments," fueled by social media, immigration fears, and growing wealth inequality.3. Wonder requires discipline, not just awe Unlike a child's wonder, scientific wonder comes with tools—both experimental and theoretical—for actually understanding how things work, making it "disciplined wonder."4. Scientists shouldn't be authorities beyond science Even Einstein or Nobel laureates like Geoffrey Hinton have no special authority on ethics, philosophy, or politics—they're just smart people with opinions like everyone else.5. Critical thinking belongs to everyone When you balance your checkbook or diagnose a child's fever, you're using scientific thinking. Science isn't an elite activity—it's a method we all already practice in daily life.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

The human brain is so unbelievably complex that we barely understand its most basic functions. According to the British neuroscientist Daniel Yon, our brains - which some speculate are the most mysteriously complicated things in the universe - might even have minds of their own. In his latest book, A Trick of the Mind, Yon argues that our brains quite literally create our own realities. So is all reality entirely subjective, then? Not quite. Yon describes the brain as functioning like a scientist, constantly generating predictive models based on past experiences to interpret ambiguous sensory data. Rather than passively receiving information, we actively construct our perceptions through these mental frameworks. This isn't pure subjectivity, though—it's what he calls a "duet" between external stimuli and internal predictions. Our brains need these biases and preconceptions to make any sense of the world's overwhelming complexity. Without them, we'd be lost in what Yon calls "chaotic, volatile, unstable mystery." It all sounds like something out of a particularly fabulistic Jorge Luis Borges short story. Maybe it is. 1. Your brain acts like a scientist, not a camera The brain doesn't passively receive reality—it actively generates theories and predictions about the world based on past experiences. We're constantly creating models to interpret ambiguous sensory data, making perception an active construction rather than passive reception.2. Some biases are actually rational necessities Contrary to behavioral economics' focus on "irrational" biases, Yon argues that preconceptions and biases are often essential for making sense of an ambiguous world. Without these mental frameworks, we'd be overwhelmed by raw sensory data—lost in "chaotic, volatile, unstable mystery."3. We're "prisoners of our own pasts" Our brains use past experiences to predict and interpret the present, creating a self-perpetuating cycle. This explains why changing entrenched thought patterns is so difficult—we literally perceive the world through filters created by our history, both personal and cultural.4. Knowledge-seeking has the same neural currency as basic survival drives The brain treats new information and understanding with the same reward systems it uses for food or water. This explains why humans pursue knowledge even at personal risk (like students studying philosophy under Communist surveillance)—our "wanderlust" is biologically encoded.5. Mental health differences reflect alternative predictive models, not deficits Depression, anxiety, and neurodivergent conditions can be understood as different ways the brain models reality rather than as illnesses or deficits. In unpredictable environments, anxiety might be a perfectly rational response to perceived instability.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

According to former college president Beverly Daniel Tatum, Trump's war on university admissions is deeply hypocritical. On the one hand, she argues, his attack on affirmative action admissions policy is made in the populist language of “anti-woke” egalitarianism; but on the other, wealthy families are already gaming college admissions through clever manipulation of the system. A Harvard study revealed that athletes, legacies, donors' children, and faculty offspring—categories overwhelmingly benefiting affluent white families—receive admission advantages far exceeding any diversity program. Yet while demanding universities abandon "racial proxies," Trump's administration simultaneously insists on counting student demographics, exposing the contradiction in claims of colorblind meritocracy.Tatum's new book, Peril and Promise: College Leadership in Turbulent Times, draws from her extensive experience as President of both Mount Holyoke College and Spelman College. Tatum discussed her controversial decision to eliminate NCAA sports at Spelman, redirecting resources toward wellness programs for all students rather than competitive athletics for a few. She also addressed the broader challenges facing higher education, from AI's potential to transform teaching and reduce costs to the ongoing mental health crisis on campuses, presenting herself as both a trustworthy insider and experienced observer of college education in our unusually turbulent times. Even opponents of affirmative action might learn something from the wise Dr Tatum.* The Real Admissions Advantage Goes to Wealth, Not Race - A Harvard study shows that "ALDCs" (Athletes, Legacies, Donors' children, faculty Children) receive far greater admissions boosts than any affirmative action program ever provided, with these categories disproportionately benefiting affluent white families.* Trump's "Colorblind" Approach Is Contradictory - While demanding universities stop using "racial proxies" and claiming to want merit-based admissions, the administration simultaneously insists on counting and tracking student demographics by race.* 2025 Is Uniquely Turbulent for Higher Education - Tatum, who lived through the Vietnam era and other crisis periods, believes the current government intervention in university operations represents the most intense challenge to academic freedom she's experienced in decades.* College Sports Often Drain Resources from Student Wellness - Tatum eliminated NCAA sports at Spelman College, redirecting funds toward fitness and wellness programs that benefit all students rather than the small percentage who compete, especially given data showing young Black women's sedentary lifestyles.* AI Will Transform College Costs and Teaching - While startup costs for AI implementation are significant, early experiments show promise for reducing expenses and improving learning outcomes, such as AI tutors available 24/7 that outperformed traditional teaching methods in physics classes.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Globalization is dying, maybe even dead. Borders are back, baby. That's the message in Jonn Elledge's sparkling Brief History of the World in 47 Borders. In this romp around world history , Elledge introduces us to 47 of the world's oddest borders including particularly weird ones in Detroit, Kaliningrad and Bolivia. So should be celebrating or mourning the rebirth of the border? Elledge is in mourning. A self-described progressive who grew up on Star Trek dreams of planetary unity, he sees nationalism's resurgence since 2016 as "quite a bad thing." He blames economic stagnation—when the pie stops growing, generous approaches to migration and distribution become much harder to sustain. I'm more sanguine. Whatever globalist bureaucrats at the UN or EU promised us, borders were never going away. As a species, we humans are agoraphobic. The Trekkies are wrong. The claustrophobia of the border is what gives us our sense of space. 1. Borders are having a political moment - The "liberal hegemony" that promised borderless globalization has been collapsing since 2016 (Brexit, Trump), making nationalism and territorial division the dominant political force again.2. Economic stagnation drives border obsession - When economies aren't growing and people aren't getting richer, generous policies on migration and wealth distribution become much harder to sustain politically.3. Maps shape leaders' minds - Trump's fixation on his Oval Office Ukraine map shows how visual representations of territory directly influence foreign policy decisions and geopolitical thinking.4. Most "historic" borders are recent inventions - What we assume are natural, ancient boundaries (like the Berlin Wall, Bangladesh, or even Germany's division) are often just decades old, showing how arbitrary our sense of "normal" geography really is.5. Borders create unexpected consequences - From Bolivia maintaining a navy despite being landlocked to Detroit's expansion bankrupting the city, where you draw lines has profound, often unintended effects on politics, economics, and culture for generations.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe