Keen On Democracy

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

When somebody says “win-win” in Silicon Valley, check your pockets. It's usually some elaborate prelude to a sales pitch. And the only thing dodgier than a two-way win is the “win-win-win” narrative that my friend Keith Teare is selling this week. “User, Publishers and AI: Everybody Wins” is the title of Keith's That Was The Week newsletter this week. And to be fair, what he's selling is the dream of an AI world in which the publishers, consumers and manufacturers of information all win. Who wouldn't want that? Our conversation this week is built around the AI ethics showdown by Y Combinator and Andreessen Horowitz which has shaken Silicon Valley this week. The battle centers on whether AI agents should identify themselves when accessing publisher content - a seemingly technical question that reveals broader tensions about who controls information in the age of artificial intelligence. Y Combinator's Garry Tan called new authentication requirements an "axis of evil" while Andreessen Horowitz's Martin Casado argued they represent common sense infrastructure. But the ever-optimistic Keith (who seems to believe that all progress is good, even for its victims) thinks everyone can win - users, publishers and tech companies. Presumably even Garry Tan and Martin Casado. If you believe that, then I might have some beautiful, no-risk Las Vegas beachfront real-estate for you. 1. The "Axis of Evil" Fight Is Really About Anonymous Access When Y Combinator's Garry Tan attacked Cloudflare and Browserbase's AI authentication system as an "axis of evil," he revealed Silicon Valley's preference for consequence-free data harvesting. The technical dispute over AI agent identification masks a deeper question: should AI companies remain anonymous when accessing publisher content, or must they become accountable?2. Publishers Need Influence, Not Just Traffic The conversation exposed a crucial distinction between advertising models that require massive scale and sponsorship models that reward targeted influence. Quality audiences matter more than raw pageviews - an insight that could reshape how content creators think about monetization in the AI era.3. The "Virtuous Circle" Depends on AI Companies Acting Against Self-Interest Keith's vision of AI systems surfacing attribution links back to original sources requires companies to voluntarily complicate their user experience. Why would ChatGPT or Claude choose to send users away to read original articles when seamless summarization is their core value proposition?4. "Bad Publishers Deserved to Fail" Sidesteps Structural Questions Keith's argument that only inferior publishers lost to digital disruption ignores how entire categories of valuable journalism - particularly local news - faced structural economic challenges regardless of quality. This reveals the limitations of purely market-based explanations for technological displacement.5. Trust May Be Irrelevant in the Post-Truth Era My observation that "nobody cares about trust anymore" challenges the entire premise of authentication systems. If users don't demand source verification, then the economic incentives for Keith's proposed "trusted third party" infrastructure may not exist.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 only been a quarter century, but IN FORMATION magazine is now back. Published by David Temkin with the tagline “Every Day, Computers are Making People Easier to Use”, IN FORMATION was originally designed in 1998 as the “Anti-Wired” - a glossily skeptical anti-tech publication for Silicon Valley insiders. And now, as more tech hysteria grips the Valley, IN FORMATION has - like the promise of AI itself - magically reappeared. This third issue, costing the Orwellian sum of $19.84, features contributions from former Google VPs, cryptography experts, and Silicon Valley veterans like Temkin who helped build the original internet. The San Francisco-based Temkin, now at PayPal after stints at Apple and Google, sees AI as another "step function change" in the way that computers are, indeed, making people easier to use. Just in the nick of time, in my not-so-humble opinion. Everyone should subscribe. 1. The Power Dynamic Has Flipped Temkin's tagline "Every Day, Computers are Making People Easier to Use" captures how technology's original promise to empower users has reversed. What began as making computers accessible has evolved into making humans predictable and manipulable—from requiring "computer literacy" to creating addictive, frictionless experiences.2. AI Follows Historical Tech Patterns Temkin sees AI as another "step function change" following personal computers, the internet, and smartphones. He expects AI will likely crash before achieving mainstream success, similar to the dot-com bubble. The hype cycles are familiar, but the stakes may be higher.3. Insider Critique Beats Outside Commentary Information differentiates itself by featuring people who built these technologies—former Google VPs, cryptography experts, Apple engineers—rather than external cultural critics. Their perspective comes from understanding how the technology actually works and evolves from the inside.4. Physical Media as Resistance The magazine's tactile nature (160 pages, 1.3 pounds, $19.84) represents deliberate resistance to digital consumption patterns. Like vinyl's resurgence, physical magazines offer a curated, composed reading experience that screens can't replicate.5. The Stakes Have Escalated While the 1990s tech promises seemed "simultaneously laughable and very threatening," Temkin notes we've moved from early warning signals to full realization of those threats. AI represents another inflection point where the technology could be genuinely beneficial or catastrophically destructive—and unlike nuclear weapons, everyone has immediate access to experiment with it.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 the convicted sex criminal Roman Polanski worth defending? Particularly in the context of “An Officer and a Spy”, his vaguely autobiographical 2019 movie about the Dreyfus case, the first Polanski film in a decade to be shown in the United States. Writing in Liberties Quarterly, Charles Taylor answers yes, intelligently making the case that we should concentrate on evaluating Polanski's art rather than his crimes. But I wonder about the wisdom of Polanski making a film about, of all things, the Dreyfus Affair - the celebrated 19th century French case of the persecution of an innocent Jewish military officer. Taylor's Liberties piece is entitled “Polanski's Nation of Pain” in reference to the manifold tragedies of the filmmaker's life. But there's also the unimaginable pain Roman Polanski has inflicted on any number of innocent women and girls. No, I don't think I'll be paying to see “An Officer and a Spy”. Not even if it's a good movie. 1. The Separation Dilemma Can we truly separate art from artist? Taylor argues yes - judging work solely on artistic merit regardless of the creator's character. But this becomes harder when the artist may be using their platform to craft narratives about innocence and persecution.2. Subject Matter Matters Polanski's choice to make a film about the Dreyfus Affair - a famous case of false accusation and the persecution of an innocent man - feels particularly tone-deaf given his own history of victimizing others. The "what" an artist chooses to explore can't be divorced from the "who" is exploring it.3. Cultural Gatekeeping vs. Access There's tension between those who believe controversial artists' work should still be available to audiences (let people decide for themselves) and those who argue that some crimes should disqualify someone from cultural participation and profit.4. The Victim's Paradox Even Samantha Geimer, Polanski's victim, has spoken against his continued prosecution - yet this doesn't resolve the broader question of accountability. Individual forgiveness doesn't necessarily translate to cultural rehabilitation.5. Economic Ethics Beyond just artistic judgment lies the question of financial support. You can acknowledge artistic skill while refusing to economically reward it - choosing not to pay for tickets becomes a form of moral statement separate from aesthetic evaluation.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 become the new orthodoxy: social media is the cause of the epidemic of anxiety amongst adolescents. So the way to fix this is by taking away their smartphones. But according to Pulitzer prize-winning New York Times writer Matt Richtel, things are actually a lot more complicated than blaming everything on digital technology. In fact, we may have got things a bit upside down. In his new book, How We Grow Up, Richtel argues that parents have, ironically, become what he calls "the social media" in their kids' lives. Smartphones enable parents to constantly observe not just their kids' movements but even their thoughts through constant surveillance of grades, texts, and location data. We are, indeed, creating a "surveillance state with our children," he warns - which could be one explanation (amongst many) why today's teens engage in significantly less risky behavior than previous generations. Understanding adolescents might actually require grown-ups to face up to their own parental anxieties. "Love, lead, let go," is Richtel's general advice for parents navigating our brave new world. Adolescence was invented in 1904, he notes, to help young people adapt to the economic complexity of the industrial age. A century later, we all risk becoming adolescents as we struggle to process the rapid change and information overload of our digital age. Everybody needs to learn to grow up. 1. Adolescence is a modern economic invention. Before 1904, there was no period between puberty and adulthood. People hit puberty, entered the workforce, married, and had children quickly. Adolescence emerged because complex economies required time to prepare young people for participation in sophisticated society.2. Parents have become "the original social media." When parents constantly share anxiety at dinner tables about college admissions, economic doom, and life's difficulties, they're flooding their children with the same kind of overwhelming information they criticize social media for providing.3. Technology has created involuntary parental surveillance. Modern tools allow parents to monitor grades, locations, and activities constantly. Richtel argues parents feel "irresponsible" if they don't use these capabilities, creating a surveillance dynamic that previous generations couldn't maintain even if they wanted to.4. Today's teens are actually less risky than previous generations. Contrary to crisis narratives, current adolescents drink less, have less sex, smoke less, and engage in fewer dangerous behaviors than teens in the 1980s and 90s. The anxiety epidemic coincides with decreased risk-taking, not increased recklessness.5. Simply removing phones won't solve the underlying issues. The research on social media's effects is mixed - some users become happier, others more anxious. The real problem may be that attention-grabbing technologies displace activities known to help brain development: sleep, exercise, and in-person community interaction.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

Shaka Senghor is one of America's great survivors. Having spent 19 years in high-security prison, he has reinvented himself as a best-selling writer and public speaker on individual freedom and responsibility. In his new book, How to Be Free, Senghor argues that everyone — inside and outside jail — lives in hidden prisons of trauma, shame, and grief. Drawing from his own personal transformation in solitary confinement, he offers practical tools for emancipation from mental and emotional captivity. Senghor's remarkable work and life embody the quintessentially American belief in that most magical of things - the second chance. 1. Mental prisons are often harder to escape than physical ones Senghor argues that the psychological barriers of trauma, shame, and grief can be more confining than actual prison bars, affecting people across all walks of life.2. Literacy was his lifeline to transformation Being able to read at an above-average level (compared to the typical third-grade reading level in prison) allowed him to turn prison into his personal university and begin his mental transformation.3. Freedom begins internally, not externally He freed himself mentally while still in solitary confinement by journaling, meditation, and envisioning a different future - proving that true liberation starts from within.4. America's criminal justice paradox reflects broader societal issues The country that prides itself on freedom has the world's largest prison population, highlighting deeper systemic inequalities in education, resources, and opportunity across different communities.5. Shared humanity transcends circumstances Despite his unique background, Senghor discovered that people from all levels of society - from Silicon Valley executives to fellow inmates - struggle with similar emotional and psychological challenges, suggesting universal tools for healing and growth.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 hasn't always been easy being Gary Marcus these last few years. OpenAI's most persistently outspoken AI sceptic has been in minority, sometimes of one, in his critique both of Sam Altman's claims about the imminence of AGI as well as the general “intelligence” and economic viability of ChatGPT. Since the supposedly “botched” release of GPT-5, however, even Sam Altman seems to want to be Gary Marcus. For Gary, who has endured what he diplomatically calls "an unbelievable amount of s**t" for his contrarian views, the irony is particularly delicious. He now finds himself vindicated as the very company he's criticized adopts his language of caution and scaled-back expectations. "It's not that I'm becoming like him," Gary says about Sam with Marcusian humility, "but that he's becoming like me." Rather than Son of Sam, OpenAI is now the Son of Gary story. 1. The GPT-5 Reality Check Changed EverythingGPT-5's underwhelming performance—described as barely different from GPT-4.1—shattered the industry's faith in scaling. After 34 months of development and unprecedented hype, it delivered incremental improvements rather than the "quantum leap" promised, fundamentally shifting Silicon Valley's narrative from exponential progress to diminishing returns.2. OpenAI is Burning Cash Despite Record RevenueDespite making a record $1 billion last month and being valued at $300 billion, OpenAI is losing approximately $1 billion monthly and has never turned a profit. The company faces a severe cash flow crisis with only 6-18 months of runway, forcing Altman into constant fundraising cycles at ever-higher valuations.3. The AI Bubble Could Trigger Market ContagionOpenAI's inflated valuation props up NVIDIA's $5 trillion market cap, which depends on insatiable AI chip demand. If even one major AI company scales back purchases or fails, the ripple effects could devastate pension funds and trigger broader market corrections, making this potentially more dangerous than the dot-com bubble.4. Surveillance Monetization is OpenAI's Next MoveWith AGI proving elusive, OpenAI will likely pivot to monetizing the vast personal data users share with ChatGPT—turning users into products like Facebook did. Marcus predicts this shift toward surveillance capitalism, especially with their rumored hardware device partnership with Johnny Ive.5. The Industry's Intellectual Monoculture is BreakingThe field's unprecedented focus on large language models to the exclusion of other approaches created "the least intellectual diversification in AI's 80-year history." As scaling hits limits, the industry must diversify into neuro-symbolic AI and other paradigms that Marcus has long championed.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

Maybe he never went away. But Dr Strangelove is back now at the heart of America's new military-industrial-digital complex. And Strangelove 2.0 might offer an even more existential threat than Kubrick's original cigar-chewing model played with such absurdist aplomb by the great Peter Sellers. While the first Strangelove was just dumb, today's powers-that-be at the Pentagon are both stupid and corrupt. That, at least, is the worrying view of Ben Freeman, the director of Democratizing Foreign Policy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and the co-author of the upcoming The Trillion Dollar War Machine. Freeman sees companies like Peter Thiel's Palantir—which just secured a historic $10 billion contract—as the new face of a military establishment that has grown exponentially more dangerous since Eisenhower's bipartisan warning. Today's war profiteers (in both political parties) wield AI, deepfakes, and automated kill chains while maintaining the same reckless nuclear thinking that nearly ended the world in 1962 Cuba. The result? A trillion-dollar budget that enriches contractors while making America infinitely less safe in an infinitely more dangerous world. What we're really missing is a Kubrick 2.0 to restore Strangelove to our digital screens. 1. The Military-Industrial Complex Has Gone Digital Companies like Palantir represent a new evolution - the "military-industrial-digital complex" - where Silicon Valley tech firms are now central players in defense contracting, with Palantir recently securing a historic $10 billion contract.2. It's a Bipartisan Problem, Not Just Trump Freeman emphasizes this spans party lines: Obama (despite his Nobel Peace Prize) oversaw record military spending, Biden sold arms at record levels, and the system perpetuates itself regardless of who's in the White House because defense contractors strategically place jobs in congressional districts.3. More Weapons = Less Security America just hit a trillion-dollar military budget for the first time, yet remains ineffective at solving major global conflicts (Ukraine, Gaza, Korea). Meanwhile, diplomatic tools like the State Department are being gutted, creating a dangerous imbalance.4. AI and Automation Pose New Existential Risks Beyond traditional nuclear threats, we now face "automated kill chains" where AI makes lethal decisions without human oversight, plus deepfakes that could trigger conflicts based on false information - combining old Dr. Strangelove logic with new technological capabilities.5. The Revolving Door Ensures System Perpetuation Pentagon officials stay quiet about waste and corruption because they know defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin will hire them post-retirement for lucrative positions, creating a self-perpetuating cycle that prioritizes profit over actual security.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's the matter with America? We've been told for years about the dumb working class MAGA voter. That they are exploited by Trump, that their interests are the reverse of a self-interested Republican cultural or economic elite. But according to the iconoclastic Tablet magazine contributor Michael Lind, we've got it the wrong way around. MAGA Voters are anything but stupid, he argues. That's why they don't care what dissenting podcasters like Tucker Carlson think. Instead, they're making rational choices based on their material interests, not blindly following con-celebs like Carlson, Laura Loomer or Curtis Yarvin. The real Trump coalition consists of two groups that pundits consistently misunderstand: reliable Republican voters who will support any GOP presidential nominee, and more crucially, swing voters in swing states. Rather than following the latest ideological dramas between right-wing influencers, these supposedly swing-voting “low-information voters” are making practical decisions about their lives. So actually, Lind implies, echoing other contrarian American populists like Thomas Frank, there's nothing the matter with a United States that somebody representing the class interests of ordinary Americans couldn't fix. 1. Right-Wing Influencers Have Zero Real Political Power Podcasters like Tucker Carlson, Laura Loomer, and Curtis Yarvin may dominate online political discourse, but they have "next to no influence on actual policy." When they turn against Trump, there are no electoral consequences because they don't command actual voter armies—just online audiences.2. MAGA Voters Are Making Rational Economic Calculations The "low-information" swing voters who decide elections aren't following ideological media rabbit holes. They're high school or some-college educated people making practical decisions about their material interests, not consuming political content or caring about intellectual debates among conservative influencers.3. America Is Experiencing a Class War Between Managers and Everyone Else The real divide isn't left vs. right but between a highly credentialed "managerial elite" who control large institutions and an unlikely coalition of working-class voters and outsider entrepreneurs (like Silicon Valley founders) who resent bureaucratic control.4. Trump Rebuilt FDR's Coalition for the Republican Party Through a complete partisan realignment, Trump assembled the same geographic and demographic base that supported Democrats from Andrew Jackson through LBJ—while today's Democratic Party represents the Northeastern establishment that Republicans used to champion.5. The Solution Requires Rebuilding Civil Society, Not Better Politicians America's crisis stems from over-centralization and the collapse of intermediate institutions like unions, local political parties, and churches. Real change requires "democratic pluralism"—giving ordinary people power between elections through rebuilt grassroots organizations, not just voting for better candidates every few years.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 lonely young men who have forgotten how to read, the LA Times book critic Bethanne Patrick some some simple advice: Get Queer Quicker. And to make her point, Patrick discusses five great books on today's male identity crisis - including from Keen On alums like Jessa Crispin and Andrew Lipstein. Patrick argues that reports of the literary man's death are greatly exaggerated - he's just evolved beyond the Philip Roth archetype. From Michael Douglas movies to Danish masculinity models, from toxic fathers to cross-dressing ceramicists, these books reveal how modern men are navigating identity in an era where traditional patriarchal roles have crumbled, replaced by what Crispin calls a system where "you just need to buy your way to the top." So today's anxiety-ridden men who want to get beyond the self-stimulation of Portnoy's Complaint, go to your local (indie) bookstore and GQQ. You'll find that the pages of today's books on the dilemma of maleness are a lot less sticky. 1. The Literary Man Hasn't Disappeared—He's DiversifiedReports of the "death" of literary men are exaggerated. Today's prestigious male writers are just "less likely to also be straight and white"—think Ocean Vuong, Kwame Alexander, and Alexander Chee rather than Philip Roth and Norman Mailer.2. Gen Z is "Getting Queerer Quicker"Younger generations are rejecting rigid gender binaries in literature and life, refusing categories like "romances are for women, thrillers are for men." They're making intentional choices about identity rather than accepting traditional roles.3. The Crisis is About Class, Not Just GenderBoth Jessica Crispin and Jared Yates Sexton argue that male identity crisis stems from economic inequality. The old patriarchy based on "role and responsibilities" was replaced by a system where "you just need to buy your way to the top"—leaving working-class men adrift.4. Men Need Permission to Read DiverselyPatrick's husband didn't read fiction until audiobooks gave him privacy from judgment. Men face social anxiety about being seen reading "feminine" genres, but when freed from scrutiny, they explore widely—from cozy mysteries to historical novels by women.5. Publishing's Gender ParadoxThe industry is "largely female...up to a certain level, but the C-suite people are still predominantly male." This creates resistance to books addressing men's real struggles, making important works like Richard Reeves' Of Boys and Men hard to publish through traditional channels.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

Those who do win. Those are Keith Teare's immortal words to describe the winners of today's Silicon Valley battle to control tomorrow's AI world. But the real question, of course, is what to do to win this war. The battle (to excuse all these blunt military metaphors) is to assemble the AI pieces to reassemble what Keith calls the “jigsaw” of our new chat centric world. And to do that, the veteran start-up entrepreneur advises, requires owning “the front door”. Yet as Keith acknowledges, we're still in the AltaVista era of AI—multiple contenders fighting for dominance before a Google-like winner emerges. His key insight is that “attachment becomes the moat”. Users develop emotional bonds with their preferred AI interface, creating switching costs that transform temporary advantages into permanent market positions. Multi-trillion dollar success belongs to whoever builds the stickiest, most indispensable gateway to our AI-native future. Those who do that will win; those who don't, will not. 1. We're in the "AltaVista era" of AI - Multiple players (OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Perplexity) are competing for dominance, but like the early search engine wars, one will likely emerge as the clear winner within 1-2 years.2. "Attachment becomes the moat" - Users develop emotional bonds with their preferred AI interface that create powerful switching costs. Keith uses Claude for coding and won't switch despite trying alternatives, demonstrating how user loyalty becomes a competitive advantage.3. The shift from "page-based" to "AI-native" internet - We're moving from a web of URLs and content pages to one where every interaction starts with human-AI conversation. The browser is becoming yesterday's technology.4. Publishers aren't doomed but are unprepared - The monetization model will evolve from traditional advertising to contextual links surfaced by AI. Publishers will eventually "beg to be included" and AI companies will pay for training content while driving traffic through relevant links.5. The "jigsaw pieces" already exist across industries - In healthcare, finance, and other sectors, all the components needed for AI transformation are available but need assembly. Whoever puts these pieces together first in each field will become massive companies - potentially the world's biggest in their respective industries.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 the history of New York City the heart of the American story? Or does it exist in parallel, perhaps even independently, from the main American narrative. As with everything about the Big Apple (so good they named it twice), the answer is both. Or everything. At least according to Jonathan Mahler, author of The Gods of New York, a new history of the egoists and opportunists who remade the city in the 1980s. It's the story of Donald Trump, of course, as well as Rudi Guiliani, Ed Koch, Spike Lee, Larry Kramer, Al Sharpton and an astonishingly entertaining cast of characters that only New York could create. But it's also the broader American story of the victory of neo-liberal economics and ever-deepening chasm between Wall Street wealth and main street poverty. Mahler argues that the transformation from the "Mean Streets" dystopia of the 1970s to the finance-dominated metropolis of the 1980s didn't just save New York City —it created the troubling template for modern America, complete with all our current economic inequalities, political absurdities and tabloid cultural realities. 1. The 1980s Created Modern America's Template The transformation of New York from 1986-1990 wasn't just urban renewal—it was the birth of neoliberal America. The city's embrace of Wall Street, real estate development, and deregulation became the blueprint for how America would operate for the next four decades.2. Power Shifted from Public to Private The era marked a fundamental transfer of urban power from public officials like Robert Moses and labor unions to private developers like Trump. Instead of government-led projects, cities began relying on private industry to drive development—often with devastating consequences for working-class communities.3. Trump's Origin Story Explains His Political Magic Trick Trump went from being the 1980s symbol of greed and excess to becoming the voice of America's disaffected in 2016. This transformation from tabloid character to populist leader represents one of the most remarkable political reinventions in American history.4. The American Dream Became Less Accessible New York's evolution into what Bloomberg called "a luxury product" reflects a broader national trend. The same forces that saved the city from 1970s decline also priced out working and middle-class families, making economic mobility increasingly difficult.5. Tabloid Culture Became Political Culture The larger-than-life personalities who dominated 1980s New York—the "Gods" of Mahler's title—pioneered a celebrity-driven, spectacle-based approach to public life that eventually consumed American politics, from Trump's rise to our current media-saturated political landscape.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 often that there's sunny news on the environmental front, especially from grizzled activists like the great Bill McKibben. But in his new book, Here Comes the Sun, McKibben argues that the sun - or, at least, solar power - might actually save the earth. There's a pagan quality to McKibben's manichaean message: the sun, he says, offers both last chance for the climate and a fresh chance for civilization. McKibben's optimism, he guarantees, is anything but naive cheerleading—it's grounded in the hard numbers of energy economics. Solar power has quietly become the cheapest energy source on earth, triggering what he calls a "warp speed" buildout, particularly in China. While the climate crisis continues melting ice caps and breaking temperature records, McKibben sees this energy transition as our one scalable tool that can move fast enough to matter. Move fast and fix the world. The timeline is unforgiving: climate scientists say we need to cut emissions in half by 2030. The question isn't so much whether solar will dominate—it's whether we humans can deploy it quickly enough to prevent catastrophe and provide us with a new beginning on earth. McKibben urges both individual action—solar installations before tax credits expire on New Year's Eve—and collective organizing through events like Sun Day, the upcoming September 21st day of action.1. Solar Power Has Hit an Economic Tipping Point Solar is now the cheapest energy source on Earth - what McKibben calls "the Costco of energy." This isn't "alternative" energy anymore; it's become the obvious, economical choice that's driving rapid global adoption.2. China Is Dominating the Solar Revolution China installs solar at "warp speed" - the equivalent of a nuclear power plant every 8 hours in May 2025. They're using American-invented technology (solar cells, lithium batteries) to become the world's first "electrostate" and reshape global power dynamics.3. We Have a Narrow Window to Act Climate scientists say we need to cut emissions in half by 2030. Every tenth of a degree matters - it moves 100 million people out of comfortable climate zones. Solar is our only scalable tool that can deploy fast enough to make a difference.4. Fossil Fuel Companies Can't Adapt Traditional energy companies won't invest in renewables because, as Exxon's CEO admitted, they don't offer "above average returns." Once solar panels are installed, the sun delivers energy for free - destroying the fossil fuel business model of controlling supply.5. Individual and Collective Action Both Matter McKibben urges people to install solar before tax credits expire on New Year's Eve, while also organizing collectively. His "Sun Day" on September 21st aims to shift public perception from seeing solar as "alternative" to recognizing it as the mainstream energy solution.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

Who is to blame for the redistricting farce that many fear is breaking American democracy? There's Trump, of course, and his gang of MAGA crazies. But according to David Daley, the author of Antidemocratic, Inside the Far Right's 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections, the real culprit is anything but crazy. It's John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In a devastating 2019 decision, Daley argued in a powerful New York Times essay this week, Roberts closed federal courts to partisan gerrymandering claims just as judges from both parties were successfully policing redistricting abuses. "It's like that moment in Ghostbusters where they turn off the containment packs," Daley explains. "All the evil spirits spill out." The result? Today, 398 of 435 House districts are non-competitive, and we're witnessing what Daley calls a "redistricting apocalypse" with no end in sight. And those evil spirits aren't just on the far right, with Democratic hacks also benefitting from this out-of-control gerrymandering. What gets lost in all this, of course, is the bipartisan political center in both parties - thereby creating a political system increasingly out of touch with the kind of non-ideological voters (ie: most American citizens) whose interests John Roberts' Supreme Court is supposed to protect. 1. Chief Justice Roberts Created the Current Crisis Roberts' 2019 decision to close federal courts to partisan gerrymandering claims removed the last guardrails just as bipartisan judges were successfully policing redistricting abuses, unleashing the current "redistricting apocalypse."2. Technology Has Made Gerrymandering Permanent Modern software and voter data have transformed gerrymandering from a temporary trick into decade-long control. Districts can now be carved with surgical precision, making 398 of 435 House seats non-competitive.3. Democrats Were Caught Completely Off-Guard Despite clear warnings (Karl Rove even published the Republican strategy in the Wall Street Journal), Democrats "fell asleep" on redistricting and are now playing catch-up with far fewer opportunities to retaliate.4. The Math Doesn't Favor Democratic Counter-Gerrymandering Republicans can draw about 195 seats on their own while Democrats control only 49. Even if Democrats maximize gerrymandering in California and Illinois, Republicans have many more states where they can respond.5. The Stakes Go Beyond Elections Daley warns of "militarized voter suppression" and sees America on a "dark path" where the combination of gerrymandering, voting restrictions, and authoritarian tactics could fundamentally undermine democracy by 2026. 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

Might the supposedly revolutionary future of AI healthcare actually be a return to the gig economics of Uber and Airbnb? That's the intriguing proposition put forward by former Kaiser Permanente Chief and Stanford Medical School professor Robert Pearl, a prescient observer of the future of his industry. According to Pearl, we may be returning to the digital future: freelance doctors, he predicts, will train people to use existing AI tools (ChatGPT, Claude, etc.) for managing chronic conditions - essentially "Uberizing" medical AI guidance. The real question, of course, is whether this will cheer up both doctors and patients. Pearl isn't sure about either. But one thing he is certain about is that MAGA government isn't the answer to fixing America's healthcare future. Having been cautiously optimistic about RFK Jr six months ago, he now gives the US Secretary of Health and Human Services an “F” for his first six months in office. Maybe we should Uberize RFK Jr. It certainly couldn't make things worse. 1. Two Competing AI Healthcare ModelsPearl identifies two paths: expensive, FDA-regulated products from tech companies versus affordable, clinician-led training programs that teach patients to use existing AI tools like ChatGPT for chronic disease management—with the second potentially avoiding regulation entirely.2. AI Could Prevent 30-50% of Medical DeathsBy better managing chronic diseases like hypertension and diabetes (which account for 70% of doctor visits and costs), AI could save $1.5 trillion and prevent massive numbers of deaths from heart disease, cancer, kidney failure, and strokes.3. The "Uberization" of Medical CareWith 40% of doctors already doing gig work, Pearl envisions freelance physicians training patients to use AI tools for continuous health monitoring—replacing the current system of infrequent office visits with real-time, at-home care management.4. Insurance Companies Will Welcome AI, Hospitals Will ResistInsurers will benefit from lower costs and reduced need for prior authorizations, while hospitals and drug companies will see fewer patients and medication sales—making them the primary opponents of AI healthcare adoption.5. Medical Education Faces Major DisruptionElite institutions like Stanford will focus on complex procedures (heart transplants, major cancers), while routine medical knowledge becomes commodified. Mid-level healthcare jobs will disappear, similar to what's happening in computer programming.Bonus Political Takeaway: Pearl gives RFK Jr. an "F" for his first six months, saying he's capitulated to the agricultural industry instead of tackling the root causes of chronic disease through nutrition policy.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

Anyone lucky enough to have seen Wim Wenders' 2023 masterpiece Perfect Days is familiar with the dignity of professional Japanese toilet cleaners. Mark Eltringham, the publisher of the excellent future of work newsletter Workplace Insight, hasn't seen Wenders' movie, but he is nonetheless sympathetic to the dignity of the armies of invisible workers paid to clean up our mess - from those who tidy up offices to to those who scrub public toilets. We conveniently ignore this precariat, Eltringham argues, when it comes to imagining the impact of AI on jobs. While tech elites debate hybrid schedules and productivity algorithms, these essential workers remain largely untouched by automation's promises and threats, establishing a convenient myopia in our understanding of work's future. So next time you go to your office or use a public bathroom, Eltringham suggests spare a thought for the professionals who made the experience palatable - and ask yourself why it's their voices that are missing from our mostly privileged and solipsistic AI centric conversations about the future of work. 1. The "Solipsism Problem" in Work DiscourseEltringham argues that workplace conversations about AI, remote work, and the "death of the office" suffer from solipsism - knowledge workers project their own experiences onto the entire workforce, ignoring that these discussions only apply to maybe 30-40% of workers.2. AI's Uneven Impact Across Job TypesWhile tech elites debate AI's productivity effects, vast numbers of workers - from toilet cleaners to factory workers - remain largely untouched by automation. The AI revolution is primarily a knowledge worker phenomenon, not a universal workplace transformation.3. The Return-to-Office ParadoxTech companies like Google and Microsoft led the push to get employees back into offices, despite having the most sophisticated remote work capabilities. This suggests that even digital-native companies see value in physical proximity that goes beyond mere productivity metrics.4. "Weak Ties" Matter More Than Water Cooler MomentsEltringham dismisses the clichéd "water cooler conversation" argument for offices, arguing instead that the real value lies in "weak ties" - the informal networks that help you connect with people who know other people, creating problem-solving chains that are harder to replicate virtually.5. Work Culture Trumps Office DesignA good working culture in a badly designed office will make people happy, but a bad culture in a beautiful office won't. The focus on trendy office furniture and Silicon Valley-style spaces misses the point - relationships and culture matter more than design aesthetics.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

Once upon a time, it was very easy for the American left to determine progress. The working class was good, the traditional left knew, and so progress meant embracing the economic and cultural interests of that class. Today, however, in our age of authoritarian populism in which part, at least, of the (white) working class appears nostalgic for the economics and culture of industrial America, things aren't quite as self-evident. As both David Masciotra and Soli Ozel note, then, this leftist dilemma is that of nostalgia versus progress. This tension, these progressive thinkers note, is exemplified in the work of the American sociologist Christopher Lasch, which simultaneously critiques elite betrayal while romanticizing traditionally male and even religious working-class virtues that may never have really existed. It's the Lasch paradox. Contemporary progressives face an uncomfortable reality: delivering material benefits—whether healthcare, jobs, or infrastructure—doesn't automatically translate into electoral support or, dare I say it, the strengthening of democratic values. The puzzle deepens, Ozel and Masciotra agree, when considering that Trump's base includes not just struggling communities but also affluent exurban voters. Perhaps the real challenge isn't choosing between nostalgia and progress, but reimagining what progress means in a post-industrial capitalist society where traditional class-based politics no longer provide clear moral or strategic guidance for building the kind of sustainable democratic coalitions created by progressive Presidents from FDR to Obama. 1. The Lasch Paradox: Accurate Diagnosis, Flawed Prescription Christopher Lasch correctly identified elite failure and betrayal of democratic institutions, but his romanticization of working-class civic virtue ignored the reality of racism, sexism, and authoritarianism within those communities.2. Material Benefits ≠ Political Loyalty Progressive policies that demonstrably improve people's lives—from Obamacare to renewable energy investments—don't automatically translate into electoral support, challenging traditional left assumptions about economic determinism.3. Trump's Base Is More Complex Than "Economic Anxiety" Significant portions of Trump supporters are middle-to-upper-middle class exurban voters, not just struggling working-class communities, complicating narratives about purely economic motivations for populist support.4. Corporate Capital's Role in Democratic Erosion Major corporations and tech leaders, despite initial opposition to Trump, ultimately supported his return through funding and institutional backing, demonstrating how economic interests can override stated democratic values.5. The Progressive Coalition Crisis The left faces a fundamental challenge: how to build sustainable democratic coalitions when traditional class-based politics no longer provide clear guidance, and when moral righteousness often alienates potential allies while failing to win elections.Some post show thoughts from David Masciotra: Now that I had more time to think about it, I would add the following about Mamdani: I am disturbed by the allegations of antisemitism, and some of the inconsistencies in his moral positions (he condemns politicians who visit Israel, but enjoys time at his family's residence in Uganda, a country that executes gays). As Soli suggested, let's leave that aside. While I support the programs that Soli highlighted - free bus rides, creative solutions to food deserts - the DSA agenda has failed in other cities. For example, Chicago has its own version of Mamdani right now - Brandon Johnson. His approval rating is around 20 percent, because he hasn't delivered on the economic promises, but he has introduced eccentric ideas for fighting crime, to put it mildly, and implemented some unhelpful policies in the school system. The city council in LA is dominated by DSA members. They've also failed miserably. I would like to see a return of the "sewer socialism" of Milwaukee progressives from the early 20th century. They were very practical - improving the sewer system, creating vast public parks, expanding public health and public education services. In Chicago and LA, the DSA pairs its rational and helpful economic agenda with ideological excess that, invariably, creates dysfunction and alienates voters.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

Tech nostalgia. Winner-take-all economics. The cult of "storytelling". A Stanford educated aristocratic elite. This was the week that nothing changed in Silicon Valley. Alternatively, it was the week that radical change broke some ChatGPT users hearts. That, at least, is how That Was the Week tech newsletter publisher Keith Teare described this week in Silicon Valley. From Sam Altman's sensitivity to user backlash over GPT-5's personality changes, to venture capital's continued concentration in just ten mega-deals, to Geoffrey Hinton's apocalyptic warnings about AI wiping out humanity - the patterns remain stubbornly familiar even as the technology races forward. So is nothing or everything changing? Keith says everything, I say nothing. Maybe - as AI Godfather Hinton suggested on the show earlier this week - it's time for an all-knowing algorithm with maternal instincts to enlighten us with the (female) truth about our disruptive future.1. AI Users Are Forming Deep Emotional BondsChatGPT users experienced genuine heartbreak when GPT-5's personality changes made their AI feel like a different "person." This forced OpenAI to backtrack and restore GPT-4, revealing how humans are treating AI as companions rather than tools.2. Silicon Valley's Power Structures Remain UnchangedDespite AI's revolutionary potential, the same patterns persist: 40% of VC money goes to just 10 deals, Stanford maintains legacy admissions favoring the wealthy, and winner-take-all economics dominate. The technology changes; the power concentration doesn't.3. The Browser Wars Are Over - Chat Interfaces WonThe future battle isn't about owning browsers (like Perplexity's bid for Chrome) but controlling the chat interface. OpenAI and Anthropic are positioning themselves as the new gatekeepers, replacing Google's search dominance.4. AI's Pioneers Are Becoming Its Biggest SkepticsGeoffrey Hinton, the "AI godfather," now believes there's a 15-20% chance AI could wipe out humanity. When the field's leading experts admit they "have no clue" about AI's future risks, it reveals how little anyone really knows about what we're building.5. Context and Prompting Are the New ProgrammingThe era of simple AI prompts is over. Success now requires sophisticated prompt engineering and providing rich context - making AI literacy as crucial as computer literacy once was. The abstractions are changing, and so must our skills.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'm not sure on this one. On the one hand, Isabelle Boemeke is a pin-up of an environmentally activist generation - going from superstar Brazilian model and Instagram influencer to the author of Rad Future, a manifesto about how nuclear electricity will save the world. On other other hand, there's something slightly troubling in our social media age about this kind of dramatic trajectory - especially given the existential stakes here. Especially since Boemeke - who happens to be married to Joe Gebbia, Airbnb co-founder and one of the world's richest men - acknowledges her lack of scientific knowledge about electricity, nuclear or otherwise. The New York Times just ran a piece about Boemeke , describing her appearance as “like the heroine of a dystopian novel”, and expressing similar concerns, even wondering is she might be in the pay of the nuclear electricity lobby. I guess my worry is less about Boemeke and more about a culture that is comfortable transforming “saving the world” into an Instagrammable meme. Or maybe, as Boemeke suggested in our feisty conversation, I'm just an old fart who just doesn't get the immediacy of the existential environmental crisis that the world now faces. 1. Nuclear Energy Has Surprising Bipartisan Political SupportUnlike most energy sources, nuclear power enjoys support from both Trump and Biden administrations. This rare political consensus suggests nuclear might transcend typical partisan energy debates, making it more viable for large-scale implementation than other clean energy sources.2. The Weapons-Electricity Connection Is Largely OverblownOnly 7 of the 31 countries with nuclear electricity have weapons, and 5 of those had weapons before developing civilian nuclear programs. The data suggests the fear of proliferation from civilian nuclear programs may be largely unfounded, challenging a core anti-nuclear argument.3. Nuclear Safety Data Contradicts Public PerceptionNuclear power has a death rate per terawatt hour comparable to solar and wind, and significantly lower than hydropower. Boemeke argues that Three Mile Island wasn't actually a disaster (no health impacts), and that safety fears are largely based on outdated perceptions rather than current data.4. Shutting Down Nuclear Plants Increases Fossil Fuel UseEvery time a nuclear plant closes (like Indian Point in New York), it gets replaced by fossil fuels, not renewables, despite political promises. This pattern suggests that nuclear closures may actually harm climate goals rather than help them.5. Expertise vs. Influence Raises Troubling QuestionsBoemeke's transformation from model to nuclear advocate highlights broader questions about who gets to shape critical policy debates in the social media age. Her acknowledged lack of scientific expertise, combined with her massive platform and wealthy connections, exemplifies tensions between technical knowledge and cultural influence in addressing existential challenges.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

Few of the world's great scientists have given more thought to the existential threats to humanity than the irrepressible British cosmologist and astronomer Martin Rees. He's the co-founder of Cambridge University's Centre for Existential Risk as well as the author of the 2003 book Our Final Hour. So it's striking that Rees has a quite different take on the existential risk of artificial intelligence technology than many AI doomers including yesterday's guest, the 2024 Physics Nobel laureate Geoffrey Hinton. For Rees, bio-threats and network collapse represents the most dangerous technological threats to humanity in the near future. Unlike nuclear weapons, which require massive detectable infrastructure, Rees warns, dangerous pathogens can be engineered in small, unmonitored laboratories. Meanwhile, our civilization's complete dependence on interconnected global networks means system failures could trigger catastrophic societal breakdown within days. Apocalypse now? Perhaps. But, according to the prescient Rees, we are preparing for the wrong apocalypse. 1. AI's Real Danger Isn't Superintelligence—It's System DependencyRees is "very skeptical" about AI takeover scenarios. Instead, he worries about our over-dependence on globe-spanning networks that control electricity grids and internet infrastructure. When these fail—whether from cyberattacks or malfunctions—society could collapse within "two or three days."2. Bio-Threats Are Uniquely Undetectable and UnstoppableUnlike nuclear weapons that require massive, monitorable facilities, dangerous pathogens can be engineered in small, undetected laboratories. "Gain of function" experiments could create bioweapons far worse than COVID, and preventing this would require impossible levels of surveillance over anyone with relevant expertise.3. We're Living Through a Uniquely Dangerous EraRees believes "the prospect of a catastrophe in the next 10 or 20 years is perhaps higher than it's ever been." We're the first species in Earth's history capable of changing the entire planet—for good or ill—making this a genuinely special and precarious moment.4. Scientific Wonder Grows with Knowledge, Not Despite ItContrary to those who claim science diminishes mystery, Rees - the co-author of an upcoming book about scientific wonder - argues that "the more we understand, the more wonderful and complicated things appear." As knowledge advances, new mysteries emerge that couldn't even be conceived decades earlier.5. Humility About Human Limitations Is EssentialJust as "a monkey can't understand quantum mechanics," there may be fundamental aspects of reality beyond human comprehension. Rees warns against immediately invoking God for unexplained phenomena, advocating instead for accepting our cognitive limits while continuing to push boundaries.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 will AI wipe us out? According to Geoffrey Hinton, the 2024 Nobel laureate in physics, there's about a 10-20% chance of AI being humanity's final invention. Which, as the so-called Godfather of AI acknowledges, is his way of saying he has no more idea than you or I about its species-killing qualities. That said, Hinton is deeply concerned about some of the consequences of an AI revolution that he pioneered at Google. From cyber attacks that could topple major banks to AI-designed viruses, from mass unemployment to lethal autonomous weapons, Hinton warns we're facing unprecedented risks from technology that's evolving faster than our ability to control it. So does he regret his role in the invention of generative AI? Not exactly. Hinton believes the AI revolution was inevitable—if he hadn't contributed, it would have been delayed by perhaps a week. Instead of dwelling on regret, he's focused on finding solutions for humanity to coexist with superintelligent beings. His radical proposal? Creating "AI mothers" with strong maternal instincts toward humans—the only model we have for a more powerful being designed to care for a weaker one.1. Nobody Really Knows the Risk Level Hinton's 10-20% extinction probability is essentially an admission of complete uncertainty. As he puts it, "the number means nobody's got a clue what's going to happen" - but it's definitely more than 1% and less than 99%.2. Short-Term vs. Long-Term Threats Are Fundamentally Different Near-term risks involve bad actors misusing AI (cyber attacks, bioweapons, surveillance), while the existential threat comes from AI simply outgrowing its need for humans - something we've never faced before.3. We're Creating "Alien Beings" Right Now Unlike previous technologies, AI represents actual intelligent entities that can understand, plan, and potentially manipulate us. Hinton argues we should be as concerned as if we spotted an alien invasion fleet through a telescope.4. The "AI Mothers" Solution Hinton's radical proposal: instead of trying to keep AI submissive (which won't work when it's smarter than us), we should engineer strong maternal instincts into AI systems - the only model we have of powerful beings caring for weaker ones.5. Superintelligence Is Coming Within 5-20 Years Most leading experts believe human-level AI is inevitable, followed quickly by superintelligence. Hinton's timeline reflects the consensus among researchers, despite the wide range.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 all are familiar, of course, with Robert Altman's classic 1971 movie about the settling of the west, McCabe and Mrs Miller. But most of us, I'm guessing, don't know about another McCabe, this one African-American, the black Moses in fact, who almost created an African -American land in Oklahoma. McCabe's all-too-American story is told in Caleb Gayle's new book, appropriately entitled Black Moses, the saga of Edward McCabe's transformation from a Wall Street clerk to one of the first prominent American proponents of Black sepatism and self-government. What makes McCabe's story so compelling is how close he actually came to success. By the 1890s, tens of thousands of African Americans had followed him to Oklahoma Territory, establishing over fifty all-Black towns. McCabe had learned the art of selling dreams from hotel magnate Potter Palmer in Chicago, and he deployed those skills to convince Black families fleeing post-Reconstruction violence that they could build their own promised land in the American West. It's quite a story. If only Altman was around to transform this quintessentially American tale of a fresh beginning into American cinema. 1. The Power of Using America's Own Language Against ItselfMcCabe brilliantly deployed quintessentially American arguments - westward expansion, self-governance, constitutional principles - to advocate for Black separatism. Like Frederick Douglass before him, he insisted this was "a very American project" and even pitched directly to President Benjamin Harrison, using precedents like the American Colonization Society to make his case.2. How Close America Actually Came to Having a Black StateThis wasn't just a pipe dream - by the 1890s, tens of thousands of African Americans had moved to Oklahoma Territory, establishing over 50 all-Black towns. McCabe's vision of a Black-governed state with Black senators and congressmen was within reach until Oklahoma chose to "become the South" by making Jim Crow segregation its very first law.3. The Entrepreneurial Roots of Black NationalismMcCabe's transformation from Wall Street clerk to separatist leader reveals how business skills could serve radical political ends. Learning to "sell dreams" from hotel magnate Potter Palmer, he became a master at convincing Black families fleeing post-Reconstruction violence that they could build their own promised land.4. The Tragic Pattern of Zero-Sum American PoliticsThe ultimate failure of McCabe's vision - culminating in tragedies like the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre - illustrates how Black success was seen as a threat rather than an achievement. As Gayle notes, this reflects enduring "zero-sum politics" where one group's prosperity is viewed as another's loss.5. Why These "Lost" Stories Matter TodayIn an era when institutions like the Smithsonian face political pressure over African American history, Gayle argues for the importance of telling these stories "beautifully" for popular audiences, not just academics. McCabe's tale of ambition, near-success, and ultimate defeat offers both inspiration and sobering lessons about the ongoing struggle for Black belonging in America.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 we be defending American democracy if it never really existed? That's the controversial thesis at the heart of Osita Nwanevu's new book, The Right of the People. What America needs, the Baltimore-based Nigerian-born Nwanevu argues, is a radical reinvention of its political system. Nwanevu dismantles liberal pieties about traditional American institutions, arguing that the founders deliberately created an anti-democratic republic designed to prevent majority rule. While conservatives celebrate this fact, progressives remain trapped defending a dysfunctional system that structurally disadvantages them. From the anti-majoritarian Electoral College to the archaic Senate's rural bias, America's "democratic" institutions consistently thwart popular will. To realize real 21st century democracy, he argues, requires extending direct democratic power into both the workplace and the economy. When Amazon workers can vote on American foreign policy but have zero say in their company's decisions, something is fundamentally broken. His radical solution? A new American founding that finally delivers on democracy's promise and guarantees real rights to the real American people. 1. America Was Designed to Be Anti-Democratic The founders intentionally created a constitutional republic to prevent majority rule, not enable it. Unlike progressives who argue the founders secretly wanted democracy, Nwanevu agrees with conservatives that the system was designed to thwart popular will—he just thinks that's a problem to fix, not celebrate.2. Democrats Are Defending a System That Hates Them While Republicans benefit from anti-majoritarian institutions like the Electoral College and Senate, Democrats inexplicably defend these same structures that make it nearly impossible for them to govern effectively. It's political masochism disguised as constitutional reverence.3. Democracy Must Extend Beyond Politics Into Economics True democracy means workers having a say in workplace decisions, not just voting for politicians. When Amazon employees can vote on foreign policy but have zero input on company decisions that directly affect their lives, the system is fundamentally broken.4. The Left Needs Bolder Vision, Not Institutional Defense Trump wins because he promises to disrupt a system people distrust, while Democrats offer tepid defenses of broken institutions. The left must offer transformative change, not restoration of "norms" that never served ordinary people.5. Extreme Wealth Inequality Kills Democracy When the world's richest man can donate $260 million and essentially buy a government position to fire thousands of federal workers, democracy becomes impossible. No political system can survive trillionaires—it's nothing more than an oligarchy with a voting theater.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 what climate pessimists define as our environmentally apocalyptic times, we've become the metaphorical frog in the boiling water. That, at least, is the bleak conclusion of Roy Scranton, the author of Impasse, a new book about climate change and the end of technological progress. For the deeply pessimistic Scranton, the planet is screwed. So the real question is how we can live ethically in these environmentally apocalyptic times. Drawing on his experience as a soldier in Iraq, where he learned to accept death as an everyday spiritual practice, Scranton argues we must abandon fantasies of technological salvation, focusing instead on local community work and the humility of practical good works. This way to the stove, ladies and gentlemen. Our future will be boiling. 1. We're the "Frog in Boiling Water" - Humans adapt so quickly to gradual environmental changes (like rising temperatures) that we normalize catastrophic shifts, making it nearly impossible to recognize existential threats until it's too late.2. Progress is a Dangerous Myth - Our faith that more technology and science will solve climate change is misguided. Energy transitions historically add new sources rather than replace old ones - we used more coal last year than ever before, despite renewable growth.3. Embrace "Ethical Pessimism" - Instead of clinging to hope for global solutions, we should accept that civilization as we know it may not survive and focus on how to live ethically within that reality.4. Think Local, Abandon Global - Rather than trying to "save the world," focus on your immediate community and relationships. Do practical good works where you can actually make a difference in people's daily lives.5. Learn to "Die" Spiritually - Drawing from his military experience in Iraq, Scranton advocates accepting mortality (personal and civilizational) as a daily practice to free yourself for meaningful action in the present moment, without attachment to future outcomes.The core message: Stop fantasizing about technological salvation and start practicing humble, local ethics in the face of inevitably catastrophic change.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 many more times can we report on a week in tech that changed the world? But here we go again…. We just had a week in Silicon Valley where everything, supposedly, changed. At least according to Keith Teare, publisher of the tech That Was the Week weekly newsletter. But last week really really was a special week, Keith insists. It was the week when AI became an actor. When it broke all our traditional software assumptions by becoming an actor, not an app. It was the week AI entered what Keith calls its 'Stone Age' - the moment machines finally got their own tools and began using spreadsheets, databases, and documents without being explicitly told to. If Keith is right, we're about to live in a world where toys talk back to children and cars introduce themselves to their new owners. Yes, AI is in the earliest stages of learning to think for itself. It was, indeed, just another historic week in Silicon Valley.1. AI Has Crossed the Tool-Use ThresholdThis week marked AI's transition from being a tool humans use to becoming an independent actor that chooses and uses its own tools. ChatGPT can now autonomously access spreadsheets, databases, and documents - Keith compares this to humanity's leap from the Stone Age to the Tool Age.2. OpenAI's $500B Valuation Isn't Crazy - It's StrategicDespite seeming absurd, OpenAI's path from $50B to $500B valuation in 18 months follows classic tech playbook: prioritize growth over early profits ("early profit is mismanagement"), focus on 90% gross margins, and build the biggest possible "money printing machine" before optimizing for profitability.3. Software and Hardware Are Being RedefinedWe're moving toward a world where software becomes invisible - delivered through conversational interfaces rather than visual apps - and hardware becomes interactive through embedded AI. Think toys that talk back to children and cars that introduce themselves to owners.4. Creative Generalists Will Thrive, Specialists Are at RiskAI threatens specialists with rule-based skills (consultants, certain scientists) but enhances "audacious" creative generalists who can think outside the box. AI excels as a servant or co-pilot but can't yet replace original thinking or path-breaking creativity.5. We're Entering an Age of AI EmbeddednessThe future isn't about using AI apps - it's about living in a world where AI is embedded in physical objects and environments, making the entire world interactive. This represents a fundamental shift from digital interfaces to ambient intelligence.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

Like it or not, Trump and his surreal version of a libertarian patrimonial America is reshaping the world. At least in what the FT's Janan Ganesh dubs “the high summer of Donald Trump”. But my old friend Jason Pack, host of the excellent Disorder podcast, doesn't believe that a strategy of short-term chaos is a viable long-term global strategy for America. Pack argues that while Trump may be achieving tactical wins through short-term disruptions—from ending the Iran-Israel conflict to forcing favorable trade negotiations—this approach fundamentally undermines the strategic international coordination needed to address existential challenges like AI regulation, climate change, and systemic economic and military competition with China. Without coherent global governance structures, Pack predicts, we're sleepwalking into a long-term disordered world where private tech giants wield more power than governments themselves. Trump's high summer of disorder, he warns, could degenerate into an apocalyptic winter of our collective discontent.1. Trump's Chaos Is Actually Strategic Success Despite appearing haphazard, Trump has achieved major goals through disorder - ending the Iran-Israel conflict with bunker buster bombs, securing favorable trade deals through tariff threats, and making himself the global "swing player" that everyone must negotiate with.2. America's Disproportionate Global Leverage The US economy, though only 1.8 times larger than Europe's, wields 5-6 times the global influence. Trump has discovered how to weaponize this asymmetry more ruthlessly than previous presidents, while Europe remains largely irrelevant in AI and tech.3. Private Tech Giants Now Rival Government Power Multi-trillion dollar companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Nvidia are becoming more powerful than governments themselves. The old DARPA model of government-led innovation has given way to private sector dominance, fundamentally reshaping the relationship between state and market.4. The Missing "NATO for AI" Pack argues we desperately need international coordination structures to govern AI development, data storage, and energy infrastructure. Without treaty-based cooperation among democracies, we're ceding control to either authoritarian regimes or unaccountable private companies.5. A Crisis May Be Necessary to Restore Government Both analysts suggest that only a major catastrophe - economic crash, environmental disaster, or military conflict - will force people to recognize government's essential role. Until then, we're trapped in "libertarian patrimonialism" where personal networks trump institutional governance.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

Are we Rome yet? It's become all too easy to compare contemporary America's woes with those of late republican Rome. And even easier to argue that the democracy destroying Donald Trump is the second coming of Julius Caesar. But according to the distinguished American classicist David Potter, author of Master of Rome, we've got Julius Caesar all wrong. Don't trust Cicero's version of Caesar, Potter warns. Julius Caesar was actually a friend rather than a foe of democracy—he wasn't even 'Caesarian' in the dictatorial sense we've come to associate with his name. Actually Caesar - with his veneration for the Roman state and his attention to detail - has much more in common with FDR than with Donald Trump. Rather than a warning, then, Julius Caesar offers a model for American politicians trying to rebuild democratic institutions and values in our populist age. 1. Caesar was more FDR than TrumpPotter argues Caesar was a competent, detail-oriented administrator who passed major social reforms (land redistribution, veteran benefits) to help ordinary Romans—much like Roosevelt's New Deal. Unlike Trump, Caesar valued facts, logistics, and effective governance.2. Roman "democracy" failed because elites stopped sharing powerThe Roman Republic collapsed not because of Caesar, but because the aristocracy concentrated wealth and excluded most Italians from citizenship despite promises of reform. Caesar emerged because the system had already broken down.3. Caesar was inclusive, not exclusionaryUnlike typical autocrats, Caesar integrated former enemies and conquered peoples (like the Gauls) into his system. He pardoned rivals like Cicero and promoted social mobility—even freed slaves could become citizens and rise to high positions.4. The "Caesarian" reputation comes from biased sourcesMuch of Caesar's tyrannical image comes from Cicero, who defended corrupt politicians and arbitrary executions when it suited him. Reading Caesar's own writings reveals a thoughtful strategist, not a bloodthirsty dictator.5. Competent authoritarianism beats incompetent democracyPotter's key warning: when democratic institutions fail to serve citizens, they'll accept strong leadership that delivers results. Caesar succeeded because he could actually govern—a lesson about the importance of making democracy work for everyone.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 five hundred years, scientists as credible as Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Darwin and Freud chipped away at the scientific existence of God. So, by the beginning of the 20th century, Nietzsche was able to announce the death of God. A century later, however, modern science is now resurrecting God. That, at least, is the suggestion of Michel-Yves Bollore, the co-author of Europe's latest publishing sensation, GOD The Science The Evidence. It's a post Einsteinian science, Bollore and his co-author Olivier Bonnassies contend, which has enabled this kind of scientific Easter. With endorsements from Nobel Prize winners and over 400,000 copies sold across Europe, their controversial thesis argues that seven independent lines of evidence—from thermodynamics to quantum mechanics—point toward an absolute beginning of the universe, making materialism, in their words, 'an irrational belief' in the 21st century.1. The Historical Reversal For 400+ years (Galileo to Darwin to Freud), scientific discoveries seemed to eliminate the need for God. But since 1900, Bollore argues, every major discovery points in the opposite direction—toward the necessity of a creator.2. Seven Lines of Evidence for Absolute Beginning The authors present seven independent scientific arguments (thermodynamics, universe expansion, quantum mechanics, mathematics) that the universe had an absolute beginning—which they argue requires a creator, since "from nothing, nothing can come."3. The Multiverse Dilemma Materialism's only escape is the multiverse theory, but recent discoveries (2003) show infinite series of universes are impossible. This forces materialists into increasingly complex explanations while the "God hypothesis" remains simpler.4. Fine-Tuning as Evidence The universe's parameters are so precisely calibrated (down to the 15th decimal place for expansion speed) that tiny changes would prevent existence itself—suggesting intentional design rather than chance.5. Philosophical Not Religious The book deliberately avoids religious questions (who is God, what does God want) and focuses purely on whether scientific evidence supports the existence of a creator—making it accessible across different faiths and culturesKeen 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 all its multiple obituary notices, the American Dream is alive and kicking. That, at least, is the view of Matson Money CEO and founder, Mark Matson, author of Experiencing the American Dream. But you have to work for it, the Scottsdale, Arizona based Matson says, arguing that many Americans have lost agency over their own lives. Growing up in poverty in West Virginia, Matson built an $11.7 billion asset management firm by embracing his father's core principles: nobody owes you anything, provide value to others first, and view hard work as a core virtue. Matson rejects victim mentality and entitlement culture, even of his own kids (two of whom he fired from his company), insisting the dream remains accessible to anyone willing to serve others and create wealth through disciplined effort rather than expecting government or personal handouts. 1. Mindset Over Circumstances Success stems from how you think, not what you're born into. Matson argues that having the right mental framework—rejecting victimhood and embracing personal responsibility—matters more than your starting economic position.2. Service Before Self-Interest The path to wealth is counterintuitive: focus on creating value for others first, rather than asking "what's in it for me." This service-oriented approach naturally leads to personal prosperity.3. Work as Virtue, Not Just Means Hard work should be viewed as character-building and inherently valuable, not merely a tool to get rich. This perspective transforms how you approach challenges and opportunities.4. Merit Over Everything Even family relationships must be subordinated to performance standards. Matson fired two of his own children from his company, demonstrating that nepotism undermines both business success and character development.5. Media Creates False Narratives News outlets profit from fear and pessimism, leading to distorted perceptions of American opportunity. The statistical reality shows more social mobility and prosperity than headlines suggest.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

Podcasts are ruining our lives. That, at least, is the thesis of the sometime podcaster, Liel Leibovitz. It's the insidious charm of chat, Leibovitz believes, that is behind the faux intimacy of popular podcasters like Joe Rogan. Speaking from Tel Aviv, the Tablet magazine editor-at-large argues that what began as a revolutionary medium for deep, unfiltered conversation has devolved into the same shallow journalism that plagues mainstream media. Podcasters, Leibovitz contends, have traded meaningful discourse for chummy celebrity interviews, creating parasocial relationships that feel intimate but deliver little substance. The medium's unique power to reach listeners in their most vulnerable moments—while doing dishes, walking dogs, working out—has been weaponized into artificial friendships that replace genuine human connection with performative conversations designed to maintain access rather than pursue truth. So what should wannabe podcasters and their audiences do? You could, of course, stop listening to podcasts like this one or Leibovitz's once popular Unorthodox show. Alternatively, as he suggests, you could start your own militantly anti-podcast Podcast (as he is planning with his revamped Unorthodox show), thereby reuniting the medium with the message. 1. Podcasts create dangerous parasocial intimacy Listeners develop artificial relationships with hosts they've never met, epitomized by the fan who named her cat after Leibovitz. This faux intimacy makes audiences trust podcasters more than they should, replacing real human relationships with performed ones.2. The medium has abandoned its revolutionary potential What began as a way to have deep, unfiltered conversations unavailable on mainstream media has devolved into the same shallow access journalism, with podcasters prioritizing celebrity guests and maintaining chummy relationships over pursuing truth.3. Intimacy doesn't equal authenticity The failure of Clubhouse (which offered real interaction) versus the success of podcasts (which offer performed intimacy) proves people don't actually want genuine connection—they want the feeling of intimacy without the work of real relationships.4. There's still hope for the medium Leibovitz argues we're at a "Fred Friendly moment"—ready to discover what podcasting can truly accomplish beyond its current limitations. He believes audiences will respond to genuinely substantive content when offered it, citing positive reactions to rare moments of real questioning.5. AI will increase the value of authentic human voices As artificial content proliferates, genuinely human storytelling, conversation, and analysis will become premium commodities—making this the perfect time for serious podcasters to distinguish themselves through authentic, meaningful discourse.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

Yesterday, the Canadian writer Diane Francis argued that Donald Trump should consider Xi Jinping's China a competitor rather than an enemy. Perhaps. But in this zero-sum “competition” between Trump and Xi for top tough guy, there can only be one winner. As Xi Jinping's father's biographer, Joseph Torigian explains, Xi had a brutally harsh upbringing. In his new book about Xi's father, Xi Zhongxun, Torigian explains that it was a childhood descent from privileged son of a communist party aristocrat to utter poverty, political exile and literal homelessness. That's the kind of tough guy that our self-styled “tough guy” President is competing with in today's Hobbesian bipolar world of international politics. I'm pretty sure that only one of these tough guys will come out on top. And it won't be the pampered middle son of a real-estate mogul from Queens.1. Xi Jinping's "Toughness" is Genuine, Not PerformativeUnlike privileged leaders who talk tough, Xi was forged by real hardship - his father was purged five times, spent 16 years in political exile, and Xi himself experienced homelessness, street battles, and rural exile. This created authentic resilience, not manufactured bravado.2. China's System Remains Dangerously Leader-DependentDespite assumptions about "collective leadership," Chinese politics never escaped the strongman model. Even Deng Xiaoping, supposedly constrained by colleagues, made unilateral decisions like Tiananmen. Xi isn't breaking the system - he's following its core logic that only a powerful "core" leader can hold China together.3. Taiwan is Personal, Not Just Political for XiHis father Xi Zhongxun was the party's leading "United Front" strategist who handled Taiwan relations in the 1980s through secret back-channels. For Xi, Taiwan represents both unfinished family business and his promise not to be "the one to lose" Chinese territory bequeathed by ancestors.4. Xi's Strategy is Patience, Not RecklessnessGrowing up watching his father navigate purges taught Xi when to act and when to "bide his time." Unlike Putin's sledgehammer approach, Xi moves "deliberately and competitively, but cautiously" - preferring to win without fighting rather than risk catastrophic failure.5. The Party's Biggest Fear is Losing the Next GenerationXi obsesses over whether young Chinese will remain loyal to the revolutionary cause without experiencing the hardship that dedicated his generation. With property crashes and youth unemployment, he's trying to recreate commitment through "national sacrifice" narratives - but it's unclear if this will work on a generation that expects prosperity, not suffering.1. Xi Jinping's "Toughness" is Genuine, Not PerformativeUnlike privileged leaders who talk tough, Xi was forged by real hardship - his father was purged five times, spent 16 years in political exile, and Xi himself experienced homelessness, street battles, and rural exile. This created authentic resilience, not manufactured bravado.2. China's System Remains Dangerously Leader-DependentDespite assumptions about "collective leadership," Chinese politics never escaped the strongman model. Even Deng Xiaoping, supposedly constrained by colleagues, made unilateral decisions like Tiananmen. Xi isn't breaking the system - he's following its core logic that only a powerful "core" leader can hold China together.3. Taiwan is Personal, Not Just Political for XiHis father Xi Zhongxun was the party's leading "United Front" strategist who handled Taiwan relations in the 1980s through secret back-channels. For Xi, Taiwan represents both unfinished family business and his promise not to be "the one to lose" Chinese territory bequeathed by ancestors.4. Xi's Strategy is Patience, Not RecklessnessGrowing up watching his father navigate purges taught Xi when to act and when to "bide his time." Unlike Putin's sledgehammer approach, Xi moves "deliberately and competitively, but cautiously" - preferring to win without fighting rather than risk catastrophic failure.5. The Party's Biggest Fear is Losing the Next GenerationXi obsesses over whether young Chinese will remain loyal to the revolutionary cause without experiencing the hardship that dedicated his generation. With property crashes and youth unemployment, he's trying to recreate commitment through "national sacrifice" narratives - but it's unclear if this will work on a generation that expects prosperity, not suffering. 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 America go soft on China? According to the Toronto based foreign affairs writer Diane Francis, the United States ought to consider Xi Jinping's China a competitor, rather than a enemy. In contrast, Francis views Vladimir Putin's Russia as not just an enemy, but an existential threat to Europe, North America and free world. Putin Won't Stop, Francis' latest Substack post argues. Unless, perhaps, he's locked in a room with the redoubtable Diane Francis.1. Francis Views American "Isolationism" as Reasonable and Justified"Isolationism is reasonable, I think it is. I mean, traipsing all over the world, thinking you're the policeman and you have the answer and you pick the right side all the time and you're gonna squander the wealth and the tax dollars of your population is to me an ego trip to a certain extent." Francis sees Trump's America First approach as a logical response to failed interventions like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.2. She Distinguishes China as Competitor, Russia as Malevolent Enemy"I see Russia as an enemy, as a malevolent force that wants to recreate the Soviet Union, imprison people, ignore rights and then take over other countries and commit genocide when necessary... China, on the other hand, is not an imperial power. It's never been a conquering country... China to me is not an enemy. China is a competitor, and it can be a ruthless competitor." This forms the core of her geopolitical framework.3. Francis Sees Trump as Effective but Lacks Statesmanlike Qualities"There is some logic to what he's doing, but he's really not, in my opinion, he's not capable of really statesman-like leadership. He just isn't. He's a fish out of water. He's are a developer of slum apartment buildings in Queens. This guy looks at everything as though it was just about dollars and cents." She appreciates his tough negotiating approach while criticizing his limitations.4. She Takes Canada's Merger Threat from Trump Seriously"Absolutely. I'll just give you a quick background. In 2013, my 10th book... was Merger of the Century, Why Canada and the United States Should Become One Country, and I wasn't endorsing the merger, but I was warning Canadians that if they didn't get their acts together... America will get fed up and gobble them up." Francis views Trump's threats as realistic given Canada's economic and military dependence.5. Francis Makes Controversial Claims About Russia's Global Reach"They started the war in Sudan. And they were behind the October 7th attack of Israel... according to Ukrainian intelligence, first of all, October 7th is Putin's birthday. Secondly, the Hamas terrorists were trained in Syria on Russian bases by Russian mercenaries called the Wagner troop." She presents Russia as orchestrating conflicts worldwide, though these claims are highly disputed and lack mainstream corroboration. 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've always considered my friend Keith Teare a bit weird. Maybe it's living in Palo Alto amidst the tech plutocracy. But I wonder if the That Was The Week weekly tech news publisher has finally lost his mind. In this week's conversation, he speculates that OpenAI will soon be worth $10 trillion while its closest competitor Anthropic, will be valued at $5 trillion. Has he finally gone totally bonkers? Or is it really possible that these two still private companies will be collectively worth $15 trillion (more than the GDP of every country except the U.S. and China) in a few years?1. AI Valuations Have Entered Fantasy Territory OpenAI at $10 trillion and Anthropic at $5 trillion would make these two private companies worth more than the GDP of every country except the U.S. and China. Even tech insiders are now seriously discussing valuations that would have been laughed out of the room during the dot-com bubble.2. We've Hit the AI Search Tipping Point Traditional Google search is rapidly being replaced by AI-powered alternatives like Perplexity's Comet browser and specialized AI tools. About 25% of internet users now regularly use AI instead of search engines, fundamentally threatening Google's advertising-based business model.3. San Francisco's Tech Boom Is Back (Again) The AI revolution has revitalized San Francisco as the undisputed center of tech innovation. Real estate prices are soaring, rentals are impossible to find, and the talent war has reached late-90s intensity levels as AI companies compete for engineers and office space.4. The AI Race Isn't Winner-Take-All Unlike previous tech cycles where one company dominated (Google in search, Amazon in e-commerce), the AI market appears big enough for multiple giants. Anthropic has emerged as OpenAI's strongest competitor, with Chinese AI models also becoming serious contenders on the global stage.5. Big Tech's AI Panic Is Real Facebook is paying billions in bonuses to attract AI talent after their latest model failed to impress. Apple is sitting out the expensive AI infrastructure race, betting they can integrate others' AI into their devices. Meanwhile, the U.S. government has decided to avoid regulating AI development entirely.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

Can Democrats pull a Ronald Reagan? That's the provocative question at the heart of Peter Wehner and Jonathan Rauch's New York Times intriguing piece about how the Democrats can win back the presidency in 2028. Just as the neo-liberal Reagan crushed the cardigan-wearing Carter by promising economic vitality over malaise, Democrats now have a chance to flip the script—if only they can drop their annoying cultural politics and reclaim the mantle of middle-class prosperity. By owning the American Dream, Rauch and Wehner suggest, you also own American politics. Given the Republican abandonment of growth politics, they argue, the seeds of a Democratic revival have already been sown. Now all the party needs is somebody with Reagan's messaging genius. Mark Cuban, perhaps?1. Democrats Are Abandoning Anti-Trump Strategy for Positive MessagingThe 19 Democrats interviewed for the article were explicitly asked not to mention Trump—a "disciplining exercise" that revealed the party's recognition that pure opposition isn't enough. They need an affirmative agenda focused on prosperity and the American dream rather than just being the anti-Trump party.2. Republicans Have Abandoned Growth Politics, Creating an OpeningTrump's GOP now runs on "scarcity" and "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies—tariffs that raise prices, fewer immigrants despite labor shortages, telling Americans to "make do with less." This abandons Reagan's successful abundance message and gives Democrats a chance to become the "party of prosperity."3. Cultural Issues Are Democrats' Biggest Barrier to Economic CredibilityEvery Democrat interviewed acknowledged they must move to the center on cultural issues before voters will listen to their economic message. As Rahm Emanuel put it: "If you don't get through that cultural barrier, people aren't going to listen to you on kitchen table issues." Early signs include Gavin Newsom's shifts on transgender policies and Wes Moore rejecting reparations.4. The "Abundance Agenda" Could Unite Progressive and Centrist WingsDemocrats see potential common ground: progressives can focus on breaking up monopolies and corporate price manipulation, while centrists tackle zoning reform and regulatory barriers. Both approaches aim to reduce artificial scarcity and boost middle-class prosperity.5. 2028 May Require an Outsider, Not a Traditional PoliticianWith Trump at 37% approval and voters seeking authenticity, energy, and change, Democrats may need someone like Mark Cuban rather than a typical governor or senator. The party is looking for someone who can challenge the status quo without sounding like a conventional politician—much like Reagan did in 1980.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 write about the kaleidoscopic Sixties in the gloom of 2025? According to James Grady, author of the classic Six Days of the Condor and the new mid-century novel American Sky, the key is calibrating nostalgia with unflinching honesty about the past's complexities. "You can't just write about the past and not have a focus also on current times and really the future," Grady explains. The novelist's approach involves fictionalizing personal experiences while ensuring memories of traumatic events like the JFK or MLK assassinations connect with the painful realities of MAGA America. Rather than romanticizing the Sixties, Grady emphasizes the civil rights violence, the generational divide, and the "silent majority's" anxieties alongside the era's optimism. Grady's goal isn't to escape into nostalgia but to help readers understand how past dreams and failures shaped our present moment, making history a lens for understanding America's current challenges.1. Historical Fiction Must Connect Past to Present "You can't just write about the past and not have a focus also on current times and really the future. Otherwise it's like you're looking back at an old photograph of a horse and buggy. It's lovely, but it doesn't really speak to you."2. The Danger of Elite Liberal Condescension "Starting in about 1975 and 1976, I saw a new kind of, quote, liberal or left-winger come into the power circles of Washington, D.C. They were elite-educated, Ivy League, and they did their best to ignore any working class roots that they had. They started to look down on the labor unions."3. Fiction Can Reveal Truth Better Than Facts "So we can change the facts, but the facts are not necessarily necessary to reveal the truths... this is not a memoir where you have to be factual. This is fiction. And yet there's an echo of all of us."4. True Rebellion Requires Positive Vision "I always think of the great French philosopher Albert Camus who said a true rebel says yes to something better instead of just saying no and rejecting and fighting. You've got to have something to fight for."5. Literature Should Focus on Ordinary Americans "I think that a good author has to write about us, and you, almost more than they write about me... I want to know what's going on with someone in, you know, there's a town called Beaver Crossing, Nebraska, or, you know, Sonoma, California... Where real people are leading their lives and we learn from each other."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